No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-11-10PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, May 11, 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. 1. PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED CITY STREET LIGHT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 10 -03 417 Harvard Drive Warren Cross, representative from Western Roofing Systems on behalf of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Weiss This is an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board decision denying a Metro Shake II, Western Wood, stone coated steel roof material at the subject residence. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval of Appeal There is a five working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 18. 3. MODIFICATION NO. MC 10 -07 Referred from 4 -27 -10 Modification Committee Meeting 900 South First Avenue Sonal Shah The applicant is requesting a Parking Modification for the subject property to utilize the Arcadia Presbyterian Church parking lot located at 810 South First Avenue, approximately 140 feet from the subject property in lieu of the maximum permitted distance of 100 feet, to provide the required parking spaces for the conversion of a 4,453 square -foot general office space to medical uses. RECOMMENDATION: Approval There is a five working day appeal period after the approval/denial of the application. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 18. 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 5 -11 -10 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 10 -01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -3 AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 10 -05 16 Campus Drive Ashwood Construction The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review for a 43 -unit, affordable senior apartment complex with an on -grade parking structure on a 23,000 square -foot lot. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval The Planning Commission's comments and recommendation on the General Plan Amendment will be forwarded to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency for their consideration at a Public Hearing. A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission on the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review will be presented for adoption at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the applications. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 18, 2010. CONSENT ITEMS 5. RESOLUTION NO. 1815 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -02 to operate an 800 square -foot art studio with a maximum of ten (10) students within a two -story, commercial office building at 400 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 102. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 1816 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, revoking Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09 -09 that permitted a 960 square -foot expansion to an existing 2,040 square -foot restaurant at 510 -512 E. Live Oak Avenue. 7. MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 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 5 -11 -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 Hearina 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 5 -11 -10 May 11, 2010 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Homeowners' Association's Appeal No. HOA 10 -03 of the denial of a new metal roof for 417 Harvard Drive. SUMMARY This is an appeal by Mr. Warren Cross, Representative from Western Roofing Systems on behalf of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Weiss of a denial by the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board (ARB) for the use of Metro Shake II, Western Wood, stone coated steel roofing to re -roof the residence and garage at 417 Harvard Drive. A Vicinity Map and an Aerial Photo with zoning information are attached. The Development Services Department is recommending that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB decision and approve appeal no. HOA 10 -03, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. BACKGROUND STAFF REPORT Development Services Department On April 12, 2010, the Lower Rancho ARB denied the homeowners' application to replace the existing wood shake roof at 417 Harvard Drive with a Metro Shake II, Western Wood, stone coated steel roof. The application was denied by Mr. Steve Mathison, the current Lower Rancho ARB Chairman see the attached ARB Findings and Action. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on April 29, 2010 to the owners of those properties within 100 feet of the subject property (see the attached 100 -foot radius map) and to the Lower Rancho HOA President, Mr. Kevin Tomkins, and the ARB Chairman, Mr. Steve Mathison. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a re- roofing project is Categorically Exempt (Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines) and therefore, the public hearing notice was not published in the Arcadia Weekly. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The homeowners are requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Lower Rancho ARB decision to deny the use of Metro Shake II, Western Wood, stone coated steel roofing at 417 Harvard Drive. As stated in the attached appeal letter, the property owners' contractor believes that he has substantially and successfully demonstrated that the proposed material (see attachments) meets or exceeds the minimum design standards, and cites examples of successful installations of the proposed roofing material. Staff's opinion is that these installations are aesthetically appealing, are consistent with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines, and are compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. The Lower Rancho regulations (City Council Resolution No. 5287 attached) require that any body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision be guided by the standards stated in item 15 of Section 3 of Resolution No. 5287. The roof of a residence is an important design element and an appropriate material enhances the architectural appearance of the structure. The City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines state, "The roof of a house does more than provide shelter from the elements; it helps define the architectural style of a residence." And, "Roof plans and materials should be compatible with the architectural style and design of the structure." The homeowners' proposed roofing material is not new to the Lower Rancho area. There are many homes in the Lower Rancho area that have stone coated, steel roofs, and the Planning Commission approved three similar appeals since last summer to allow stone coated, steel roofs in the Lower Rancho area. Staff has noted that there are detail elements of older steel roofs that are not particularly appealing; such as the edges of the tiles, the ridge tiles, and the eaves. However, the material the homeowners want to install is significantly improved in style and details to better simulate a wood -shake roof. Additionally, the homeowners and their contractor are willing to install the roof in accordance with the following conditions (subject to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Fire Marshal) that the Lower Rancho ARB used to impose on steel roof projects to ensure that the steel roofs would closely simulate a wood -shake roof: 1. The roof shall have open cut valleys. 2. A drip -edge overhang shall be provided at the eaves. 3. The edges shall not be exposed more than two inches. 4. The starter of the ridge shall be cut and bent neatly. 5. No trim tiles shall be used on the rake of the gable roof. Stone coated, steel -shake roofs have been installed on many residences throughout the City and in the other HOA areas because many builders and homeowners feel that the material is very durable and has a substantive appearance, but without the weight and structural requirements of concrete -tile roofs. And, unlike a wood roof, the steel shingles do not separate or warp over time. Staff agrees with the homeowners that steel -shake roofs weather well, are durable enough to be walked on, have an aesthetically pleasing appearance, and are fire retardant. The Arcadia Fire Department does not have any concerns with the use of the proposed metal roofing material. Attached are photos of the subject property and of homes in the Lower Rancho area that have a stone coated, steel roof. It is staff's opinion that the photos show that steel roofs do not detract from the aesthetic qualities of the properties, and therefore, the proposed roofing material would be an aesthetic improvement to the subject residence. Appeal No. HOA 10 -03 417 Harvard Drive May 11, 2010 page 2 CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed project is required to comply with all code requirements and policies determined to be necessary by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission overturn the Lower Rancho ARB decision to deny the use of Metro Shake II, Western Wood, stone coated steel roofing, and approve Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 10 -03, subject to the aforementioned conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB denial, the Commission should move to approve Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 10 -03, subject to the stated conditions of approval, or as modified by the Commission, based on a determination that the proposed project meets contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility with the neighborhood, and is of good architectural character. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB decision, the Commission should move to deny Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 10 -03, based on a determination that the proposed project is not harmonious or compatible with the neighborhood, or is of poor architectural character, or would be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent properties and the neighborhood. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the May 11, 2010 public hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Lisa Flores at (626) 574 -5445 or at Iflores(ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Ji ma Community Development Administrator Attachments: Vicinity Map and Aerial Photo ARB Findings and Action 100 -foot Radius Map Appeal Letter Pictures of Proposed Metal Roofing Material City Council Resolution No. 5287 Photo of Subject Property Photos of Homes in Lower Rancho with Stone coated Steel Roofs Appeal No. HOA 10 -03 417 Harvard Drive May 11, 2010 page 3 (450) (445) Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, April 2010 (425) HARVARD DR (423) (415) (401) CAMBRIDGE DR (400) (372) 417 Harvard Drive HO Appeal No HOA 10 -03 417 Harvard Dr Arcadia L Zone Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, April 2010 417 Harvard Drive HOA Appeal No HOA 10 -03 Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association 3. The proposed project IS (L 1 NOT significantly visible from the adjoining properties, because ARB File No. 0 'Z /D Review Date: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS: l/ 7 n B. PROPERTY OWNER(S): Jea i J5/5.$.. ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) C. Architect/designer Contractor A4Ph 4 D. Proposed Project: A:1=04%A et e kti./77 'M4 s n$u.! E. FINDINGS (Only check those that apply and provide a written explanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction materials ARE ARE NOT compatible with the existing materials, because mir G© 0- A .9j2 if it 7zD Al cam. nll-Srvl, Ok Z�'_' 6--. 2. The proposed materials WILL (L NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because 4. The proposed project IS (g.-)71 NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public right of way, because 5. The elements of structure's design ARE ARE NOT nsistent with the existing building's design, because 6. The proposed project IS IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because 1t 7. The location of the proposed project WILL WILL NOT be acceptable and not detrimental to the use,enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood, because 8. The proposed project's setbacks DO DO NOT provide for the adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because City modification required Not required .d 7" 3 Y6 0 Sheet 1 of 2 APR 192010 F. OTHER FINDINGS: -S~C: I. I& G7W G. ACTION: Approval without conditions Approval with following conditions (Denial r Fele p "It 4 /ICJ fre17ei. 6644.1 5J? H. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) ACTION L7 I. ARB MEMBER (S)/ COMMITTEE RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION J. APPEALS K. EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS 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. SIGNED: PRINT NAME: TITLE: ADDRESS: Appeals for the ARB's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements, fee 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 decision. RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENT'S ASSOCIATION Fs rv► 1+1SEiN3 DATE: PHONE: FAX: Arcadia, CA 91007 SPECIAL ARB COMMENTS: Coe 4:4° 4I A SIA.) ARB File No. Zorn OWNER: p 7 4-5 ©ws /rte" e 44&4,,, t>1. vie, r4. 50 /4/6L14>5 S 77A-1A)4)/ A)41 08440 le M4 /4..4 4 -t am-4 xeo%" /.►J4 "via iJ raat' c.e t,ok: fr (rte -ter 4: ",4., ct.rz r 5014' et.we 5 p/ covK'"1- t Sheet 2 of 2 1.7 .a _ric, I Add .,iii f7". 4 Water Meter Location Bridges Fire Hydrants Water Valve Street Centerlines Ni Buffer fl parcels condo parcel Features City Boundary SCALE 1 3,289 1 O 0 (2 4U tillWard Dr. 200 0 200 400 600 FEET N http: /arcadiagis /maps /water.mwf Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:51 AM Contraclors Lic. No. 675902 April 19, 2010 Lisa Flores Senior Planner City Of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, Ca 91066 -6021 Re: Mr. and Mrs. Bill Weiss 417 Harvard Dr. Arcadia, Ca 91107 626 445 -2228 Dear Ms. Flores, Please let me know what the next step is in the appeal process and I will happily comply. Warren Cross, Western Roofing Systems San Gabriel Valley Office 1522 Meadow Glen Way Hacienda Heights, Ca 91745 Cell 626 786 -2477 Fax 626 912 -9014 Western Roofing Systems 2031 East Cerritos Avenue, Suite 7E, Anaheim, CA 92806 Office 714.778.5163 Fax 714.778.0248 Regional Office 800.766.8000 APR 197010 This letter is to initiate the appeal process on behalf of the above referenced property owners, for having been denied an Application for Homeowners Association Architectural Design Review (Short Review Procedure) for the re- roofing of their home in Rancho Santa Anita Residence Association. The attached denial application states that the Metro Shake II, Western Wood, stone coated steel roofmg material that had been conditionally approved, (and many times revised, at the direction of the board on at least ten prior occasions) was rejected by Mr. Steve Mathison on behalf of the Architectural Review Board "due to appearance of material and installation details." We believe that we have substantially and successfully demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the previous A.R.B. Chairman, Mr. Tony Henrich and board at large, that the basic field material along with the many details as prescribed on recent installations for example at 531 N. Monte Vista Rd., 1 Altura Rd. and 415 Cambridge Dr., that this material meets or exceeds at least the minimum design criteria standards previously described to us and held to by other pre approved materials. At the previous Planning Commission Meeting in September of this year, they unanimously ruled in favor of our appeal and allowed for the most recent installation at the Sonneberg residence at 531 N. Monte Vista Rd. Arcadia. /7oA ,4/ /6 -oa BEECHWOOD (Dark Brown Accent) BIRCH -II (Black Accent) CHARCOAL (Solid Color) COLOR RANGE Metro 1;ooi Plod .act Smart Roofs for Smart People' WALNUT (Black Accent) WEATHERED TIMBER (Black Accent) Above chart shows STANDARD STOC Always select colors from ACTUAL samples. PREMIUM, SPECIAL. and CUSTOM COLORS and Fleshings are available 3093 Industry Street Oceanside, CA 92054 Tel: (866) METRO -4U (638 -7648) Fax: (760) 435 -1162 www.metroroofs.com Metro Shake-II Lightweight and built for long -life. Metro Shake'" -II is finished with an attractive stone coating embedded in a UV resistant acrylic polymer for a lasting bond to the 26- gauge *Galvalumee steel covered with 100% acrylic over glaze. Purchase with Confidence All Metro products provide heavy -duty warranty performance, from 120 -mph winds to hail impact and fire resistance. Take a look at today's steel roofing and select from a wide range of earth -tone colors to suit your home. For years we've been a leader in the design and production of quality stone coated steel roofing, producing a roofmg product that is of high quality and affordable. 50 -Year Limited Warranty (Prorated Fully Transferable) Walkable (26 -ga., 55% Al -Zn coated sheet steel) Lightweight (1.5 Ibs/sq. ft.) Class -A Fire Rated (Non-combustible roof covering) 120 -mph Wind Warranty (Engineered for FL TX High Wind Coastal regions to withstand 150 -mph) Hail Impact Warranty (UL 2218 Class -4 rated) Testing Credentials ICC Evaluation Report 5218 UL Listed R19204 UL Class -4 Impact Rating FLORIDA State Approval Appl. #FL -698 Exp.1 -1 -2099 *Galvalume' is a registered trademarkof BIEC International, Inc. 02005 Copyright Metro Roof Products 051105 -50M Metro Shaketm-II The classic rustic style of wood shake in lightweight high- strength steel. Metro Shake -II is a batten -less design that is revolutionizing the re- roofing industry. Each panel is forged with deep wood grain impressions creating an exceptionally strong, lightweight (1.51bs /sq. ft.) and secure steel roof covering to suit any architectural style. Metro's advanced coating technology and unique design eliminates the costly wood battens allowing for faster install times. A Metro Shake"' -II roof gives you the charm of wood shake without the associated problems of splitting, warping or increased fire risk. Instead you'll enjoy excellent durability, long life and low maintenance even in the harshest climates. And our attractive color palette lets you choose just the right look that can transform your home Metro Shake"" -ll. Roof Products Smart Roofs for Smart People` RESOLUTION NO. 5287 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA AREA AND IN THE AREA BETWEEN THE TURF CLUB AND COLORADO STREET D ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS; SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 4020, and adopts the following resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 1389, for the property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. To implement the regulations applicable to the real property within the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association D Architectural Design Zone area, the Architectural Review Board is established and is hereinafter referred to as the "Board The governing body of the Board, is the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association. 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 1 5287 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 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height, and not less than 1,000 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. 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 Board 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 ten (10) feet. 4. ANIMALS. Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules, poulty, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept. 5. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) 2 5287 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. 6. 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. 7. APPROVAL OF BOARD 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 Board. 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 Board. No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the Board. If necessary to properly consider any application, the Board 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. 8. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. The Board 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. 3 5287 b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the Board. c. Said by-laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the Board. d. Owners have been appointed to the Board in accordance with the by -laws. 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 Board 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 Board shall be maintained by the Board. Any decision by the Board shall be accompanied by specific findings setting forth the reasons for the Board's decision. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. A copy of the Board's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3) working days of the Board's decision. h. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). 9. POWERS OF THE BOARD. The Board 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 accordance with the above Conditions 5 6 of Section 3. 4 5287 c. If a grading plan is required for a building permit for a structure, the Board may require such plan to be submitted along with the building plans. d. Any of the conditions set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, may be made less restrictive by the Board if the Board 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 Board 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. 10. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE. a. The Short Review Process may be used by the Board for the review of applications for modifications to the requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 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 Board is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process Application. c. The Board Chairman or another Board member designated by the Board 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 Board; failure to take action in 5 5287 said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. d. The Board may determine which requirements set forth in Contitions 1 through 4 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. 11. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURES. a. The Regular Review Process shall be used by the Board for the review of the Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, (elligible for Short Review) in those cases in which the applicant fails 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 4 of Section 3, which the Board has determined are not appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above. c. The Board is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process Application. d. Notice of the Board'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 Board with the last known name and address, of such owners as show upon the assessment rolls of the City or of the County. 6 5287 The applicant shall also provide the Board 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 Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. f. The Board 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 Board; 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. 12. EXPIRATION OF BOARD'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board, has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. 13. LIMIT ON BOARD'S POWER. The Board shall not have the power to waive any regulations in property in said area. The the City agency, which will Commission. the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the Board may, however, make a recommendation to be considering any such waiver request, regarding waiving such regulations. 14. APPEAL. Appeals from the Board shall be made to the Planning Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within seven (7) working days of the Board's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. 7 5287 Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal from the Board's decision, such appeal shall be processed by the Planning Department in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee. 15. STANDARDS FOR BOARD DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The Board and any body hearing an appeal from the Board'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 Board or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 6 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 Conditions Nos. 5 6 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 use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 6 8 5287 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 Condition 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 environment of the community, effecting 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 9 5287 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 City Clerk of the City of Arcadia Mayor of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS: CITY OF ARCADIA I, CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN. Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby f certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5287 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 City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 11 5287 417 Harvard Drive Subject Residence 417 Harvard Drive View of the existing wood roof 417 Harvard Drive View of the detached garage Metal Roof 541 Monte Vista Road (Approved by an appeal in 2009) Metal Roof 411 Oxford Drive (Approved by an appeal in 2010) Metal Roof 470 Cambridge Road Metal Roof 412 Cambridge Road Metal Roof 450 Cambridge Road Metal Roof 428 Cambridge Road Metal Roof 951 Volante Drive Metal Roof 284 Renoak Way May 11, 2010 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Modification Application No. MC 10 -07 for a modification to allow for off -site parking located approximately 140 feet from the subject property in lieu of the maximum permitted distance of 100 feet for a two -story office building at 900 S. First Avenue to be fully- occupied with medical /dental offices. SUMMARY Modification Application No. MC 10 -07 was submitted by the property owners' representative, Ms. Sonal Shah, for a modification to allow the subject property to utilize the Arcadia Presbyterian Church parking lot located at 810 South First Avenue and 122 Alice Street, which is approximately 140 feet from the subject property in lieu of the maximum permitted distance of 100 feet for off -site parking to meet the required number of parking spaces to convert 4,453 square feet of general office space to medical /dental office space. It is staff's opinion that the proposal would not have a negative impact on the neighboring properties and would secure an appropriate improvement. Therefore, the Development Services Department is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal, subject to the conditions listed in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ms. Sonal Shah, representative of the property owner, Tridocs Properties, LLC LOCATION: 900 S. First Avenue REQUEST: A parking modification for the subject property to be allowed the use of the Arcadia Presbyterian Church parking lot located at 810 South First Avenue and 122 Alice Street, which is approximately 140 feet from the subject property in lieu of the maximum permitted distance of 100 feet for off -site parking to meet the required number of parking spaces to convert 4,453 square feet of general office space to medical /dental office space (AMC Sec. 9269.6) LOT AREA: 18,210 square feet (0.42 acre) FRONTAGES: 142 feet along First Avenue 134 feet along Duarte Road EXISTING LAND USE ZONING: The property is improved with an approximately 9,500 square -foot, two -story, eight -unit office condominium that was constructed in 1983 and is zoned C -2. SURROUNDING LAND USES ZONING: North: Elite Studio Beauty Salon; Zoned C -2 South: Unocal 76 Service Station; Zoned C -2 East: General Offices; Zoned C -2 West: Commercial Retail Uses; Zoned C -2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use Commercial Multiple Family PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices for the April 27, 2010 Modification Committee hearing on the subject application were mailed on April 15, 2010 to the property owners of those properties that are within 100 feet of the subject property (see the attached radius map). At the April 27, 2010 Modification Committee meeting, the Committee referred this application to the May 11, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Because the referral was to a specific hearing date, additional noticing is not required. And, because Modifications are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations; the public hearing notice is not required to be published in a local newspaper. BACKGROUND This subject property was developed in 1983 with an approximately 9,500 square -foot, two story, general office building with eight (8) office condominium units. A Modification (M- 82 -64) was granted to allow 32 on -site parking spaces in lieu of 38 required to not include the 1,500± square feet of lobby areas in the parking calculation. Last year, the applicant submitted Modification Application No. MC 09 -08 to request approval of 32 on -site parking spaces in lieu of 54 spaces required to convert all eight (8) of the general office units to medical uses. At its regular meeting on April 28, 2009, by a vote of 2 to 1, the Modification Committee partially approved the application. Approval was granted for the first floor to be converted to medical uses, but the second floor was to remain general offices. A copy of the findings from that meeting is attached. On March 25, 2010, the applicant submitted Modification Application No. MC 10 -07 for a modification to be allowed to use off -site parking that is approximately 140 feet from the subject property in lieu of the maximum permitted distance of 100 feet to meet the required number of parking spaces to convert the second floor of the subject building from general offices to medical /dental offices. At its regular meeting on April 27, 2010, the Modification Committee reviewed this application and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration at the Commission's May 11, 2010 regular meeting. This decision was based on the Committee's determination that the maximum distance allowed for off -site parking to be used to meet another property's parking requirement is a policy issue with broader ramifications. It was mentioned during the Committee's discussion that although it is preferable to have underutilized parking lots shared with other uses, it should have been a MC 10 -07 900 S. First Ave. May 11, 2010 page 2 matter of due diligence that the purchasers of this property understood that there was inadequate on -site parking to accommodate medical or dental uses. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to convert the entire subject 9,500± square -foot general office building into medical offices. At a parking requirement of six (6) spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for medical uses, a total of 57 parking spaces are required for the proposed conversion. Therefore, 22 additional parking spaces must be provided in addition to the 32 on -site parking spaces. The previous Modifications (M -82 -64 MC 09 -08) allowed for the current situation of approximately 4,000 square feet of medical offices on the ground floor, 4,000 square feet of general offices on the second floor, and 1,500 square feet of lobby area that is not included in the parking calculation. The result is a parking modification of 32 on -site spaces in lieu of 46 required: 24 spaces for the ground floor medical space (6/1,000 sq.ft.) 16 spaces for the second floor general office space (4/1,000 sq.ft.) and 6 spaces for the lobby areas on both floors (4/1,000 sq.ft.) In preparing for this Modification application, the applicant has acquired permission from the Arcadia Presbyterian Church at 121 Alice Street to utilize their parking lot at 122 Alice Street and 810 S. First Avenue, which contains 127 parking spaces. A copy of the lease agreement is attached. The Church has another parking lot off of Genoa Street on the north side of the church that has 157 spaces in it. Because the Church does not need most of its total 284 parking spaces during the week, they are willing to allow the applicant the use of at least 22 spaces in their southerly parking lot, except on Sunday mornings. However, this parking lot is approximately 140 feet away from the applicant's property, and because this exceeds the maximum 100 -foot distance allowed by the City's offsite parking regulations, these 22 spaces cannot be counted toward meeting the applicant's parking requirement. Therefore, the applicant is requesting this Modification for the distance of the offsite parking and has submitted the attached draft covenant and agreement with the City for the maintenance of the offsite parking. The covenant and agreement with the City will assure that the additional 22 off -site parking spaces will be available to the applicant in compliance with the City's requirements, and that the medical uses shall cease and terminate if the parking requirements are not satisfied. The parking lease agreement with the Church is for a period of five (5) years with an option for extension at the Church's discretion. Staff feels that office tenants and visitors will not be dissuaded from using off -site parking spaces by a distance of 140+ feet, and that the arrangement between the applicant and the Arcadia Presbyterian Church is acceptable because the times of their respective parking needs do not coincide. The Church's activities occur on the weekends or on weekday evenings and the applicant is proposing that the medical uses at the subject property be open only on weekdays, generally from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The applicant will be requiring all employees to park in the off -site parking lot so that all or most of the existing 32 on -site parking spaces will be available for office patrons and patients. Nevertheless, the applicant will post signage to direct visitors to the off -site parking in case the on -site parking is not adequate. In addition, because this Modification is to accommodate MC 10 -07 900 S. First Ave. May 11, 2010 page 3 medical uses, staff feels that accessible (i.e., handicap) parking spaces should be provided at the requirement for a 57 -space parking lot, which is three (3) accessible parking spaces with one (1) to be van accessible. It is staff's opinion that this Modification request, if approved with the conditions as listed in this report, would secure an appropriate improvement. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Modification Application No. MC 10 -07, subject to the following conditions: 1. The covenant and agreement for the off -site parking with the City of Arcadia shall be drafted, processed, executed and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder tothe satisfaction of the City Attorney. 2. All practitioners, workers and employees of the medical uses shall park at the off -site parking lot at 122 Alice Street and 810 S. First Avenue. 3. Signs shall be installed on the subject property to inform and direct patrons to the off -site parking lot. The design and locations of these signs shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and /or Community Development Administrator. 4. All uses at the subject property shall be open to visitors and /or patients only between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. 5. Three (3) accessible parking spaces shall be provided on -site to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 6. The property shall be maintained in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted for and approved by Modification Application No. MC 10 -07. 7. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 8. The approval of Modification Application No. MC 10 -07 shall not take effect until the owner(s) of the subject property and the off -site parking property, and the applicant have executed the Acceptance Form available from Planning Services to acknowledge awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. MC 10 -07 900 S. First Ave. May 11, 2010 page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve Modification Application No. MC 10 -07, the Commission should, based on the evidence presented, specify which of the following purposes the approval will accomplish, and move to approve the project subject to the conditions set forth in this report, or as modified by the Commission: That the request(s) will secure an appropriate improvement, or That the request(s) will prevent an unreasonable hardship, or That the request(s) will promote uniformity of development Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny Modification Application No. MC 10 -07, the Commission should, based on the evidence presented, state with specific reasons that the requested Modification will not accomplish any of the above purposes, and move to deny the project. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this project prior to the May 11, 2010 hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447. Approved by: as :'a ommunity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo and Zoning Map 100 -foot Radius Map Plans Findings of MC 09 -08 Photos of Subject Property and the Church Parking Lot Parking Lease Agreement from the Church Draft Covenant and Agreement with the City MC 10 -07 900 S. First Ave. May 11, 2010 page 5 Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by R.S.Gonzalez, Apri12010 100 ZD 0 N R -3 s Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by R.S.Gonzalez, April 2010 100 Feet ALICE ST 4 (816) (820) (824) C -2 C -2 (112) (117) D (118) (119 118) C -2 (141) (122) (123, (125 (126) RD Subject Property (120) R -3 Subject Church Parking Lot 129) (130) Arcadia Presbyterian Church (133) (138) (137) R -3 (142) (141) (146) (143) (150) 900 S First Avenue MC 10 -07 (151) (15; ALI i (145) (1S DI I k 1 1 I 11 o N t g N M N 0) S./ N 0 w F- N N 4.0 N CC a N !O U, t[) t0 eh a N US O )f) ff It) 1� I� t0 f� 11 N G P C M V, N V) M c 0 CD 1 a N N (O O 1 z 0_ 0 0 L 0 z 0 I /II 111 /11111 N t i p N Of O co O N co M 0 0 0 11 w ti C9 N 1 1 1 I II 4 p (n fn N fn (n F- a N Lai N M rn 1) CO N 00 z 0 0 0 L 0 z 0 w FINDINGS ARCADIA MODIFICATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, April 28, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. Arcadia City Council Chambers Conference Room PUBLIC HEARING MC 09 -08 Address: 900 S. First Ave Applicants: Dr. Rajesh Chawla, Dr. Kirit Sha, Dr. Lee S. Herman (dba Tridoc Properties, LLC). Request: A parking modification to allow 32 spaces in lieu of 54 spaces required to convert the existing 9,000 square foot two -story general office building into medical use (AMC Sec. 9269.5). BACKGROUND The subject site is currently zoned C -2 (General Commercial) and is developed with an existing 9,000 square -foot, two -story general office building. The parking requirement for general office use is four spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (AMC Sec. 9269.5). As a result, a total of 36 spaces are required for this building. The site currently has only 32 parking spaces (6 are compact spaces), but the site was parked per code since the building was approved in 1983 with no parking modification. The applicant is proposing to convert the entire office building into medical use, which will require 54 spaces (6 spaces for 1,000 square feet of gross floor area), therefore the project is subject to a parking modification. At this time, the applicant is proposing to occupy only the ground floor that is approximately 4,000 square feet. Based on their business plan, they only need a maximum of 16 parking spaces. FINDINGS Two of the applicants, Dr. Rajesh Chawla and Dr. Kirit Sha, were present at the hearing. The adjacent property owner at 824 S. First Avenue, Mr. Bruce Hildreth, was present to speak against the subject proposal. He expressed concern about spillover parking and that a representative from the subject property approached his tenant to inform them their on -site parking will be used by the new tenants of the subject property. The Committee is interested in seeing this underutilized building occupied. However, they felt that there is insufficient parking to allow medical use in the entire 9,000 square foot building. Although the applicant's practice is a low traffic generator, a different medical practice may replace it in the event that the applicant decides to move. Also, the City received complaints when the previous tenant, Baldwin Realty, held regular meetings with a large number of realtors at the subject site. The Committee did not want to create a situation where Staff would have to constantly monitor the uses within the building. The Committee mentioned that this building was parked as a general office building; the City should not feel pressured to approve a Modification because the building was marketed and sold for medical use. Committee members Penman and Kruckeberg felt that if medical use is limited to the first floor, and general office to the second floor, the existing 32 spaces in the parking lot would still be adequate. Committee member Parrille disagreed and felt that the mix of uses would create a parking problem. Therefore, by a vote of 2 -to -1, the Modification Committee approved the applicant's request, subject to the condition that medical use is limited to the first floor only, and general office on the second floor. ACTION Approved, 2 -1, with the condition that medical use is limited to the first floor, and general office on the second floor. APPEAL PERIOD There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. The approval is not effective until Wednesday, May 6, 2009, provided the Committee's action is not appealed. An appeal must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division with the $540.00 appeal fee by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5, 2009. EXPIRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION The approval granted by this application shall expire one year (May 6, 2010) from the effective date unless the project is completed or the approval is renewed. The actual project must be consistent with the approval granted by the Modification Committee. Any deviation from the Committee's action shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Administrator and may require a new application and another public hearing. If there are any questions, please call Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447 or (626) 574 -5423 or by e-mail at tli @ci.arcadia.ca.us. Appr d by: Lisa L. Fiore Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSIONER PRESENT: Parrille COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Penman, Kruckeberg PLANNING SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE: Li MC: 10 -07 900 S. First Avenue Vick‘ of the northerly portion of thc parkin lot at 900 S. First Avenue from 1 it t Av cane V'ie oldie castcrly portion of the parking iui al 90U S. l irsi Avenue from )uiarte Road MC 10 -U7 90() S. First Avenue of t])c southe portion of the subject church parking lot at 810 S. First Avenue t icw ufthc northerly portion of the subject church fvarl,rn� lot at 122 A]icc Strcct ARCADIA PRESBYTERIAN CHURC) PARKING LEASE AGREEMENT This Parking Lease Agreement, hereafter the "Lease", is entered into this 42,55I ,e iday of March, 2010, between Arcadia Presbyterian Church, located at 121 Alice Street, Arcadia, California 91006-3926, hereafter the "Lessor", and Tridocs Properties, LLC, located at 900 South First Avenue, Arcadia, California 91006-3919, hereafter the "Lessee". DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The Lessor hereby leases to the Lessee a minimum of twenty-twc (22) parking spaces in the South Parking Lot, hereafter the "Lot", located at 122 Alice Street (known as Assessor Parcel Number 5779-016-026) and/cr 810 South Fitst Avenue (kn(wn as Assessor Parcel Number. 5779-016-029) Arcadia, Ca 131 91006 for use in connection with its clients and tenants at the Lessee's hew Facility wl is located 900 South First AvehL, California 91006, heieaftel the "Facility". USE OF PROPERTY The Lessee agrees that the Lot shall be used only for day-to-day parking purposes for passenger vehicles or small vans. No trailers or dther detachable objects on wheels shall be brought to or left on the Lot without the permission of the Lessor. Overnight parking is permitted at any time and should the Lessor wish to lock the Lot. at night keys will he issued to the Lessee to permit unattended egress or degxess. The Lessee agrees that hd specific parking spaces are assigned or shall be marked for the Lessee's use. From time to 1 ine, particularly on Sunday mornings, the Le sscl may restrict egress or degress by filling all available spaces and maneuvering areas foi periods not to exceed four (4) hours. TERM This Lease shall commence on the first dav of September, 2010, and continue tor a period of five (2) years, hereafter the "Commencement Date". an thE event the Lessee obtains adequate parking elsewhere, satisfactory to the city, this Lease may he terminated by the Lessee upon thirty days written notice to the Lessor. At the conclusion of the initial five (5) Year period, this Lease may be extended at the option of the Lessee for an. additional five (5) year period provided the Lessee is not in breach of any of the Terms of this Lease. PAYMENTS The Lessee shall pay Pent t the lessor the sum of :;';990.0u up( n n ul this AoleeMent and then beginning dr: the Commencement hate the minimum sum $990.00 per month fol twenty-two (22 spaces at the rate uf 840 -00 pt-'1 spa Le per month, hereafter the "Monthly Pate". Payments shall he due .)r1 the tenth (10th) day of each month. With each payment the Lessee hail notify the Lessor of any spaces us, in excess of the minlmum during the p/oceedihg month and include paymcnt fox these spaces at the P:chthly Pate. L late charge of one and one hail re (1 Per month will be imPoE:ed, f my amounts which aye more lhan thirty days in arrears. 1 age i The Lessor shall notir he Lessee thirty (30) days ior to DEillher h year, heleaftr the "Anniversary Dte" of the amount of the Monthly Pate fcr the next twelve (12) month period which will be effective on the Anniversary Date. The ken' shall be increased annually (but never decreased: according to the percentage inci of the Consumer Price lnde published bv the U. S. Department of Labor, bureau df Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles Urban ;rea fel: the twelve (12) mcinths ended September 3Uth of the curreid year. BREACH The failute to pav the In er any ether payment due hereunder when due, if the failure centinues tor ten (iM days after written notice has to the Lessee shall eonstiinto a default and breach of this Lease by ihe Lessee. In the event of any such default by the Lessee, then, in addition le anv other remedies '?3 2J 1 t.he 1.essc4 at law ur in equity, the Lessoi sht1 have the immediate (iTt.itJn 1 ti:timilhate treis Lease and. al1. rights of tLa Lessee hereunder by givind the Lessee ten (10) days written notice of F election to terminate. MAINTENANCE The Lessee acknowledges that it has thoroughly examined the Lot, that it is aware of its present conditeit, and agrees to accept it in that congiti(...n. ghe Lessee agrees that the Lesscr shajJ not be called upon or required ,atm time te make any improvements, a""erations, changes or additicons. Hotwithstanding the fdregoing, th 1i bear the entire expenEe c maintaih and repair 1 Let and adisicent areas 21 1Jbsta11 i01y the same condition fol the term of the Lease including any automatic etensiens. bessee sha"1 notify 'lessor of ana mainteLance or safety concerns hesse becomes aware of with rEia 1 ILE: Lot. ASSUMPTION OF RISK The Lessee, its tnts and criehts agree te pari: at their own 2 11111!. f I responsibility :for a.1.1 to the use of the 1dt. rtr LeSSOI assumes no responsibiiiity whatsoever tor the security or the protection of persons and picpeit'y in connection with the Lessee's use tcl Lot. INSURANCE The Lessee shall! tgrnish with a certificate ot 'Lability irisoane covering its activities under thit!- hose shciiwirig the Lessor as 01 addil !);.:1 named insured within thirtv Jay:s et the date first writteh above. The mirdLi er. cc:ye shal1 be at. least comhtned single 1i 11 ir6n10, death and preperly The certificate shall previde for the: 1C(1 to be notified 20 1111 l'1. the event nf expiratirlm 2 1 elscH cancellation of such fel any reason not Jess than thir'my before the expiratien or canceltaticn iE Effective, GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The rights under this Lease shall be assignable and the duties delegatable without the prior written consent of the other party. Notice of any such assignment shall be made to the other party within thirty (30) days of the assignment. 2. The provisions of this Lease are severable, and if any one may be determined to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable in whole or in part, the remaining provisions shall, nevertheless be binding and enforceable upon the parties. 3. The rights and obligations hereunder shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the successors and assigns of the parties. 4. This Lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. The venue of any action brought upon this Le se shall be laid in Los Angeles County. 5. Any notice given hereunder shall be deemed duly given (a) if hand delivered and a receipt is obtained, a copy of which shall be immediately provided to both parties, or (b) if mailed, five (5) days after mailing by United States Certified Mail (return receipt requested) postage prepaid to the party addressed to its then current principal place of business. 6. Any party's failure to enforce any provision of this Lease shall not be construed as a waiver of any such provision, nor prevent that party thereafter from enforcing each and every other provision hereof. 7. This Lease may not be changed orally, no modification hereof, termination or attempted waiver shall be valid unless in writing signed by the party against whom the same is sought to be enforced. 8. This Lease represents the entire agreement between the parties, as pertaining to the subject matter, and shall supersede all previous discussions, communications, negotiations, understandings, representations or agreements (either oral or written) among and between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter. AGREEMENT In witness whereof the parties have duly executed and deli -red this Lease as of the date first written above. Arcadia Presbyterian Church z t /7s X feelat, Board of Trustees urei Trid••s roper es, LLC 01,D Page 3 of 3 COVENANT AND AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN OFFSITE PARKING AND COMPLY WITIH CITY OF ARCADIA PARKING REQUIREMENTS This Covenant and Agreement is entered into pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9269.6, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, in order to ensure that the use of property located at 900 South First Avenue, as described below, meets applicable parking requirements established by the City of Arcadia. This Covenant and Agreement is also made with reference to a certain Parking Lot Lease, attached hereto as Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by reference. FOR GOOD, VALUABLE AND ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Arcadia Presbyterian Church (Lessor) and Tridocs Properties, LLC (Lessee),(Lessor and Lessees are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Covenantors hereby declare that they are the owner and lessees, respectively, of that certain real property located at 122 Alice Street and 810 South First Avenue, commonly referred to as the South Parking lot, facing Alice Street and First Avenue in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California. The property described above is hereinafter referred to as the "Affected Property Covenantors hereby agree and covenant with the City of Arcadia (hereinafter referred to as "Covenantee on behalf of and for the benefit of Covenantee's land, consisting of the private parking lot and on behalf of and for the benefit of the "Benefitted Land which consists of and includes the private designated private parking lot belonging to the Lessee of the Affected Property, as follows: 1. In consideration of Covenantee's grant of a conditional use permit for the purpose of parking, the twenty -two (22) spaces needed for use by the commercial building conducting a Medical offices business. Pursuant to Section 9269.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and pursuant to Section 9269.6 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, Covenanters hereby covenant and agree that the Medical business use to any other use of the Affected Property shall cease and terminate if, at any time, the then current parking requirements established by the Arcadia Municipal Code or otherwise established by Covenantee are not satisfied. This shall include any action pursuant to the Lease referred to herein as Exhibit `B" that causes parking provided by said Lease to diminish or be terminated so as to result in inadequate parking pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code requirements for the Affected Property. 2. Once parking which meets the applicable parking requirements has been procured, Covenantors shall furnish to Covenantee a signed copy of the Lease referred to herein as Exhibit "B" as evidence of such procurement. No parking arrangement shall be accepted by Covenantee as satisfying the conditions of this Covenant and Agreement if the parking arrangement will comprise or create a violation of applicable zoning regulations or any other statute, ordinance, or regulation. Page 1 of 3 3. This Covenant and Agreement is for the benefit of the Covenantee and its successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of all the Benefited Land and the heirs, successors and assigns of the owners of the Benefited Land, and this Covenant and Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the Covenanters, regardless of any merger of the leasehold and fee interests in the Affected Property. 4. The City of Arcadia, in its capacity of Covenantee and in its capacity as the legal representative of the residents of Arcadia and the owners of the Benefited Land is hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this Covenant and Agreement. 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Covenant and Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the portions of this Covenant and Agreement not declared invalid shall continue in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Covenantors and Covenantee have executed this instrument on the date shown opposite their signatures. Signatures on the Following Page Page 2 of 3 Dated: 2010 Mailing Address: Dated: 2010 Mailing Address: Dated: 2010 APPROVED AS TO FROM: COVENANTORS COVENANTEE j GArasident, Board of Trustees c Arcadia Presbyterian Church 121 Alice Street Arcadia, CA 91006 -3926 Lessor C J'- A W LPG. MD.) Ni1dC� Y�� T SHAH OLD Tridocs Properties, LLC Lessee CITY OF ARCADIA City Manager ),'City Attorney Page 3 of 3 May 11, 2010 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrates Jerry Schwartz, Economic Development Manager J j SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment Application No. GP 10 -01, Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -03, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -05 for "Campus 43 -unit, affordable, senior citizen apartment project at 16 Campus Drive the Campus Commons" project SUMMARY Ashwood Construction submitted applications for General Plan Amendment No. GP 10 -01, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -03, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -05 to build and manage a 43 -unit senior citizen apartment project at 16 Campus Drive the "Campus Commons" project. The project will rent to low and very low income senior citizens. Ashwood Construction will build the project, and own and manage it. The project is being done in cooperation with the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and may involve a long -term loan from the Agency's low and moderate income housing fund. The project will include a 55- year affordability covenant as required by California State Redevelopment Law. It is staff's opinion that the proposed project is appropriate for the location and will create a comfortable living environment for the residents. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and supporting the General Plan Amendment and Architectural Design Review that will �Iso be considered by the City Council /Redevelopment Agency Board. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ashwood Construction LOCATION: 16 Campus Drive REQUEST: A General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Architectural Design Review for a 43 -unit, affordable, senior citizen apartment project SITE AREA: 23,100 sq. ft. (0.53 acres) FRONTAGE: 110 feet along Campus Drive EXISTING LAND USE ZONING: The site is improved with a one -story, seven -unit garden apartment complex and is zoned C -2, General Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USES ZONING: North: Santa Anita Golf Course at Arcadia County Park zoned S -2 South: Tutoring Centers and a Dental Office zoned C -2 East: Medical and General Office Building zoned C -2 West: Arcadia High School zoned S -2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices were mailed on April 20, 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) and the notice was published on April 19, 2010 in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The subject property is improved with seven (7) one -story apartments. The applicant, Ashwood Construction, and its partner, Davila Properties, approached the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency about developing a 43 -unit, senior apartment complex on the subject property. The project will include nine, two- bedroom units, and 33, one bedroom units that will be occupied by seniors aged 62 and older. The project will include a ground floor, parking structure with 39 parking spaces, a community room with kitchen, a two- bedroom manager's unit above the community room, a swimming pool, and ample landscaped areas with lit walkways throughout the property. Ashwood Construction is the builder, owner, and manager, of several, multi family housing projects. It will construct, own, and manage this project. Davila Properties was the developer of the 54 -unit, Heritage Park senior housing project at 150 Las Tunas Drive that opened in 2004. A conceptual proposal of the project was presented to the Redevelopment Agency Board on February 2, 2010 during a Study Session. It was discussed again by the Agency Board at a March 2, 2010 Study Session, at which time the Board directed staff to move forward on work with the developers on this low and very low income senior apartment project. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is in escrow to purchase the site at 16 Campus Drive to build the proposed, affordable, senior apartment project. There is a strategy to finance the project to make the units affordable to low and very low income seniors. The project will include a covenant to keep the units affordable for 55 years. The developer is negotiating to have the Redevelopment Agency provide a long -term loan using low /moderate- income housing funds to bridge the funding gap that occurs with affordable housing projects. The Redevelopment Agency Board would have to approve any use of Agency funds for this project. The developer is aware that there has not been any funding commitment by the Agency, but it still desires to proceed to seek its entitlements, which are necessary for the tax credit application that the developer will be submitting in July 2010. GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03 ADR 10 -05 16 Campus Dr. "Campus Commons" May 11, 2010 page 2 Project Location The Applicant has indicated that the proposed project site was selected based on certain criteria that will allow maximum points in the financing applications. The site is located in close proximity to commercial services, the Arcadia Community Center, Methodist Hospital, Arcadia County Park, the Santa Anita Golf Course, and the Arcadia Public Library. It is close to Fire Station 105, and offers access to regional transit services. The Applicant looked throughout the community in its search for a suitable senior housing site. There are very few sites in Arcadia that are the right size or proximate to services and amenities for the proposed type of project. The Applicant made contact with the owners of other potential sites, and they were either too expensive or not for sale. It should be noted that none of the other sites that were pursued were as well- situated for seniors as this site on Campus Drive. Project Design and Landscaping The project is set back 20 feet from the front property line, which is at the back of the sidewalk. The narrower side of the building will face Campus Drive with the longer sides facing east and west. The building is designed to make the most of the site and to take advantage of opportunities for natural heating and cooling as part of making the project more energy efficient. The project is meant to reflect the architectural flavor of Arcadia and it includes large roof overhangs to provide shade and heat relief for the residents. The light color roofing and stucco colors are designed to reduce the building temperature which could lower the overall energy consumption levels. The main stucco colors will be Plantation Beige and Moose Point, which is a light to medium brown. The stucco trim color will be Pampas White and will be applied on the fascia, windows, and some portions of the building. The combination of the main building colors, recesses and pop -outs in the building facade, and the windows with the Pampas White color trim, will provide an appealing appearance with plenty of variation and articulation in the building. The 43 apartments proposed in the project will be located on three floors and will include: 33, one bedroom /one- bathroom units of 625 square feet; nine, two bedroom /one- bathroom units of 777 square feet; and one, two bedroom /one- bathroom unit of 1,000 square feet for the resident manager. The project will provide 39 covered, surface level parking spaces in a ground floor structure for the residents with access to the senior apartments from the parking area by an elevator. The four guest parking spaces are designed to be accessed via an existing driveway along the eastern side of the project site that is shared by the neighboring office building to the east. The Applicant believes that there is an existing easement for the shared -use of that driveway, but documentation was not provided as part of this application. It will be a condition of approval that the existence and ability to use the easement for the visitor parking be documented. Amenities The project will provide several amenities to enhance the living environment for the residents. There will be a 1,000 square -foot community room with an open kitchen that can be used for a variety of social activities and events. There will be a swimming pool and a patio area for outdoor comfort, plus landscaped walking paths on the site. There will be lighting throughout the site for mobility and safety after dark. GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03 ADR 10 -05 16 Campus Dr. "Campus Commons" May 11, 2010 page 3 The building will include extra insulation, sound proofing, and Tight screening to minimize the impacts on the project by its location next to the Arcadia High School athletic field. Every unit will include washers and dryers along with such features as levered faucets and door handles and low entry door thresholds, and there will be a resident manager. The project will provide abundant landscaping along the perimeter and in the common areas of the property. There are currently ten (10) large mature trees on the west side of the property that screen the site from the athletic field at Arcadia High School. In order to maximize the use of the site, the developers will be removing four (4) of the trees. The plans call for planting three (3) new trees along with the six (6) remaining trees to maintain adequate screening for the residents. The Arcadia Unified School District was contacted about having the proposed project located just east of the athletic field. While District personnel would be concerned about any potential use adjacent to Arcadia High School, it should be apparent that senior housing would have less of an impact on the school than a commercial use; particularly in that a commercial use would generate more traffic during peak school drop off and pick up times than would a senior housing project. District personnel did express concern about the activities, lights, and noise from the athletic field adversely impacting the senior residents, and then having complaints about those activities from the residents. But, as discussed earlier in this report, the Applicant has incorporated design elements to ameliorate the impacts of the activities at the Arcadia High School on the senior residents. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Density As a C -2 site, the Arcadia General Plan has a specific density allowance for senior citizen affordable housing of 63 units per acre. Section 2.0 of the Arcadia General Plan states that the Maximum Intensity for affordable senior housing in a Commercial zone is "up to 63 du /ac for affordable senior housing projects as defined by the California Government Code." The applicant is requesting to build 43 units which would be a density of 81 units per acre. The developer has indicated that it needs to build at least 40 rental units to make the project attractive to lenders and tax credit investors, and to make it financially feasible from development and operational perspectives. There is indication that there is sufficient demand for a project of this size. There is a waiting list of over 200 seniors for an apartment in the Heritage Park project. But, a General Plan Amendment is necessary for the density of this project. Given the location of the project site, adjacent to the high school athletic field, across from the Arcadia County Park, and next to commercial and office uses, there are no surrounding property owners that will be adversely impacted by the proposed density. Additionally, the project will have a high quality design that is intended to minimize the appearance of its mass and bulk from the street. It is important to note that density in a project does not create any visual impact. The design of the project creates the impact, and as discussed above, this project has been designed to the style of Arcadia and includes both building design and landscape elements that will give the project an appealing appearance. Additionally, senior citizen housing does not create a large number of vehicle trips and will have a lower impact on traffic than a commercial use at this location. As a result, the requested density will not adversely affect the surrounding properties and will create a comfortable living environment for the seniors. GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03 ADR 10 -05 16 Campus Dr. "Campus Commons" May 11, 2010 page 4 This project will amend the City's General Plan by allowing a density bonus of up to 30% to the existing maximum density of 63 dwelling units per acre for affordable senior housing if the project is for residents with low- income (50 -60% of median) and very-low income (less than 50% of median) as opposed to moderate income (60% -120% of median) residents. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Commercial zoning allows residential uses with an approved Conditional Use Permit, and it is staffs opinion that the proposed project is an appropriate use at this site. There is a need for senior housing and affordable housing within the community and the proposed project will address these needs. The location is advantageous for seniors because it is proximate to many necessary services as well as amenities. Height The allowable height in the C -2 zone is 3 stories and 40 feet. The proposed project has a height of 42' -9 and is proposed to be 3 stories over a ground level parking structure, which creates a four -story project. The site will not accommodate the placing of apartment units on the ground level without having underground parking, which is cost prohibitive for this type of project. The development team has worked on the design to limit the height and has reduced the height from their initial proposal of 48 feet that was shown to the Agency Board during their March 2nd Study Session to the 42' -9" that is currently proposed. This reduction in height has lessened the massing, which reduces the visual impact of the project. Affordable housing law allows developers to claim "concessions" from development standards to facilitate the development of affordable housing. The location of the project, away from single family neighborhoods and in a commercial zone, essentially eliminates any impact based on the height of the project. Concessions were granted for the Alta Street Classics project for guest parking and setbacks, which allowed that project to proceed. It would be a concession to allow the project at four stories and 42' -9" in height and these are important concessions to make the project financially feasible. Parking Residents of affordable senior housing projects tend to not utilize a car to get around as much as other residents. The seniors are usually retired and are not required to drive daily as part of the workforce. One of the benefits of this site is its proximity to many of the locations that will be desirable for seniors. The property is close to the Arcadia Community Center, the Arcadia County Park, Methodist Hospital, and the Arcadia Public Library. The site is close to regional transit routes, and can be served by Arcadia Transit. This easy access will allow seniors to travel throughout Arcadia without utilizing a car. The proposed parking for the Campus Commons project is provided at a rate of 0.9 spaces per unit. There is not a specific parking requirement for senior housing in the Arcadia Municipal Code. A parking ratio of 0.9 spaces per unit is based on the development team's experience in similar projects, such as Heritage Park, and the proximity to services and amenities as discussed above. Due to the heavy use of street parking during school days, the proposal is not relying on any street parking to serve this project. GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03 ADR 10 -05 16 Campus Dr. —"Campus Commons" May 11, 2010 page 5 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. CEQA 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department completed an Initial Study for the proposed project. The Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. 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 wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. STAFF REVIEW Plans were distributed to the City's various departments for review and comment, and a meeting was held on April 6, 2010 with the project development team for the City's staff to be able to directly ask questions of the developer. Comments that created requirements of the development are included among the conditions of approval. Certain changes that were suggested at the April 6 meeting have already been incorporated into the plans that accompany this staff report. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this project and the three land use applications: General Plan Amendment No. GP 10 -01, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -03, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -05, subject to the following conditions: General Conditions 1. That the developer shall provide evidence of a shared access easement/agreement for access to the proposed guest parking spaces prior to the issuance of a building permit. GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03 ADR 10 -05 16 Campus Dr. "Campus Commons" May 11, 2010 page 6 If there is not a shared access easement/agreement, the guest parking spaces and their access shall be redesigned to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 2. That as a buffer between the project and the Arcadia High School, all reasonable measures shall be taken to preserve as many as possible of the mature trees along the west side of the property, and that 36 -inch box, nursery-grown replacement trees of similar species shall be provided at a 2:1, replacement to removal ratio to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Fire Department 3. A fire hygrant shall be provided on Campus Drive at a location to be approved by the Fire Mar hal. 4. An automatic fire sprinkler system per the Fire Department's standard for Single Multiple Family Dwellings shall be installed and monitored by a UL listed central station facility. 5. A Knox box switch for the front sliding gate and a Knox box with keys for access to restricted areas shall be provided at location(s) approved by the Fire Marshal. 6. Class I standpipes shall be provided within all stairwells as required by and to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. 7. All interior corridors shall be a minimum of 1 -hour rated and the doors into the corridors shall be a minimum of 20- minute ratings with self closers to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. 8. Audible /visual appliances activated by the fire alarm system shall be provided in all common areas, including corridors, meeting rooms, etc., and living units deemed accessible by the City shall be provided with interior notification devices to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. DSD Engineering 9. The project will adhere to the City's visibility standard for vehicle exiting to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. The parking shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including, but not limited to, parking space dimensions, distance between parking stalls, and distances from parking structure walls and columns. Public Works 11. The developer shall submit three (3) sets of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan in a report format with plans, and are subject to approval by the City Engineer or designee. 12. If the stormwater treatment process includes infiltration, a geotechnical letter shall be submitted that adequately deals with instability issues as reflected in the comments GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03 ADR 10 -05 16 Campus Dr. "Campus Commons" May 11, 2010 page 7 Referral Approval from the Stormwater Plan Check Correction Sheet and is subject to approval by the City Engineer or designee. 13. The stormwater treatment shall include a filter if necessary to meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 14. A Double -Check Detector Assembly shall be installed as a separate service for the fire sprinkler system subject to approval by the Public Works Services Director or designee. 15. The developer shall install a single compound water meter, properly sized to ensure adequate water volume and pressure to each unit in keeping with the requirements of the Public Works Services Department and subject to approval by the Public Works Services Director or designee. 16. Backflow protection utilizing a reduced pressure backflow preventer shall be installed and must be approved by the Public Works Services Director or designee. 17. Water services and water meters shall be installed in the right -of -way, near the curb or as determined by the Public Works Services Director or designee, and any deviation must be approved in writing in advance by the Public Works Services Director or designee. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION These land use applications are subject to varying levels of consideration and action. The General Plan Amendment is subject to consideration by the Planning Commission in an advisory capacity to the City Council. The Conditional Use Permit is within the Planning Commission's purview, but is subject to appeal by any interested party as well as the City Council. The Architectural Design Review is also within the Commission's purview, but is also subject to appeal, and because this project is to be partially financed with redevelopment funds, the Redevelopment Agency must affirmatively consent to the proposed design. Therefore, staff is recommending that if the Planning Commission finds the proposed project to be acceptable, that the Conditional Use Permit application and Architectural Design Review be referred to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board for their consideration in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment. If the Planning Commission intends to refer these applications to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board, the Commission should move for referral and state its position on the various applications, applicable findings, and the environmental document (e.g., approval, disapproval, alterations, etc.) If the Planning Commission intends to approve these applications, the Commission should move to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 10 -01 to the City Council; approve Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -03 and state the supporting findings and environmental determination and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03 ADR 10 -05 16 Campus Dr. "Campus Commons" May 11, 2010 page 8 Commission's decision for adoption at the next meeting, and approve Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -05. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny these applications, the Commission should move to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment No. 10 -01 to the City Council; deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -03 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -05 and state the supporting findings and reasons for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision 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 May 11, 2010 public hearing, please contact Jim Kasama at (626) 574 -5442 or (626) 574 -5423. Approved by: J' asama Community Development Administrator Attachments: Site Map of Area Aerial Photo of Area 300 -foot Radius Map Negative Declaration and Initial Study GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03 ADR 10 -05 16 Campus Dr. "Campus Commons" May 11, 2010 page 9 SITE MAP Arcadia, California Santa Anita Park Ho ilyAme W ad' At kcadla Police to CA w. mi Senior Center, 1 Park Facilities Memative Areadla 1. 1 High School 4 ,-.C.alAllty Park I Diamond 41 EA Monrovia titainotittii; Au4sittif. 9„, ,1 4)'' 16 Campus Dr Arc.adla CA 91007 Gerii41 FAIWYMMASPilk 1 200 E Duarte Rd 1 i Arcadia CA 91006 re a Santa Anita XlmoitEdttatiWitiolitAciden40-. t.e (626) 821-4988 Golf Course 1 W Duarte f 22 E Duarte Rd Arcadia CA 9 Arcadia CA 91006 HalliAtaas (626 446-5:£626)446-S488 E 'menhir', Arcadia Unified I' boaffi Transportation' School ,.0aliqleiaiAaai -i, 1 Aicadis I. 14 1 t II Ln- Leda tn 1 0 mi 0.2 0.4 0.6 11104,4* Itiffti 7." 1?3 T1 !ordflorq..limm ''sji "I TT Park Facilities, I F 91 9' clLo UIS Pubhc Golf Course 1 1 Esi II ei r! i /LIC adla A ti 1 10 I j I 1 4,,,q- 1104,m4m4.1.. Ali .1 ;IV i. Sit& I asi iiiff.! ei..., r 1 w zl it IC 9774"'""" P. I gr 11,4- g 1 0 t 4 ir, I 1 to, ri 1 i 0 hP i c,c) 4 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: C -2 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, &ADR 10 -05 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment No. GP 10 -01, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -03, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -05. 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: Jerry Schwartz, Economic Development Manager Phone: (626) 574 -5409 Fax (626) 447 -3309 Email: jchwartz©ci. arcadia. ca. us 4. Project Location: 16 Campus Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ashwood Construction /Davila Properties 5755 E. Kings Canyon Road, Suite 110 Fresno, CA 93727 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) A General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Architectural Design Review for a 43 -unit senior apartment complex with an on -grade parking structure on a 23,000 square -foot lot. It will require the removal of an existing seven -unit apartment on the property. CEQA Checklist -1- 4 -03 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: Santa Anita Golf Course /Arcadia County Park; zoned Public Facility Grounds South: Tutoring Centers and a Dental Office; zoned C -2 East: Medical and General Office Building; zoned C -2 West: Arcadia High School; zoned Public Facility Grounds 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities Service Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: [Xl CEQA Checklist Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology Water Quality Noise Recreation DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Mandatory Findings of Significance File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Air Quality Geology Soils Land Use Planning Population Housing Transportation Traffic I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 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. -2- 4 -03 Gy Signature Date Thomas Li, Associate Planner For: Jerry Schwartz EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 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. Printed Name Title Economic Development Manager 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. CEQA Checklist -3- 4 -03 File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 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 Tess than significant. CEQA Checklist -4- 4 -03 1. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? CEQA Checklist -5- File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact El The subject site is bordered by a golf course to the north, medical and general office to the east, tutoring center and dental office to the south, and an Arcadia High School sports field to the west. There are no adjacent properties where a potential scenic vista would be obstructed. Furthermore, the project will be consistent with the existing developments. Therefore, there will be no impacts to any scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no designated scenic highways within the City of Arcadia. The nearest designated state scenic highway is the Angeles Crest Highway approximately 15 miles away. Therefore, there will be no impacts to state scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors. 0 El 0 El The project is to construct a 43 -unit senior apartment building. This building is 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. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The subject senior apartment building is surrounded by commercial uses and a high school sports field. The project must comply with all applicable light and glare restrictions as set forth by the Arcadia Municipal Code and therefore would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non agricultural use? 4 -03 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? File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non forest use? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an CEQA Checklist IZI There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the project will not convert farmland to non agricultural use. 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 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 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 Recycling. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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 a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment building, and would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. -6- 4 -03 applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non attainment area for Ozone (0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM Respirable Particulate Matter (PM and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 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 El concentrations? The uses on the subject properties are not listed as uses that emit odors and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. The allowable uses on subject site will remain consistent with the growth expectations for the region, and will not have an impact that conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of El people? The subject properties do 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. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 within close proximity to these biological resources, and is known to not contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Furthermore, the project replacing an existing apartment building. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? There are no designated riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the City of Arcadia. The subject properties are located within a fully developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands El 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? CEQA Checklist -7- 4 -03 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? CEQA Checklist File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The subject properties are located within a fully developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. El There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia. The project will accommodate a senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment building at a fully developed site. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. O El The City of Arcadia has an ordinance to protect oak trees within the city. The project will not conflict with that ordinance as it does not interfere with the enforcement of the ordinance. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. 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 have the above impacts. There are no known historical resources on or adjacent to the site. If previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during construction on the subject property, all work in the area would cease, and a qualified historian, archaeologist or paleontologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? The subject properties are within a fully- developed area and are 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? 0 El The subject properties are within a fully- developed area and are 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 El -8- 4 -03 formal cemeteries? There are no known human remains on the subject property. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that development be halted should any remain be encountered; the County Coroner shall be contacted whose responsibility is to make 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 that the project would not result in unacceptable impacts to human remains. 6. 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? El iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? The City of Arcadia contains two local fault zones: the 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 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 properties are 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 properties are 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 failure, and landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ISI The project will not involve any activity to create unstable earth conditions. Prior to any 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 proposed structures will be constructed on a pad where there are existing structures. Furthermore, these structures will be built to current building and safety standards. 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? CEQA Checklist -9- 4 -03 File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential as defined in Table 18 -1- B of the Uniform Building Code. The project will not have the above 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 site is in a fully- developed area that utilizes the local sewer system. Soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems is not applicable to this project. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 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? CEQA Checklist Z The project is a senior apartment building on a commercially zoned property. This residential project would not generate more greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, than a commercial building that this property is zoned for and /or is allowed to build. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? The project is a high- density, 43 -unit senior apartment building that is within close proximity of services (community center, library, hospital, county park, fire station, bus stops), thus reducing the number of vehicles miles traveled. This type of development is consistent with the applicable plan, policy or regulation for the region. 8. 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? CI El The project does not include the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and will not have the above impact. 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 El 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. 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 -10- 4 -03 the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The subject properties are not included on a list of hazardous material sites and will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The nearest airport to the subject site is the El Monte Airport, which is located approximately three miles away. The proposal would not contribute to any airport related safety hazards for people residing or working at the subject properties. There are no known private airstrips in the area. Since the uses on the subject properties will not be changed, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 0 El The project is to accommodate a senior apartment building on the subject site. The proposed plans are subject to review by the emergency response units, and will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 9. 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? CEQA Checklist The subject properties are not located near wildlands where there is a high fire hazard and will not have the above impact. Ell The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff IZ 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? The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. -11- 4 -03 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. e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? f) 9) 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)? 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? File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact El The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. El The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing an existing apartment building. The project will not discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired. El The proposed senior apartment building would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure that stormwater discharge causes no significant harm to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies. El The proposal is subject to all NPDES requirements and will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. ED The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. Although it has a greater capacity than the existing use, the proposal will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge as there will be no substantial increase in the intensity of the uses on the subject property with a commercial land use designation. El The proposed senior apartment development would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. CEQA Checklist -12- 4 -03 i) 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 proposed senior apartment development would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. j) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off -site? 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? CEQA Checklist File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The subject properties are located in a fully- developed area; the project will not increase erosion. k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? The proposed senior apartment development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. I) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm? The proposed senior apartment development would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not to cause significant alteration of the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff that can cause environmental harm. The proposed senior apartment development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. A series of flood control channels within the city convey storm water to regional facilities to the south. Due to this system, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100 -year floodplain. The City of Arcadia was located within flood Zone X as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map Community Number 065014. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500 -year flood and protected by levee from 100 -year flood. Under this zone, no floodplain management regulations have been required. Therefore, the project will not have the above impact. o) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? As discussed above, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100 -year floodplain. Therefore, the project will not have the above impact. 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? There are no levees or dams in the vicinity of the subject site. Therefore, the proposal will not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. -13- 4 -03 q) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The City of Arcadia is not located within close proximity to any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean to be inundated by a seiche or tsunami. The subject properties are on a relatively flat alluvial plain that is highly porous and is unlikely to generate mudflow. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact El El The subject site is bordered by a golf course to the north, medical and general office to the east, tutoring center and dental office to the south, and an Arcadia High School sports field to the west. The proposed senior apartment development would not 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 project is consistent with the existing development on the subject property but is not consistent with the land use designation of the subject property, and is therefore seeking a General Plan Amendment for a multiple- family land use designation for the subject property. It will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations. There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan on the subject properties. Therefore, the project could not conflict with such plans. El There are no known mineral resources on the subject properties 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? The subject properties are not designated in the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above impact. 12. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of El CEQA Checklist -14- 4 -03 standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment building and will not increase noise levels as the uses are to remain the same. The development of the site could create short term noise impacts resulting from construction. Construction hours are limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? CEQA Checklist File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The project is to accommodate the a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment building and will not increase noise levels as the uses and activities are to remain the same as indicated by the submitted schedule, and do not include uses that would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. There may be a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or goundborne noise levels during the construction phase of the project. However, the construction will be monitored to comply with noise and time limitations. The current limitation on construction hours is from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sunday. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment building and will not increase noise levels. Therefore, there is no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Furthermore, the senior apartment is subject to the City's noise regulations. The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment building and will not increase noise levels beyond those permitted by code requirements. Therefore, there is no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. There may be a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or goundborne noise levels during the construction phase of the project. However, the construction will be monitored to comply with noise and time limitations. The current limitation on construction hours is from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sunday. The project is located approximately three miles from the El Monte Airport. The proposed senior apartment building replaces the existing senior apartment on the subject site. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above impact. There are no known private airstrips in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, there will not be any impact on the noise levels for people residing or working in the project area. -15- 4 -03 14. 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: CEQA Checklist File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment, which will not induce substantial population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The subject proposal is a senior apartment building on the subject site, and will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. El c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The subject proposal is a senior apartment building on the subject site, and will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. El Fire protection? El Police protection? El Schools? Eg Parks? El Other public facilities? El The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment, and will not affect the above public services. Each of these City departments has reviewed the subject proposal and has concluded that it will not result in substantial adverse impacts. 15. RECREATION Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or El other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? -16- 4 -03 File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is a senior apartment building with an open space recreation area and will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed senior apartment will not adversely impact recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project is a senior apartment building with an open space recreation area and will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The open space recreation area on the subject property will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Arcadia's roadway network is nearly built out, consisting of the Foothill Freeway (1 -210), regional arterial roadways, collectors and local streets. The subject properties are bordered by a Modified One -Way Primary Arterial with 3 lanes in each direction. Based on the Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a given street and the amount of traffic each street actually carries is expressed in terms of levels of service (LOS), ranging from level A (Free Flowing) to F "Jammed'). Arcadia Engineering Services have reviewed the subject proposal and concluded that the levels of service of the surrounding streets will remain at an acceptable level after the completion of the project. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, El including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) adopted their most recent Congestion Management Program (CMP) in 2004. For the purposes of the CMP, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V /C ?0.02), causing LOS F (V /C 1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V /C >_0.02). The lead agency may apply more stringent criteria if desired. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report was prepared for the project. This report indicates that the levels of service of the surrounding streets will remain at an acceptable level after the completion of the project. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an El increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment building. The project does not change any air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses CEQA Checklist -17- 4 -03 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 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? CEQA Checklist File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact (e.g., farm equipment)? The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. The project does not include new design features or incompatible uses. El The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and found that this project will not obstruct or reduce access to emergency services. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. The project does not significantly change the use and will not conflict with alternative transportation opportunities. 17. 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. This board has established the Basin Plan which (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. The project will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements, and it is also subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. El El The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not result in the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. 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? -18- 4 -03 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? CEQA Checklist File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Local Stormwater management facilities, such as the storm drains within the area roadways, are the City's responsibility, while regional facilities are the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW). The City municipal storm drain facilities will be maintained and improved in conformance with the City of Arcadia Drainage System Technical Memorandum. The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). For the purposes of compliance with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221, the subject proposal does not qualify as a "project": A `project" means any of the following: 1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. 2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. 3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. 4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. 5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. 6) A mixed -use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. 7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then "project" means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections, or a mixed -use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. The project is consistent with the existing development on the subject properties, and will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not increase the wastewater treatment demand. Any future development shall also be subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. -19- 4 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. It will not increase the need for landfill capacity. g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? File Nos.: GP 10 -01, CUP 10 -03, ADR 10 -05 El The project is to accommodate a proposed senior apartment building on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. It will not violate any federal, state or local statues and regulations relating to solid waste. This project is also subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. The project is consistent with the existing use of the subject properties, and does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. It will not reduce the habitat of a fish or 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? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? CEQA Checklist The project is consistent with the existing use of the subject properties, and would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. El The project is consistent with the existing use of the subject properties, and will not have 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 El substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project is consistent with the existing use of the subject properties. The project is to accommodate the existing and approved uses on the properties and will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. It is located in a fully- developed area and no physical changes are proposed by the project. -20- 4 -03 RESOLUTION NO. 1815 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -02 TO OPERATE AN 800 SQUARE -FOOT ART STUDIO WITH A MAXIMUM OF TEN (10) STUDENTS WITHIN A TWO- STORY, COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 400 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUITE 102. WHEREAS, on January 14, 2010, an application was filed by Lauren Hinds for an 800 square -foot art studio with a maximum of 10 students within a two -story, commercial office building; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 10 -02, at 400 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 102; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2010, 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 staff report dated April 27, 2010 are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 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 because the proposed art studio will not conflict with the other businesses and uses in the area. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by Section 9275.1.37.1.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 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. The subject property is accessible from La Porte Street, which is adequate in width and pavement type for the commercial traffic that is and will be generated by the businesses in the area, including the art studio that is approved by Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -02. 5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -02 will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because a tutoring center is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation for the subject area. 6. That the conversion of a commercial space to a tutoring center qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a conversion of a small commercial structure per Section 15303(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -02, for an 800 square -foot art studio with a maximum of 10 students within an existing commercial office building at 400 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 102, subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall not be more than ten (10) students and two (2) faculty and /or staff members at any one time. 2. The hours of operation shall be limited to Tuesday Friday, 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The studio shall be closed on Sunday and Monday. 3. The use of the art studio after 5:00 p.m. by calligraphy, quilting, and similar groups is permitted with the following conditions: 2 1815 a. The combined use by all groups shall not exceed twice per month. b. The size of the groups shall not exceed 10 persons. c. Group activities shall end no later than 9:00 p.m. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -02 includes a Parking Modification to allow 11 on -site parking spaces in lieu of 14 spaces required. This Parking Modification does not constitute an approval of a general reduction or alteration of the parking requirements for the subject property, but rather only for the art studio that is herein conditionally approved. Uses other than this art studio shall be subject to a new Conditional Use Permit and /or Parking Modification. 5. The use approved by CUP 10 -02 is limited to the proposed art studio and it shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 10 -02, subject to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or designee. 6. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 10 -02 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the art studio. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any 3 1815 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. 9. Approval of CUP 10 -02 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. ATTEST: SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 10th day of May, 2010. Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney Chairman, Planning Commission 4 1815 RESOLUTION NO. 1816 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. CUP 09 -09 THAT PERMITTED A 960 SQUARE -FOOT EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING 2,040 SQUARE -FOOT RESTAURANT AT 510 -512 E. LIVE OAK AVENUE. WHEREAS, on March 9, 2010, the Planning Commission directed Staff to initiate revocation proceedings of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09 -09 that permitted a 960 square -foot expansion to an existing 2,040 square -foot restaurant located at 510 -512 E. Live Oak Avenue; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2010, 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 staff report dated April 27, 2010 are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -09 have not been complied with, specifically the following: a. That portion of Condition No. 8 which reads, in pertinent part, "All unpermitted signs shall be removed b. Condition No. 9 which reads, "The bathroom facilities shall be upgraded to meet the Building Official's requirement of 1 urinal, 1 toilet, and 1 lavatory for men, and 2 toilets and 1 lavatory for women c. That portion of Condition No. 10 which reads, in pertinent part, "Agreements /Covenants with the City of Arcadia as a party thereto in forms approved by the City Attorney for the off -site parking spaces shall be executed, recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, and maintained at all times that the off -site parking is required for the use approved by CUP 09 -09. The Agreements /Covenants shall be recorded for both the restaurant property at 510 -512 E. Live Oak Avenue and the property where the supplemental off -site parking is to be maintained; 600 -618 E. Live Oak Avenue and d. That portion of Condition No. 12 which reads, in pertinent part, "All conditions of approval shall be satisfied within 60 days and prior to use of the expansion area SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission revokes Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -09 effective May 27, 2010 unless all the conditions of approval listed in Resolution 1801 have been satisfied prior to that effective date as determined by the Director of Development Services, in his reasonable discretion. If the revocation takes effect, the 960 square -foot expansion of the existing 2,040 square -foot restaurant at 510 -512 E. Live Oak Avenue shall not be occupied or used in any way as part of said existing restaurant. ATTEST: SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 10th day of May, 2010. Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney P 4-rirpti Chairman, Planning Commission 2 1816 MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Vice Chairman Hsu presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille It was moved by Commissioner Baderian and seconded by Commissioner Beranek to excuse Chairman Parrille from the meeting. Without objection, the motion was passed. OTHERS ATTENDING Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama Senior Planer, Lisa Flores Associate Planner, Tom Li Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Copies of a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Clarizio regarding Item 1 and copies of a letter from Mr. Pachano regarding Item 3 were distributed to each Commissioner. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS Five minute time limit per person None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MC 09 -35 APPEAL OF MODIFICATION COMMITTEE DENIAL 1412 Orlando Drive Dino and Hope Clarizio This is an appeal to reconsider the Modification Committee's decision on denying a Modification to replace the existing 5' -0" high wood fence with a new 6' -0" high wood fence above the existing retaining wall that increases the overall height from 9' -7" to 10' -7 This will exceed the maximum permitted height of 6' -0u (AMC Sec. 9251.2.13.3). Senior Planner, Lisa Flores, presented the staff report. The Public Hearing was opened. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Dr. Clarizio, property owner, said that his father built the residence approximately 50 years ago and the fence has been replaced several times since then. He said that he is seeking approval to retain the current six -foot high fence because the added height provides extra safety in the pool area, provides more security for their dog and is aesthetically pleasing. Dr. Clarizio confirmed that because the fence is set atop a retaining wall, there is a ten -foot drop from the top of the fence on his neighbor's side. He said he spoke to his neighbor, Mrs. Reeder, about the possibility of building a two -sided fence, but at that time, she was unwilling to share in the expense. He noted that all his other neighbors have approved the fence as it currently stands. He said that if he is required to reduce the fence height to 5 feet, not only will he incur additional costs, but the effectiveness of the fence will be diminished. Dr. Clarizio also noted that he and Mrs. Clarizio did not attend the April 13 Modification Committee meeting because they did not receive notice of the meeting. Mrs. Clarizio, property owner, said that their Homeowners' Association has approved the fence, which is now level and uniform. She pointed out that cutting the fence down to five feet would not present an attractive appearance. Commissioner Baderian asked if the Homeowners' Association (HOA) granted approval for the fence initially. Mrs. Clarizio confirmed that the HOA approved the fence project both times it was presented to them. Mr. Mike Fortenese, a general contractor, said that to reduce the fence height will cost approximately $1200 and would result in a non uniform appearance. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. Mr. Bob Reeder, said that he shares the property line that the fence is on with the Clarizios. He said that regulations call for a five -foot fence around a pool and that the fence is to be measured from the exterior, from grade level, and on his side of the property it is now about 10.5 feet, exceeding the five -foot requirement by another five and -a -half feet. Mr. Reeder pointed out that the fence was built without a permit and is non conforming. According to Code, when a six -foot high fence is on top of a retaining wall, the fence is to setback 6 feet from the retaining wall. He pointed out that the Modification Committee denied this application and that staff is currently recommending denial of the appeal. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the appeal as well. Commissioner Baerg asked if the height of the retaining wall is included in the overall height of the fence. Mr. Reeder confirmed that it is. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal. Mrs. Clarizio pointed out that the fence borders the pool which was built with permits and includes a rock waterfall. She stated that it is not possible to move the fence because of the pool and waterfall. Dr. Clarizio said that removal of the fence leaving only the retaining wall would present a safety issue on his side of the property line and would not make sense. PC MINUTES 427 -10 Page 2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: OTHERS ATTENDING None PUBLIC HEARINGS MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Vice Chairman Hsu presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille It was moved by Commissioner Baderian and seconded by Commissioner Beranek to excuse Chairman Parrale from the meeting. Without objection, the motion was passed. Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama Senior Planer, Lisa Flores Associate Planner, Tom Li Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Copies of a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Clarizio regarding Item 1 and copies of a letter from Mr. Pachano regarding Item 3 were distributed to each Commissioner. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS Five minute time limit per person 1. MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MC 09 -35 APPEAL OF MODIFICATION COMMITTEE DENIAL 1412 Orlando Drive Dino and Hope Clarizio This is an appeal to reconsider the Modification Committee's decision on denying a Modification to replace the existing 5' -0" high wood fence with a new 6' -0" high wood fence above the existing retaining wall that increases the overall height from 9' -7" to 10' -7 This will exceed the maximum permitted height of 6' -0" (AMC Sec. 9251.2.13.3). Senior Planner, Lisa Flores, presented the staff report. The Public Hearing was opened. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Dr. Clarizio, property owner, said that his father built the residence approximately 50 years ago and the fence has been replaced several times since then. He said that he is seeking approval to retain the current six -foot high fence because the added height provides extra safety in the pool area, provides more security for their dog and is aesthetically pleasing. Dr. Clarizio confirmed that because the fence is set atop a retaining wall, there is a ten -foot drop from the top of the fence on his neighbor's side. He said he spoke to his neighbor, Mrs. Reeder, about the possibility of building a two -sided fence, but at that time, she was unwilling to share in the expense. He noted that all his other neighbors have approved the fence as it currently stands. He said that if he is required to reduce the fence height to 5 feet, not only will he incur additional costs, but the effectiveness of the fence will be diminished. Dr. Clarizio also noted that he and Mrs. Clarizio did not attend the April 13 Modification Committee meeting because they did not receive notice of the meeting. Mrs. Clarizio, property owner, said that their Homeowners' Association has approved the fence, which is now level and uniform. She pointed out that cutting the fence down to five feet would not present an attractive appearance. Commissioner Baderian asked if the Homeowners' Association (HOA) granted approval for the fence initially. Mrs. Clarizio confirmed that the HOA approved the fence project both times it was presented to them. Mr. Mike Fortenese, a general contractor, said that to reduce the fence height will cost approximately $1200 and would result in a non uniform appearance. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. Mr. Bob Reeder, said that he shares the property line that the fence is on with the Clarizios. He said that regulations call for a five -foot fence around a pool and that the fence is to be measured from the exterior, from grade level, and on his side of the property it is now about 10.5 feet, exceeding the five -foot requirement by another five -and -a -half feet. Mr. Reeder pointed out that the fence was built without a permit and is non conforming. According to Code, when a six -foot high fence is on top of a retaining wall, the fence is to setback 6 feet from the retaining wall. He pointed out that the Modification Committee denied this application and that staff is currently recommending denial of the appeal. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the appeal as well. Commissioner Baerg asked if the height of the retaining wall is included in the overall height of the fence. Mr. Reeder confirmed that it is. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal. Mrs. Clarizio pointed out that the fence borders the pool which was built with permits and includes a rock waterfall. She stated that it is not possible to move the fence because of the pool and waterfall. Dr. Clarizio said that removal of the fence leaving only the retaining wall would present a safety issue on his side of the property line and would not make sense. PC MINUTES 4-27-10 Page 2 Vice Chairman Hsu asked Senior Planner, Ms. Flores, if placing the five -foot fence above the retaining wall is permitted. Ms. Flores confirmed that it is. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Baderian said that any decision should be based on safety considerations and code requirements and that he is not sure if a difference of one -foot is significant. Commissioner Baerg pointed out that the unique topography of the lot justifies the present height of the fence. He suggested that it is a greater concern that the fence is unfinished on the neighbor's side. Vice Chairman Hsu noted that approval could include a condition that the applicant have the neighbor's side of the fence finished. Commissioner Beranek said that the code doesn't always provide a specific answer for every situation and at those times the Commission must determine the best solution. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to approve the appeal of the Modification Committee Denial of Modification Application No. MC 09 -35. ROLL CALL AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Parrille There is a five working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 4 2. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 10 02 1163 Encanto Drive Warren Cross, representative from Westem Roofing Systems on behalf of the property owner, Ms. Terry Traver This is an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board decision denying a Metro Shake II, Weathered Timber, stone coated steel roof material at the subject residence. Senior Planner, Lisa Flores, presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. PC MINUTES 4-27-10 Page 3 Mr. Warren Cross of Western Roofing, a roofing contractor, said that he has addressed the Commission on this subject several times in the past and wanted to briefly review the benefits of a metal roof, i.e., they are energy efficient, Tight- weight, fire safe, etc. He pointed out that the County's building on Baldwin Avenue has a stone coated steel roof. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to approve Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 10 -02. ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Perri lle There is a five working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 4. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADMIN. SF ADR 10 28 215 W. Naomi Avenue Fausto G. Pachano (Property Owner) The applicant is requesting an Administrative Single Family Design Review for a 270 square -foot front porch cover and the replacement of two patio covers (84 square feet and 128 square feet) at the rear of the existing single -story, single family residence. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Fausto Pachano, the property owner, referred the Commissioners to his letter which was distributed to them at the start of the meeting. Mr. Pachano said that he is a retired school teacher who has lived in Arcadia since 1978. He described his strong association with the city and said that he hopes to live out his life here. He said he is requesting approval of his remodel plan because he feels it will enhance the appearance of his property. Mr. Pachano showed the Commissioners pictures of other homes in the area where similar columns were used and said that his neighbors are in favor of the project. PC MINUTES 4 -27 -10 Page 4 Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Pachano why he did not contact the City before he began building, and Mr. Pachano said that he actually did contact the City about two years ago and was told that no permit was required to replace a patio. Commissioner Baderian explained that it was assumed that Mr. Pachano would be replacing the patio with the same materials. He also explained that there was no objection to the structural plans. The objection was to the design and to the fact that the City was not notified. Mr. Pachano said he failed to inform the City about the columns and that he thought the design was beautiful. He said that the design is not out of place in the neighborhood as shown in the pictures other homes in the area that he showed to the Commissioners for their review. He said that he received many favorable comments from his neighbors on the project. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Baerg, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Baerg said that he drove by the site and that he felt the photos did not adequately convey the incongruity of the design. Commissioner Beranek noted that the new patios did not blend with the theme of the house. Vice Chairman Hsu said that the added feature does not appear to be an integral part of the existing structure. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to deny Administrative Single Family Design Review No. Admin. SF ADR 10 -28. ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Perri Ile There is a the working day appeal period after the approval/denial of the application. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 4. 4. REVOCATION 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) Cafe Fusion Consideration of revocation of a Conditional Use Permit granted on October 27, 2009, for a 960 square -foot expansion to an existing 2,040 square -foot restaurant. The status of the PC MINUTES 4-27 -10 Page 5 permit was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 9, 2010 and again on March 9, 2010. Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if the Commissioners had any questions for staff. Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Schwehr if the applicant would be able to comply with all conditions by May 27 and Mr. Schwehr indicated that he felt they would. Vice- Chairman Hsu asked if the applicant had submitted all necessary documents to staff and Mr. Schwehr reported that they had. Mr. Schwehr explained that they are only waiting for the Covenant which is currently being processed in the City Attomey's office. Vice- Chairman Hsu asked for clarification of the next step in the revocation process. Mr.Kasama explained that unless all conditions are satisfied by May 27, the Conditional Use Permit will automatically be revoked and no further hearing will be required. Commissioner Baerg asked if the applicant understood the implications if the neighboring property owner were to back out of the parking agreement. Mr. Schwehr confirmed the applicant's understanding that termination of the parking agreement would automatically terminate the Conditional Use Permit. If that were to happen the applicant could revert back to the original restaurant and would have to apply for a new CUP for additional parking at another location in order to use the expansion area. The public hearing was opened. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone from Cafe Fusion would like to address the Commission. Mr. Arthur Chen, from Cafe Fusion, thanked the Commissioners and staff for their efforts in resolving all the issues and for reviewing the application so many times. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Commission on this item. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to approve Revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -09 (Resolution No. 1801) if all conditions are not satisfactorily fulfilled by May 27, 2010. PC MINUTES 4-27 -10 Page 6 ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Perri Ile 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. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 02 400 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 102 Lauren Bolley Hinds The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate an 800 square -foot art studio with up to 10 students within a two -story, commercial office building. Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Commissioner Baderian asked about the pick -up and drop -off area for students and Mr. Schwehr said they would use the parking lot or adjacent street. He explained that this will be a part-time operation with only one class at a time. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Ms. Lauren Hinds, the applicant, said that she has lived in Arcadia most of her life and liked the idea of staying within the community. She said that she plans to rent the rest of the building as professional offices. Commissioner Baderian asked Ms. Hinds if she had read the staff report and was willing to comply with all conditions of approval. Ms. Hinds confirmed that she'd read the staff report and agreed to comply with all conditions. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baerg, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -02. PC MINUTES 4-27 -10 Page 7 ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Parrille 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. 6. UPDATE OF LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Citywide The Planning Commission considered the proposed Update of Local Guidelines for Implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to make a recommendation to the City Council. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Commissioner Baderian noted that adoption of these guidelines will impact the environmental report on the General Plan Update. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if the Commissioners had any questions or comments. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to recommend adoption of the Guidelines to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Parrille The recommendations and comments of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. PC MINUTES 4-27-10 Page 8 CONSENT ITEMS 7. MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2010 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to approve the minutes of March 9, 2010 as presented. Without objection the motion was approved. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Baderian asked if a new Liaison from the City Council had been selected yet, and Mr. Kasama said an announcement had not yet been made. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Vice Chairman Hsu reported that the Modification Committee approved three items, which included the replacement of a gazebo on tulip Lane, a semi circular driveway on Highland Oaks and an enclosure of a second floor deck at a condominium on Fairview Avenue. One item, for off -site parking, was referred to the Planning Commission, for their consideration at their May 11 meeting. MATTERS FROM STAFF Mr. Kasama briefly reviewed the upcoming projects for consideration by the Commission which included the Modification mentioned by Vice Chairman Hsu and an affordable senior housing project on Campus Drive next to the high school athletic field. ADJOURNED 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission PC MINUTES 4-27 -10 Page 9