HomeMy WebLinkAbout7-13-10PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION
PUBLIC HEARING
1. MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MP 10 -02
315 Oxford Drive
Spencer and Vivian Liang
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 minute time limit per person.
All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony
concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. You are hereby advised that
should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the
proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections, which
you or someone else raises at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing.
The applicant is requesting the following Zoning Modifications for additions and a rebuild of a single
family residence:
1. A 40' -3" front yard setback in lieu of 42' -3" required;
2. An 8' -2" southeasterly side yard setback in lieu of 10' -0" required;
3. An 8' -0" northwesterly side yard setback in lieu of 10' -0" required; and,
4. 36 -inch roof eave projections in lieu of the maximum permitted projection of thirty (30) inches into
the required side yard setbacks.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional 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 Wednesday, July 21, 2010.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Business Permit and License Review Board members and /or the
Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community
Development Division offices at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574 -5423.
PC AGENDA
7 -13 -10
CONSENT ITEMS
2. RESOLUTION NO. 1820
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving Conditional Use
Permit No. CUP 10-07 to operate a 2,000 square -foot art studio with a maximum of ten (10) students
at 17 E. Huntington Drive.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 1821
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving Conditional Use
Permit No. CUP 10-08 to amend CUP 09-20 (Resolution 1812) to expand the operating schedule for a
tutoring center at 222 -224 S. First Avenue.
4. MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2010
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolutions Nos. 1820 and 1821 and approve the minutes of June 22,
2010.
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 Business Permit and License Review Board members and /or the
Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community
Development Division offices at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574 -5423.
PC AGENDA
7 -13-10
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 Planning Services Department at (626) 574-
5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
assure accessibility to the meeting.
Public Hearing Procedure
1. The public hearing item is introduced by the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
2. The staff report is presented by staff.
3. Commissioners' questions relating to the staff report may be asked and answered at this time.
4. The Public Hearing is opened by the Chairman and the applicant is afforded the first 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 Business Permit and License Review Board members and /or the
Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community
Development Division offices at City Hall, 240W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574 -5423.
PC AGENDA
7 -13 -10
July 13, 2010
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Lisa Flores, Senior Planner
Modification Application No. MP 10 -02 to "rebuild" and add onto a
one -story, single family residence at 315 Oxford Drive.
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
The applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Liang is requesting Modifications to "rebuild" and add
onto an existing single family residence. The expanded and rebuilt structure at
315 Oxford Drive will be a one -story, 3,370 square -foot residence with an attached
532 square -foot, two -car garage, and several covered porches and patios totaling
205 square feet. The Development Services Department is recommending
approval of Modification Application No. MP 10 -02, subject to the conditions listed
in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
Spencer and Vivian Liang
315 Oxford Drive
The following Modifications for a single family residential "rebuild"
and additions:
A. A 40' -3" front yard setback in lieu of 42' -3" required (AMC
Sec. 9251.2.2);
B. An 8' -2" southeasterly side yard setback in lieu of 10' -0"
required (AMC Sec. 9251.2.3);
C. An 8' -0" northwesterly side yard setback in lieu of 10' -0"
required (AMC Sec. 9251.2.3); and
D. 36 -inch roof eave projections in lieu of the maximum permitted
projection of 30 inches into the required side yard setbacks
(AMC Sec. 9251.2.7.2).
SITE AREA: 14,680 square feet (0.33 acres)
FRONTAGE: 80' along Oxford Drive
EXISTING LAND USE:
The site is currently developed with a one -story 2,117 square foot,
single family residence and a 532 square -foot, two -car detached
garage.
ZONING: R -0- 15,000 D First One Family Zone with a minimum lot size of
15,000 square feet and a Design Overlay (Lower Rancho
Homeowners' Association)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential at 0 -4 dwelling units per acre
SURROUNDING LAND USES ZONING:
The surrounding properties are developed with single family
residences and are zoned R -0- 15,000 D. The property is in the
Lower Rancho Homeowners' Association.
BACKGROUND
The subject property was improved with a one -story, single family residence and a
detached, two -car garage in 1954.
On January 10, 2010, the Lower Rancho Homeowners' Association's Architectural
Review Board (ARB) approved the homeowner's application for additions totaling
1,262 square feet of living space, a new 162 square -foot covered patio at the rear
of the residence, and a new 28 square -foot, front covered porch.
On April 15, 2010, a building permit was issued for the proposed additions.
However, on June 3, 2010, a correction notice was issued by Building Services to
stop work and obtain revised permits because more than 50% of the exterior walls
were removed and /or altered (approximately 84% of the exterior walls were
removed) which changed the scope of the project from additions to a rebuild. On
June 20, 2010, the ARB re- approved the homeowner's proposal as a rebuild.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of MP 10 -02 were mailed on June 29, 2010 to the owners of
those properties within 100 feet of the subject property and to the Lower Rancho
Homeowners' Association President, Mr. Kevin Tomkins and the Architectural
Review Board Chairman, Mr. Steve Mathison. Modifications are Categorically
Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15305 of the Guidelines, and therefore,
the public hearing notice was not required to be published in a local newspaper.
MP 10 -02
315 Oxford Drive
July 13, 2010— Page 2
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
This proposal is before the Planning Commission because Section 9251.2.12 of
the Arcadia Municipal Code states that any Modification requests for a rebuild
shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission.
The applicant is proposing to rebuild the existing 2,117 square -foot, single story
residence, and add 1,262 square feet of new floor area and 205 square feet of
covered porches and patios. The existing two -car garage and pool will be
preserved. Because more than 50 percent of the existing walls of the main
dwelling have been removed, repaired, or altered, this project is classified as a
"rebuild" in accordance with the City's rebuild and remodel code. A rebuild is
treated as a new residence and must comply with all current zoning regulations.
Consequently, the proposed project requires four Modifications: Requests "A
through C" will allow the existing walls to remain or be rebuilt in their current
locations and will permit the additions to align with the existing northwesterly wall
and the covered patio to align with the southeasterly wall (originally approved
under MA 10 -01). Approval of request "D" will allow the applicant to retain and
match the existing 36 -inch deep roof eaves for a cohesive appearance with the
existing Ranch -style residence.
According to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9292.1.4, Modifications must be for
at least one of the following three purposes: 1) To secure an appropriate
improvement of a lot, 2) To prevent an unreasonable hardship, or 3) To promote
uniformity of development. Staff finds that the Modification requests are warranted
for the proposed project because the requests will promote uniformity of
development by allowing the northwesterly addition to align with the existing wall
and the project will maintain consistent side and front yard setbacks. As for the
roof eave projection, since the Lower Rancho Homeowners' Association's
Architectural Review Board determined that deep roof eaves are an integral part of
the overall roof design and are typical of the Ranch -style architecture, staff
believes the proposed rebuild will be compatible with the surrounding residences.
Additionally, the property owner is required to comply with the conditions of
approval of Oak Tree Permit No. THE 10 -05 (attached).
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Development Services Department has determined that Modifications are
Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA
Guidelines Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Modification
Application No. MP 10 -02, subject to the following conditions:
MP 10 -02
315 Oxford Drive
July 13, 2010— Page 3
1. The property owner shall comply with the conditions of approval of Oak Tree
Permit No. THE 10 -05.
2. All City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention and detection,
fire suppression, emergency access, parking, water supply and water
facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures shall be
complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public
Works Services Director and Development Services Director.
3. 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.
4. Approval of Modification No. MP 10 -02 shall not take effect until the applicant
and property owner have executed and filed an Acceptance Form available
from the Development Services Department to acknowledge awareness and
acceptance of the conditions of approval, and that all conditions of approval
shall be satisfied prior to final inspection of the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this project, the Commission
should move to approve Modification No. MP 10 -02, subject to the conditions set
forth in this report or as modified by the Commission, and based on a finding that
the Modification will serve at least one of the following purposes:
1. The Modification will secure an appropriate improvement of a lot;
2. The Modification will prevent an unreasonable hardship; or
3. The Modification will promote uniformity of development.
MP 10 -02
315 Oxford Drive
July 13, 2010— Page 4
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this project, the Commission should
make specific findings based on the evidence presented that the requested
Modifications will not serve any of the aforementioned requisite purposes, and
move to deny the project.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or
comments regarding this matter prior to the July 13, 2010 public hearing, please
contact Senior Planner, Lisa Flores by phone at (626) 574 -5445 or by email at
Iflores @ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
sama, Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo and Zoning Map
100 -foot Radius Map
Oak Tree Permit No. THE 10 -05
Plans of the Proposed Project
Photos of the Subject Property (before and after demolition)
MP 10 -02
315 Oxford Drive
July 13, 2010— Page 5
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, June 2010
315 Oxford Drive
MP 10 -02
1
0
1
aro
tlet.
N QUONIttsi fi;
w t el
cO
ow co
0
tc
(341)
(332)
HARV ARD DR
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by.: R.S.Gonzalez, June 2010
(306)
(290)
(283)
City of
Arcadia
Development
Services
Department
Jason Kruckeberg
Assistant City Manager/
Development Services
Director
240 West Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021
(626) 574 -5415
(626) 447 -3309 Fax
www. ci. arcad ia. ca. us
OAK TREE PERMIT NO. THE 10 -05
April 5, 2010
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
Findings:
Spencer and Vivian Liang
315 Oxford Drive
An oak tree encroachment permit for construction of a patio in the
rear yard, on the southeasterly wall of the residence within the drip
zone of a Coast Live Oak tree and within the vicinity of three
additional oak trees.
A certified arborist, Mr. Vance V. Tucker, evaluated the oak trees,
and the proposed construction plans. Mr. Tucker determined that
the encroachment is minimal and will cause no irreparable harm to
the trees as long as the recommended guidelines are followed.
The proposed improvements have been approved by the
Architectural Review Board of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents'
Association.
Action: Approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. A six foot chain link fence shall be installed as shown on
the accompanying site plan prior to any demolition or
construction.
2. All footings for the patio shall be hand dug. Any roots
encountered shall be flush cut to avoid fracturing roots
beyond the construction footprint.
3. The consulting arborist shall be notified 72 hours prior to
footings being dug and shall be on site to observe
excavation and root treatments.
4. There shall be no trenching within the dripline of any oak
tree without written authorization of the City of Arcadia
Planning Department.
5. Pool equipment shall remain as is.
6. There shall be no turfgrass within six feet of any oak
tree's trunk.
7. All irrigation spray shall be a minimum of six feet from
any oak tree's trunk.
APPEAL PERIOD
The applicant may appeal any or all of the conditions of approval within five (5)
working days. An appeal must be submitted in writing to the Development Services
Department with the $540.00 appeal fee by 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 14, 2010. If
an appeal is submitted, this approval is suspended and the applicant must provide a
public hearing notice mailing list and labels for all of the property owners and
occupants within 100 feet of the subject property, and 12 sets of the proposed plans,
photographs, and oak tree documents.
THE 10 -05
315 Oxford Dr.
Page Two
EXPIRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The approval granted by this application shall expire in one year from the effective
date (April 15, 2011) unless an appeal is filed, the proposed project is diligently
pursued and completed, or the approval is renewed. The actual encroachment and
construction must be consistent with the plans approved by this application. Any de-
viation from the submitted plans and conditions of approval shall be subject to review
by the Development Services Department and may require a new application and a
public hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this conditional approval, please contact me at
(626) 574 -5441 or at btone a(�.ci.arcadia.ca.us. Thank you.
Sincerely,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Community Development Division
Billie Tone Kasama
Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Administrator
cc: Vince V. Tucker, Arborist
Steve Mathison, ARB
EXISTING PERIMETER WALL: 276.-11"+92'-4"----369'-3"
EXISTING STUCCO WALL TO REMAIN: 19.-0"4-40'-10"-----59'-10"
59'-107369'-3"=16.2% 50%
EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVE OR MODIFY, 257'-11"+51'-6"=309'-5"
NEW WALL (addition)
DATE
DATE.
0
0
0)
EXISTiNG
BUILDING
204"
EXISTING
BUILDING
BY
BY
iF.
22
0
0
o
EXISTING STUCCO WALL TO REMAIN
0
315 OXFORD DR., ARCADIA, CA 91007
THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. HOMEOWNER UNDERSTANDS AND
AGREES THAT ANY DEVIATION A. THESE APPROVED. PLA,
PRIOR WP:;TTEN AUTHO
REASONABLE GROUNDS FO Or NON COMPLIANT
IMPROVEMENT EXP -NSE.
Y
O{iq�11 ��11
o
{OOZY VO VI•UI
o aaaro sK
NOLLY001 loarcrar
111 M 1
I J I I IJUIJ
Y
7
WOW W VIONAt■
110 ar axO Ng
NOIlr•01 19aroa1J
1
a
1
1
f
t M
S1 P! ;Y h i R ils s tiff t 1 R 3 E i9 j! a 5
ff
j ii i li' l l i 1 1 1111111111111111 IJI 41 rR# flii 1 !;ZI 'Ili IP; i
il 1141;111i I ii 1 ;'ij #11s�,�i11;1113.; i$I
I a 1 1if1E#1Jw h It m4 b d d d fib
2
5
z
Q
0
a
H
z
MI'
wow vvVieleXPV
110 0110.1X0
NOIJ.V701 Oaid
i
1
tr
MIS
Mita
INNS
SIM
del
meow I
NM MI
MI MN
9
y N
O
2
i
iht
3
4
0
J
W
N
Photos of the Subject Property 315 Oxford Drive
(Above) Front Elevation prior to demolition
(Above) Rear Elevation prior to demolition
(Above and Below) Front Elevation Project is now considered a "rebuild"
RESOLUTION NO. 1820
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP
10 -07 TO OPERATE A 2,000 SQUARE -FOOT ART STUDIO WITH A
MAXIMUM OF TEN (10) STUDENTS AT 17 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2010, an application was filed by Mr. Xiao Ming Chen and Mrs.
Yang Chen for a 2,000 square -foot art studio with a maximum of 10 students within a one -story,
commercial office building; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 10 -07, at 15 -17
E. Huntington Drive;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 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 June 22, 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. The art studio will not
involve any changes to the existing landscaping, parking, or exterior of the building. The on -site
parking lot and adjacent public parking lot are adequate in size and shape to accommodate
employee parking and the pick -up and drop -off of students.
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
Huntington Drive and from a rear alleyway, both of which are 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 -07.
5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -07 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 -07, for a 2,000 square -foot art studio with a maximum of 10 students within
an existing commercial building at 15 -17 E. Huntington Drive, 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 Monday Friday, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m. and Saturday Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
2 1820
3. Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -07 includes a Parking Modification to allow 8
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.
4. Student pick -up and drop -off shall occur in the on -site parking lot and /or City
owned parking lot only. Parents shall be required to park their vehicles when picking -up and
dropping -off students, and no queuing of vehicles shall occur in the rear alley. The art studio
shall post and distribute notices to all students, parents, and staff to provide instructions for
where to park, and where to drop -off and pick -up students in accordance with requirements
established by the City. A draft of the notice shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval by the Development Services Director or designee prior to beginning operation of
the art studio.
5. The use approved by CUP 10 -07 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 -07, subject to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Director or designee.
6. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 10-
07 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,
3 1820
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 approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project
and /or land use decision, including but not Iimit‘d 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 -07 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.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this day of 2010.
Chairman, Planning Commission
4 1820
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stephe P. Deitsch, City Attorney
5 1820
RESOLUTION NO. 1821
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
CUP 10 -08 TO AMEND CUP 09 -20 (RESOLUTION 1812) TO EXPAND THE
OPERATING SCHEDULE FOR A TUTORING CENTER AT 222 -224 S.
FIRST AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2010, an application was filed by Ms. Janice Yen to amend
the previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -20 (Resolution 1812) for the
tutoring center at 222 -224 S. First Avenue; Development Services Department Case No.
CUP 10 -08;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22,
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 June 22, 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 tutoring center 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 9275.1.56 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.
The property owners have made all of the necessary improvements needed to operate a
tutoring center at this location, and approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not require
any additional improvements or changes to be made to the site.
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 S. First Avenue, which is adequate in width and pavement type for the demands of the
residences and businesses in the area, including the tutoring center that was approved by
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -20.
5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -08 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. This minor addition /expansion to an educational operation qualifies as a Class
14 Categorical Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section
15314 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 -08 to amend CUP 09 -20 (Resolution 1812) to expand the operating
schedule for the tutoring center at 222 -224 S. First Avenue, subject to the following
conditions:
1. There shall not be more than forty (40) students, and three (3) faculty and
staff members at any time at this tutoring center and the students shall arrive and depart
in accordance with the schedule proposed and approved for CUP 09 -20 and CUP 10 -08.
2. The hours of operation of the tutoring center shall be limited to 12:00 noon
9:30 p.m., Monday Friday, and Saturday Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., except for a
2 1821
nine -week period beginning in June and ending in August when the hours of operation
shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
3. The use approved by CUP 10 -08 is limited to the proposed after school
tutoring center and it shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent
with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 09 -20 and CUP 10 -08,
subject to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or designee.
4. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP
09 -20 and CUP 10 -08 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any
approvals, which could result in the closing of the tutoring center.
5. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy
limits, building safety, emergency equipment, parking and site design, and water supply
and irrigation systems are required to be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building
Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public
Works Services Director.
6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia
and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set
aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia
concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any
approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City
Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code
Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The
City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning
the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of
3 1821
ATTEST:
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.
7. Approval of CUP 10 -08 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.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this day of 2010.
Secretary, Planning Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Atd,_
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
Chairman, Planning Commission
4 1821
The Planning Commission/Business Permit and License Review Board of the City of Arcadia
met in regular session on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the
City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Parrille presiding.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners Board Members Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille
ABSENT: None
OTHERS ATTENDING
PLANNING COMMISSION AND BUSINESS PERMIT AND LICENSE
REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
Development Services Director /Assistant City Manager, Jason Kruckeberg
City Attorney, Steve Dietsch
Police Detective John Bonomo
Lieutenant Paul Foley
Reserve Police Officer, Mike Deleo
Reserve Police Officer, Jack Orswell
Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray
Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama
Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr
Business License Officer, Silva Vergel
Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
None
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS Five minute time limit
per person
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Deitsch briefly explained the function of the Business Permit and License Review Board
relating to the appeals of business license revocations.
Board Member Baerg asked if the appellants are provided with the same information that is
presented to the Board and Ms. Vergel said that the material had been mailed to them last
Thursday.
Board Member Baerg asked if the appellant is required to provide evidence to staff before
presenting it at the meeting. Ms. Verge! said that she had not received anything from the
appellant for presentation to the Board.
Chairman Parrille asked if there are guidelines for the imposition of fines or penalties. Ms.
Verge! explained that there are no fines imposed in revocation cases.
Before proceeding to the Business Permit and License Review Board hearings, Chairman
Parrille introduced Mr. Ching Chiao, the new Planning Commissioner. Mr. Chiao will
officially join the Commission /Board at the next meeting.
BUSINESS PERMIT AND LICENSE REVIEW BOARD ITEMS
1. !FITNESS BEAUTY SPA
133 E. Huntington Drive
Qiang Zhao, owner /operator
This is an appeal of a business license revocation for non compliance with the City of
Arcadia Massage Therapist and Business License regulations by !fitness Beauty Spa.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny appeal and uphold revocation
Business License Officer, Silva Vergel, presented the staff report.
Arcadia Police Detective John Bonomo reviewed the series of violations and noted that the
same types of violations were identified repeatedly at each inspection over a 13 month
period.
The Hearing was opened.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this appeal.
Mr. and Mrs. Zhao, the owners of the business, were represented by an interpreter. The
interpreter said that $fitness is a full service health spa for men and women providing
saunas, waxing, exfoliating rooms, etc. He pointed out that the business is tastefully
decorated. The interpreter said that Mr. and Mrs. Zhao speak only rudimentary English and
therefore, they were not able to understand the citations they received from staff.
However, he said that all the violations were minor and did not involve health code violations
or illegal activity. The interpreter said that if the revocation is upheld, the family will face
financial ruin and a legitimate family -owned business will be shut down.
Board Member Baderian asked the interpreter how long he had been associated with the
business and with the family. He replied that he was hired as a translator within the last
month. Board Member Baderian asked if anyone was helping Mr. and Mrs. Zhao to
understand the notices they received from the City and how did Mr. and Mrs. Zhao
communicate with staff in response to these violations.
The interpreter said that staff should have known that Mr. and Mrs. Zhao did not speak
fluent English. He also said that when they received a notice, since they didn't understand
it, they felt it was easier to just pay the fine than to try to understand what was being asked
of them.
PC MINUTES
6 -22 -10
Page 2
Board Member Baderian asked once more if there was no one available to help them
understand the citations. The interpreter said again, there was no one who could help them.
Board Member Baderian asked what percentage of the business is comprised of massage
services. The interpreter said only two small rooms are used for massage and he would
estimate that to be about 20% of the business. Board Member Baderian asked if there was
documentation to support this and the interpreter said that records show the business
derives most of its income from facials. He said that these records were supplied to the city
upon request.
Board Member Beranek noted that although massage services are supposed to be
incidental to the business, an inspection indicated that massage services made up about
half of the business and, in fact, only massage customers were encountered. Ms. Vergel
reported that during an inspection of the business, she observed three massage customers
and no other customers. Board Member Beranek asked the interpreter for an explanation.
The interpreter said that the inspection Ms. Vergel referred to was conducted around 11:00
am and most of the customers for services other than massage, arrive later in the day. He
also pointed out that the spa has not been very busy.
Board Member Beranek noted that the appellants had 13 months during which their
business was inspected several times and they were fined a number of times. He asked
why they could not find someone to translate for them or to help them understand the
issues.
Board Member Beranek asked, if the business is mainly a health operation, why were
provocative ads for massage services at this location found on the Internet.
The applicants' daughter said that her parents do not use computers so they advertise
mostly in the newspaper. She said she has no knowledge of Internet ads for the business.
Board Member Baderian noted that the daughter said she had been working with the family
to correct the violations and that she has been associated with the business since its
inception. He asked her if she contacted the City when the citations were first received and
she explained that she was only responsible for designing the forms they were using in the
business and that she was not aware that she could contact staff for assistance.
Board Member Baderian said that citations were issued for two employees who were
providing massage services without approved credentials and he asked for an explanation.
The interpreter said that when these employees were hired, the applicants took them to City
Hall to verify their licenses and that they did not understand that they had to wait for the
licenses to be issued before the employees could start work. They thought the visit to City
Hall was sufficient.
Board Member Baderian asked if he correctly understood that staff did not inform the
applicants that they had to wait until the licenses were received before the employees could
begin providing massage services. The interpreter said the applicants paid for their licenses
in February and didn't receive them until May. They did not understand the lengthy delay
and thought they were qualified to work.
PC MINUTES
6 -22 -10
Page 3
Board Member Baderian asked if the applicants or the prospective employees checked with
the City to see if they were eligible to begin working.
The interpreter said that Ms. Ma called the Business License Officer at least ten times and
also visited City Hall several times.
Board Member Baderian asked again if staff informed Ms. Ma that they had to wait to
receive the proper licenses and the interpreter replied that they were aware that they
needed to wait for the actual licenses. Board Member Baderian repeated, "They were
aware."
The interpreter said that they thought their beautician licenses satisfied all requirements.
Board Member Baderian asked again if staff informed the applicants that without the proper
license they could not offer massage services. The interpreter replied that staff did not give
the applicants a time frame. Board Member Baderian again confirmed that the applicants
were aware that they needed the licenses to provide massage services.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the appeal.
There were none.
Board Member Baderian said that there does not appear to be enough evidence to overtum
the Business License revocation. He pointed out that the applicants had 13 months to
correct the violations and that they were aware that they were conducting business without
the required licenses.
MOTION:
It was moved by Board Member Baderian, seconded by Board Member Hsu to deny the
appeal and uphold the Business License revocation for (fitness Beauty Spa.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille
NOES: None
There is a ten (10) day appeal period after the appellant receives notice of the
approval/denial of the appeal.
2. YUHONG CLINIC OF ORIENTAL MEDICINE
638 W. Duarte Rd., #C
Hong Yu, acupuncturist
This is an appeal of a business license revocation for non compliance with the City of
Arcadia Massage Therapist and Business License regulations by Yuhong Clinic of Oriental
Medicine.
RECOMMENDATION: Deny appeal and uphold revocation
PC MINUTES
6 -22 -10
Page 4
Business License Officer, Silva Vergel, presented the staff report.
Board Member Beranek noted that even though there were several inspections of this
business, staff never observed the presence of an acupuncturist, only masseuses. Ms.
Vergel confirmed this fact.
Detective Bonomo pointed out that the doctor's license is issued for an address in the City of
Oxnard so he probably does most of his work in that city and cannot be present at the
Arcadia location full time.
Board Member Beranek asked how staff found the Internet ads for this business. Detective
Bonomo said that web sites where massage patrons describe their experiences are
frequently reviewed by the Police Department and several people wrote openly on the
website about massage services at this location.
Chairman Pamile asked if the two women observed at the location were acupuncturists and
Detective Bonomo stated that they were not.
The Hearing was opened.
Chairman PerriIle asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Dr. Yu, the business owner, said that he had employed a business manager at this location
and he was not aware of the violations until May of this year. He asked the Board to let him
correct the violations.
Board Member Baderian asked Qr. Yu if he contacted staff to request an explanation after
receiving the initial citation in November of 2009.
Dr. Yu explained that he had arranged for the services of a translator but the translator
called him only a few minutes before the meeting and said he would not be able to attend.
Board Member Baderian asked Dr. Yu if he understood the question and Dr. Yu said he
understood most of it. Board Member Baderian asked again if Dr. Yu had contacted the city
for an explanation after receiving the first citation.
Board Member Baderian asked Dr. Yu if the original business license application was for
acupuncture and Dr. Yu said that it was, but there wasn't much business. Board Member
Baderian asked if massage services were also offered. Dr. Yu said that staff never told him
that massage was prohibited but that he told his office manager not to offer massage
services.
Board Member Baderian asked if the office is open daily and if he is there every day. Dr.
Yu confirmed that the office is open on a daily basis but he is only there on weekends and
occasionally on Monday, although he is never there for the entire day.
Board Member Baderian asked Dr. Yu if the office is open when he is not present and Dr.
Yu said it is. Dr. Yu explained that he asked the office manager to make appointments for
clients when he is not present.
PC MINUTES
6 -22 -10
Page 5
Board Member Baderian asked if other services are offered when Dr. Yu is not in the office
and Dr. Yu said they are.
Dr. Yu said that he wants to close the business, but he was concerned because he was told
by staff that he would not be able to work in Arcadia for five years.
Board Member Baderian asked staff how the length of time that the appellant would be
prohibited from conducting business in Arcadia is determined. Ms. Vergel explained that the
time frame is set in the Municipal Code. It begins with a one year ban.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the appeal.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Board Member Beranek, seconded by Board Member Baderian to deny the
appeal of the Business License revocation for Yuhong Clinic of Oriental Medicine.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille
NOES: None
There is a ten (10) day appeal period after the appellant receives notice of the denial
of the appeal.
Mr. Deitsch explained the types of fines that apply to administrative citations per the
Municipal Code.
Board Member Baderian asked Mr. Deitsch if the appellant is responsible to provide their
own interpreter. Mr. Deitsch said that he will confer with staff on this and will also discuss
how to handle these situations in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
Since Commissioner Beranek's business is within 300 feet of the site in Item 1, he excused
himself from the proceedings on that item..
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -07
17 E. Huntington Drive
Xiao Ming Chen Yang Chen
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate an art studio with a
maximum of ten (10) students at any one time.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
Assistant Planner Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
PC MINUTES
6 -22 -10
Page 6
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
Mr. and Mrs. Chen, the applicants, said they have been renting a studio for almost five years
and are now relocating to this site. They said the site is ideal for their business which
consists of offering private tutoring for art students and also a private studio for Mr. Chen's
personal use in his business as a professional artist. They plan to conduct two classes
concurrently with no more than ten students so they do not anticipate any parking
deficiencies. They stated that they are aware that the City requires notice to parents
regarding plans for drop -off and pick -up of students and they plan to submit this notice to
staff for approval once it has been prepared. They offered to answer questions from the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Baderian asked the applicants if they had read the conditions of approval and
would comply with all of them. They agreed to comply.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to close the
Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to approve
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -07, subject to the conditions in the staff report.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Hsu and Parrille
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Beranek
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.
Commissioner Beranek rejoined the meeting.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -08
222 -224 S. First Avenue
Steps Academy, Inc.
An Amendment to CUP 09 -20 (Resolution 1812) which permitted a 40 student tutoring
center with operating hours of Monday Saturday, 12:00 noon to 7:00 p.m. The
amendment would permit the following changes:
a. Expanded operating hours of Monday Friday, 12:00 noon to 9:30 p.m., and Saturday
PC MINUTES
6-22-10
Page 7
and Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and
b. Summer operating hours of Monday Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., for a 9 -week
period beginning in June and ending in August.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
Assistant Planner Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
Ms. Janice Yen, Steps Academy, said that when they applied for a Conditional Use Permit in
January, she did not take the summer schedule into consideration and only applied for the
regular school year. This application will provide for the summer schedule.
Chairman Parrille asked if the applicant had read the conditions of approval and would
comply with all of them, and Ms. Yen confirmed her intention to comply with all conditions.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to close the
Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -08 subject to the conditions in the staff report.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille
NOES: None
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. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 07 -21
630 E. Live Oak Ave.
Church in Arcadia
John Peruzzi, Architect
A revised architectural design for a new church/meeting hall.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve revised architectural concept plans
PC MINUTES
6 -22 -10
Page 8
Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama, presented the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
Mr. John Perruzzi, the architect for the project said that the original design was modified to
make it more appealing and he offered to answer questions for the Commissioners.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to close the
Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to approve
Architectural Design Review No. ADR 07 -21 subject to the conditions in the staff report.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and ParriIle
NOES: None
There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the approval of the application.
CONSENT ITEMS
8. MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2010
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to approve the
minutes of June 8, 2010 as presented. Without objection the motion was approved.
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioner Baderian said that on behalf of the Commission, he wanted to express
appreciation to Commissioner Hsu for eight years of dedicated service to the Commission and
to the City of Arcadia.
Commissioner Hsu thanked staff and all the city employees who supported the Commission and
said that he felt privileged to serve on a Commission of outstanding individuals who always had
the best interests of the community at heart and who had made a positive difference in the city.
PC MINUTES
6 -22 -10
Page 9
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS
Chairman Parrille reported that a Parking Modification and Design Review were approved
for 515 S. First Avenue at the Modification Committee meeting this morning.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
Mr. Kasama noted that the July 13 meeting will include reorganization of the Planning
Commission and that the new Commissioner will be taking his seat for the first time at that
meeting.
ADJOURNED
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
8:40 p.m.
Chairman, Planning Commission
PC MINUTES
6 -22 -10
Page 10