The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-23-10PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 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 ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, November 23, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 1. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 10 -07 1342 Oakwood Drive Tom Crosby (on behalf of property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Dong Chang) This is an appeal to reconsider the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board decision to deny the architectural style of a new front porch addition. RECOMMENDATION: Deny Appeal There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the approval/denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December2, 2010. 2. APPEAL OF OAK TREE PERMITS TRH 10 -01 AND THE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive Sharon Kwan (representative of the property owner, Roland Hwang) This is an appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of the following Oak Tree Permits: 1. Legalize the removal of an Englemann Oak Tree that was located in the front yard area of the subject property; and, 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 11 -23-10 2. Legalize the non permitted encroachment by the trenching for a block wall within the dripline of two (2) Coast Live Oak Trees that are located in the rear yard of the adjacent property at 280 Hacienda Drive. RECOMMENDATION: Deny Appeal There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the approval/denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 2, 2010. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 16 233 E. Huntington Drive The Derby Restaurant The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the interim use of a tent as a temporary patio cover for an outdoor dining area. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval RESOLUTION NO. 1825 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -16 to allow the interim use of a tent as a temporary patio cover for an outdoor dining area at 233 E. Huntington Drive. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December2, 2010. CONSENT ITEM 4. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: Approve MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA MATTERS FROM STAFF UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the 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 11 -23-10 8. The Commission closes the public hearing. 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 Hearina 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) 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, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574 -5423. PC AGENDA 11 -23-10 November 23, 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 -07 of a denial of a new front entry porch to the existing residence at 1342 Oakwood Drive. SUMMARY This is an appeal by Mr. Tom Crosby, President and Contractor from Crosby Design Construction on behalf of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Dong Chang of the denial by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the Highlands Homeowners' Association (HOA) of a new 113 square foot, front entry porch addition to the existing 4,660 square foot, one -story residence at 1342 Oakwood Drive. The Development Services Department is recommending that the Planning Commission deny Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 10 -07. BACKGROUND STAFF REPORT Development Services Department The subject property is a corner lot and was improved with a one -story, single family residence and attached two -car garage in 1963. On October 20, 2010, the Highlands ARB denied the homeowner's application for a 113 square foot porch addition to the front of the existing residence see attached plans. The ARB Findings report (attached) indicates that the Committee felt the design of the front entry porch is massive, and the architectural design and proposed copper roof is inappropriate and not architecturally compatible or in harmony with the design of the existing home or any other homes in the area. The ARB suggested that the property owner meet with them to work out a design that might be acceptable, but the property owner decided to appeal the ARB's decision. On November 2, 2010, Mr. Tom Crosby filed the attached appeal. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on November 9, 2010 to the owners of those properties within 100 feet of the subject property and to the Highlands HOA President, Mr. Phil Consiglio, and the ARB Chairman, Mr. Ralph Bicker. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an addition to an existing residence is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, it is not required that the public hearing notice be published in a local newspaper. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB denial of the architectural design on the front entry porch. As stated in the attached appeal letter, the property owners' contractor believes that the proposed front entry porch will become an appropriate addition to the house since it will provide shading and protect the front entry doors from being severely damaged by the sun and rain. Additionally, the arched roof will help reduce the mass of the existing tower that is currently the predominant feature of the front elevation (see attached photos) and careful consideration was also given to the mass of the new front entry porch by transitioning the brick pillar to a wood post and beam to lessen the perceived mass of the structure. In regards to the metal copper roof, the appellant states in the attached appeal that the material was selected because it fits better on a curved arch roof and the copper will weather to a brown hue that will blend with the existing mission clay tile roof. The appellant also cites the addresses of a few homes in the Highlands that have metal or copper roofs. Highlands HOA Regulations The Highlands HOA regulations are established in City Council Resolution No. 5289 (attached) for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. The design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness. The applicable conditions are listed in Section 3 of Resolution No. 5289. And, in Section 3.17, the Resolution sets forth that any body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision shall be guided by the following principles: Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance). Appeal No. HOA 10 -07 1342 Oakwood Drive November 23, 2010 page 2 Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance). A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the amenities and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance). A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Front Yards). Single- Family Design Guidelines Front entries often serve as the primary focal point of a residence and should be carefully designed. The City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines state the following for entries: 1) The height of an entry porch should be in scale with the height and design of the building. 2) Front entry doors and decorative elements such as roofs, moldings, columns, posts, lighting, benches, and planters should be architecturally compatible with the style of the house. 3) Recessed depth of entry alcoves and projecting depth of entry roofs should be large enough, relative to the house, to provide the appearance of shelter. 4) Entry roofs should follow the same pitch as the adjacent roofs. Flat roofs porches are generally discouraged. 5) There should be no vertical or architectural elements located above the entry that emphasizes the scale and massing of the structure. The Highlands ARB believes the proposed front entry porch is not compatible in mass, scale, or architecture with the surrounding residences in the neighborhood. Staff agrees with the decision made by the Highlands ARB that the proposed front entry porch addition will have an adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property and to the neighborhood. Additionally, staff believes the proposed project does not meet the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines because the proposed porch emphasizes the mass of the existing tower feature; is not in scale with the rest of the residence; and does not follow the same pitch as the adjacent roof areas. Appeal No. HOA 10 -07 1342 Oakwood Drive November 23, 2010 page 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 10 -07. 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 -07 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- 07 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 November 23, 2010 public hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Lisa Flores at (626) 574 -5445 or at Iflores(a.ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Ji r asama ommunity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial PhotoNicinity Map Proposed Plans Photos of Subject Property ARB Findings and Action Appeal Letter 100 -foot Radius Map City Council Resolution No. 5289 Appeal No. HOA 10 -07 1342 Oakwood Drive November 23, 2010 page 4 E. Orange Je Grove 1342 Oakwood Drive HOA 10 -07 a I 0 3 l'114"0 U V •—P teirw ter u SwT, ittry thesor w (.0 2 N ...t 0 ..r ti e° 1 19 r h 7rtrrit 7 7b7,77771 rUrrrr,r9 2 {4 LI L (9 4. 2 .Ls 14d 211z.g j rn..c) :rt./ DJ- v I IT .2 I •Rtc,.. 5 '■•rti 7 t- Photos (Subject Residence —1342 Oakwood Drive (Existing Front Entry —1342 Oakwood Drive (Residence Next Door at 1328 Oakwood Drive (Residence across the street from the subject site at 1343 Oakwood Drive) File 2,010 443 PrePeity Address 342 Oakwood Drive Properly Owner Y C,haog Stibmissiomi Date 10 -20-10 The ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND AREA PLANNING COMWIITBE of the HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., acting in accordance with CITY of ARCADIA Ordinance #1479, met at 101 White Oak Dave on 10 -23-10 and do hereby Ingigem, the working Drawings and specifications identified by the above file number and dated. The COMMITTEE based its dec isions an the pis and other information wed by the applicant, whose ibility it is to provide the Committee with an aocsaatematerial in all respects. The reasons fir the Committees diiapproval action are shown below. lllghlands Homeowners Association Inc. Architec tural Review and Area Planning Committee r. •:.I,: 1 r.11ll/r 1 e1 t_ e_I�r:irl il._ !'i 1 1.1'f :r; _L: I r; 0,11.11,: I1 •k1 +'Iil 1^i l I Il 1 11•: Y 1...7 11 ul -1 r1 ir 17( i 1 1 0 I' I S i`_'l S!_ 4411r III.. 1 11 I i L _I�' r l 1 •f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I a. 111 I .lii 1 redileioot The design. as 1 1 1 1 iM 1 1- 1 1 r I_1_ 1 1 1 1, 1. I I 11 I 111r 1 ;jilt 41 'J t i I 1 1 1 1 1) i l i i l ,4 I -1 I 7 t _!14. 1 I. 1- I: II II. 1!1 !Is_i_! _1- t;L! t I tt 111' -1' 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1_ I do tbs. He said hp would pear a denial so &t he could commrrrEE members alt �IJC/ tire' ;y C:OMMIt 1Lt; DISAPPROVAL CROSBY DESIGN 86 CONSTRUCTION, INC. 601 South Old Ranch Road Arcadia, CA 91007 626- 447 -4944 St. Lic. 648403 NOTICE OF APPEAL File 2010 -043 Highland Oaks HOA 1342 Oakwood Drive Dong Betty Chang 2 No I toured the Highland Oaks HOA and found several homes with metal roofs (53 Wilson 86 1251 Oakwood) and copper roofs (1203 Highland Oaks). I also found an arched entry roof at 1286 Oakglen. /aP fi►P,uA c- �u c RECEIVED NOV 0 2 2010 Planning Services City of Arcadia Currently, the home has an eight sided tower approxi with 8' high double doors and sidelights. At the top of the tower are four 2'x2' windows that do not match rest of the home's windows. The goal of the proposed porch addition is twofold. First, to provide shading and protection from the weather for the entry. The existing front doors are severely damaged from sun and rain and will have to be replaced. Second, the mass of the existing tower needs to be minimized. The arched roof draws the eye down to the existing fascia on each side. Replacing the 8' entry doors with 7' doors and the arched window above also serves to minimize the tower. The choice of the metal roof is dictated by the curved arch (the other alternative would be single membrane asphalt). Copper will weather to a brown hue which blends with the existing mission clay tile roof. Two pillars of used brick tie the entry to the existing fireplace chimney. And rather than increase the mass by extending the pillars to the new roof, we felt wood posts supporting a wood beam for the upper third of the support would further lessen the perceived mass. Of the eight contiguous properties, seven of the owners approved the proposed change. All of them indicated that the proposal would significantly improve the look of the house. The one homeowner that did not sign is 96 and suffers from Alzheimer and could not be contacted. I ask that the Planning Commission consider overturning the Highland Oaks HOA ARB decision. Thank you, Thomas W. Crosby President Water Meter Location Bridges Fire Hydrants Water Valve Street Centerlines Buffer 1 i parcels lcondo h parcel Features City Boundary 0 1 —1 1 200 0 SCALE 1 3,855 200 FEET ("b42- ca4trodi Prix- 400 600 http: /arcadiagis /maps /water.mwf Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:13 AM RESOLUTION NO. 5289 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE HIGHLAND OAKS "D" ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 4335, and adopts the following Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 1479, for the property described in Exhibit "A attached hereto, to implement the regulations applicable to the real property within the Highland Home Owners Association "D" Architectural Design Zone area, the Architectural Review and Area Planning Committee is established and is hereinafter referred to as the "Committee SECTION 2. In order to promote and maintain the quality single family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments, in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4, there is hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said association may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 3. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within said area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of said property, the following conditions are hereby imposed upon all property in said area pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those in control of property within said area, are subject to this Resolution and Ordinance No. 1832: 1. FLOOR AREA. No one family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,600 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height, or 1,200 square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half or two stories in height. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls. If necessary to properly consider any application, the Committee may require specific plans, working drawings, specifications, color charts and material samples. The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building which does not substantially change the external appearance of the building. 10. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE. The Committee shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in said area. b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the Committee. c. Said by -laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the Committee. d. Owners have been appointed to the Committee in accordance with the by- laws. e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto have been filed with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. f. The Committee shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, action, and decision of the Committee shall be maintained by the Committee. Any decision by the Committee shall be accompanied by specific findings setting forth the reasons for the Committee's decision. Any decision by the Committee shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Committee, and such decision shall be rendered by the Committee members who considered the application. A copy of the Committee's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3) working days of the Committee's decision. h. All meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). 11. POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE. The Committee shall have the power to: a. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard pursuant to Condition 2 of Section 3. b. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible in accordance with the above Conditions 7 8 of Section 3. 3 5289 b. The Regular Review Process must be used for the review of applications to those Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3, which the Committee has determined are not appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above. c. The Committee is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process Application. d. Notice of the Committee's meeting shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the applicant and to all property owners within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. The applicant shall also provide the Committee with the last known name and address, of such owners as shown upon the assessment rolls of the City or of the County. The application shall also provide the Committee with letter size envelopes, which are addressed to the property owners who are to receive said notice. The applicant shall provide the proper postage on each of said envelopes. e. Any decision by the Committee shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Committee, and such decision shall be rendered by the Committee members who considered the application. f. The Committee shall render it's decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date such request is filed with the Committee; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. 14. EXPIRATION OF COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Committee, has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. 15. LIMIT ON COMMITTEE'S POWERS. The Committee shall not have the power to waive any regulations in the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the property in said area. The Committee may, however, make a recommendation to the City agency, which will be considering any such waiver request, regarding waiving such regulations. 16. APPEAL. Appeals from the Committee shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within seven (7) working days of the Committee's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. 5 5289 environment of the community, affecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which pre- existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 1st day of April, 1986. ATTEST: /s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia /s/ DONALD PELLEGRINO Mayor of the City of Arcadia 7 5289 November 23, 2010 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Arcadia Planning Commission Development Services Department Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner An appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of Oak Tree Applications TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20 at 276 Hacienda Drive SUMMARY This is an appeal by the applicant, Ms. Sharon Kwan, of a denial by the Modification Committee of two (2) Oak Tree Applications. The Committee denied the requests based on a finding that the removal of one oak tree and the encroachment upon two other oak trees was done without any review or approval as required. The Committee determined that the removal and encroachments should not be allowed or legitimized, and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. The Development Services Department is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's decision. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ms. Sharon Kwan representing the property owner LOCATION: 276 Hacienda Drive REQUEST: An appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of the following Oak tree permits: 1. Legalize the removal of an Engelmann Oak tree that was located in the front yard area of the subject property; and, 2. Legalize the non permitted encroachment by the trenching for a block wall within the dripline of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that are located in the rear yard of the adjacent property at 280 Hacienda Drive. SITE AREA: 30,000 square feet (0.69 of an acre) FRONTAGE: 100 feet along Hacienda Drive EXISTING LAND USE ZONING: The subject property is zoned R -0, and is developed with a 4,482 square foot, two -story, single family residence constructed in 1937. SURROUNDING LAND USES ZONING: The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences, and are zoned R -0. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single- Family Residential with a density of 0 -2 dwelling units per acre PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on November 12, 2010 to the owners of those properties within 100 feet of the subject property and to the Santa Anita Oaks HOA President, Ms. Mary Dougherty, and the ARB Chairman, Mr. Vince Vargas. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) oak tree permits are Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15304 of the Guidelines as Minor Alterations to Land, and therefore, the public hearing notice was not published in a local newspaper. BACKGROUND Oak trees are protected in the City of Arcadia under Code Sections 9700 et sec. (attached). The applicant is seeking to legalize the non permitted removal of an Engelmann Oak tree that was located in the front yard area and the non permitted encroachment by a block wall trench within the driplines of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that are located in the rear yard of 280 Hacienda Drive, which is the adjacent property to the west of the subject site. In April 2010, the applicant removed a 26 diameter Engelmann Oak tree based on findings by Mr. Vance Tucker of Tucker's Tree Works. After being informed that an Oak Tree Permit is required for the removal of an Engelmann oak tree with a trunk diameter of over four inches, the property owner, Ms. Jenny Hwang submitted application no. TRD 10 -07 to request approval of the removal. This application was initially approved based on Mr. Tucker's report (attached) which recommended prompt removal. This approval, however, was rescinded when it was learned that Mr. Tucker's certification had lapsed. Subsequently, a new arborist report was prepared by certified arborist, Mr. Craig Crotty (attached) for seven (7) oak trees either located on or overhanging the subject property, including the removed tree. This report is the basis for Oak Tree Permit Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive November 23, 2010 page 2 applications TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20. Mr. Crotty's report indicates that the very thin crown on the Engelmann oak tree, as it appears in a photograph, most likely supports Mr. Tucker's assertion of disease of the removed tree. Oak trees no. 5 and 6 on the report are the two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that have been encroached upon with the non permitted trenching for a block wall. The report indicates that the roots of tree no. 5 were cut too close to the trunk, and if the tree is to remain, it is recommended that a structural support system be provided for the leaning tree as there is now risk of structural failure. Tree no. 6 was also damaged by the excavation; however, the tree does not appear to be destabilized by the wounds and remains in fair condition. Mr. Crotty recommended replacement of the soil and keeping the area at the base of the tree dry. Due to the damage, the applicant stated that the block wall will not be built and the soil will be replaced. Staff consulted with Mr. Crotty and was advised that a 36" -box Engelmann Oak tree would be a fair replacement for the removed tree. The Santa Anita Oaks HOA also provided information about a Magnolia tree that was removed. Attached are a letter from the adjacent neighbor at 280 Hacienda Drive, Mr. Jim Krause, and a photo from the HOA, which was identified by a consultant from the Arboretum as a Magnolia tree. Removal of live Magnolia trees with trunk diameters of over six inches requires HOA approval. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE FINDINGS The applicant was not present at the hearing. The Committee stated that without knowing what the property owner intends to do with the property, it would be more difficult to determine the course of action. The adjacent neighbor at 280 Hacienda Drive, Mr. Jim Krause, was present and stated that oak tree no. 5 is the focal point of his backyard, and the subject trenching has likely jeopardized the structural integrity and the health of the tree, as indicated in the arborist report. He is concerned that the tree may not survive even after structural reinforcement, but replacement is not satisfactory because a mature tree of this size cannot be purchased. The President of the Santa Anita Oaks HOA, Ms. Mary Dougherty also spoke and submitted the attached report, which includes a list of requested actions, a recommended course of action, and photos of the property; both as is appeared before being sold, and as it currently appears. Besides the oak tree removal and encroachments, the HOA is concerned about the appearance of the property because of the drastic removal of the landscaping in general. The Committee felt that this type of non permitted activity should not be allowed or legitimized, and referred this matter to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. The neighbor across the street from the subject site, Mrs. Holmes expressed concern that if this case enters the penalty phase, it may delay the permitting process and the front yard will remain unimproved. Mr. Charles Duffy, a member of the Santa Anita Oaks HOA Board commented that the City should allow the HOA to review the proposed improvements of the subject property. The Committee assured the neighbors that any penalties and action would be handled concurrently with any Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive November 23, 2010 page 3 permitting process for the subject site. The Committee denied the applicant's oak tree permits and referred the matter with the HOA's recommendations to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. APPEAL The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Modification Committee's denial of the oak tree applications. The attached appeal letter states that the applicant was not able to attend the Modification Committee hearing because she did not receive notice of the hearing in time. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's decision on TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20. If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and the oak tree applications, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. A 36" -box Engelmann Oak tree shall be planted on the subject property; location subject to the approval of a certified arborist and the Community Development Administrator. 2. Depending on Mr. Krause's preference, the applicant shall install a structural support system for tree no. 5, or remove and replace this tree in accordance with a certified arborist's recommendations, or install a structural support system for tree no. 5 and plant a 24" -box oak tree on Mr. Krause's property in accordance with a certified arborist's recommendations. 3. The applicant shall replace the soil from the trench excavation, and shall maintain the area on the subject property at the base of tree no. 6 in accordance with a certified arborist's recommendations. 4. 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. Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive November 23, 2010 page 4 5. Approval of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to acknowledge awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the Modification Committee's denial, the Commission should move to approve Oak Tree Applications TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20, subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report, or as modified by the Planning Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's decision, the Commission should move to deny the appeal, based on the evidence presented and affirm the Modification Committee's decision. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the November 23, 2010 public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447 or at tli p(�ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Jim sama Community Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo and Vicinity Map Appeal Letter Modification Committee Findings Arborist Report by Mr. Tucker Arborist Report by Mr. Crotty Photos of the Subject Property Letter from Mr. Krause Photo of Magnolia Tree Stump HOA Report, Recommendations and Photos Radius Map Oak Tree Preservation Regulations Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive November 23, 2010 page 5 276 Hacienda Drive TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20 Sharon Kwan 276 Hacienda Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 November 1, 2010 Lisa Flores Senior Planner City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Dear Ms. Flores: I sincerely apologize for missing the hearing meeting held on October 26, 2010, I was not aware of the meeting till I received the letter dated October 29,2010. Roland Hwang currently doesn't reside on the property and therefore, does not routinely collect his mail in a timely manner. We are changing this practice and I will be picking it up personally until he moves in, for we do not want to miss another important notice as we've missed this hearing. We are writing to appeal for this application and enclosed is $540.00 for this process. Please feel free to contact me at 626 807 -6311 and thank you for your time in this matter and we sincerely do want to work with the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association to remedy this situation. Sharon Kwan RECEIVED NOV 0 1 2010 Planning Services City of Arcadia FINDINGS ARCADIA MODIFICATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 7:45 a.m. Arcadia City Council Chambers Conference Room PUBLIC HEARING TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20 Address: 276 Hacienda Drive Applicant: Sharon Kwan (Representative of the Property Owner, Roland Hwang) Request: The applicant is requesting oak tree permits for the following (AMC Sec. 9703): 1. Legalize the removal of an Englemann Oak tree that was located in the front yard area of the subject property; and, 2. Legalize the non permitted trenching for the block wall footings that encroach within the dripline of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that are located in the rear yard of the adjacent property at 280 Hacienda Drive. BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking to legalize the non permitted removal of an Englemann Oak tree that was located in the front yard area and a non permitted block wall trench that encroaches into the dripline of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that are located in the rear yard of the adjacent property to the west of the subject site. In April 2010, the applicant removed a 26 diameter Englemann Oak tree under the direction of Mr. Vance Tucker of Tucker's Tree Works, whose arborist certification had expired. In the report, Mr. Tucker indicated that the subject tree was infected by parasites that had killed 80% of the trunk. He recommended prompt removal of the tree as it would not survive, and was in danger of falling. Subsequently, a new arborist report was prepared by certified arborist Mr. Craig Crotty for the seven (7) oak trees that were either located on or overhang the subject property, including the observation of a photo of the removed tree. Mr. Crotty indicated that the very thin crown on the tree most likely supports the assertion of disease of the removed tree. Oak trees no. 5 and 6 on the report are the two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that the applicant encroached upon with the non permitted trenching for a block wall. The report indicates that the roots of tree no. 5 were cut too close to the trunk. If the tree is to remain, the arborist recommends providing a structural support system beneath the leaning trunk. However, removal and replacement would remove the risk of structural failure. Tree no. 6 was also damaged by the excavation; however, the tree does not appear to be destabilized by the wounds and remains in fair condition. Mr. Crotty recommends replacement of soil, and keeping the area at the base of the tree dry. Due to the unintended damages already caused, the applicant will not construct the block wall, and will replace the excavated soil. Staff consulted with Mr. Crotty and was advised that a 36" -box Engelmann Oak tree would be a fair replacement for the removed tree. The Santa Anita Oaks Association is also concerned about a Magnolia tree that was removed, and a letter from the adjacent neighbor at 280 Hacienda Drive, Mr. Jim Krause, states that there was a Magnolia tree in the rear yard area of the subject property. This tree species is protected under the HOA guidelines. FINDINGS The applicant was not present at the hearing. The Committee stated that without knowing what the property owner intends to do with the property, it would be more difficult to determine the course of action. The adjacent neighbor at 280 Hacienda Drive, Mr. Jim Krause, was present and stated that oak tree no. 5 is the focal point of his backyard, and the subject trenching has likely jeopardized the structural integrity and the health of the tree, as indicated in the arborist report. In response to staff's recommendations, he is concerned that the tree may not survive even after structural reinforcements, and the alternative to replace the tree is not a good recommendation since a mature tree of this size cannot be purchased. The President of the Santa Anita Oaks Association, Ms. Mary Dougherty, also spoke and submitted a list of recommended course of action the City should take: remand the case back to the association for approval, including a full landscape plan to be submitted and approved by the association, and to require fair replacement of the removed trees at the ratio of 2 to 1. The Committee felt that this type of non permitted activity should not be allowed or legitimized, and, instead of remanding it to the Association, it should be referred to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. The neighbor across the street from the subject site, Mrs. Holmes, was concerned that if this case enters the penalty phase, it may delay the permitting process and the front yard will remain unimproved. Mr. Charles Duffy, a member of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association board, also commented that the City should not reject the Association review of the subject property. The Committee assured that any penalties and action would be handled concurrently with any permitting process for the subject site; the City will not delay the issuance of permits because of these violations. Furthermore, any proposal for the subject site would still require Homeowners Association approval. Therefore, the Committee denied the applicant's oak tree permits, and referred the item with the Association's recommendation to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. ACTION Denied and referred along with the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association's recommendations to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. APPEAL PERIOD There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. An appeal must in writing to the Community Development Division with the $540.00 appeal fee by Tuesday, November 2, 2010. If there are any questions, please call Thomas Li, Associate Planner, at (626) (626) 574 -5423 or by e-mail at tlk ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Lisa Flores, -nior Planner PLANNING COMMISSIONER PRESENT: COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE: be submitted 5:30 p.m. on 574 -5447 or Parille Penman, Kruckeberg Li TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20 October 26, 2010 Page 2 0, TUCKER'S TREE WORKS 19311 Crossdale Avenue Cerritos, CA 90703 TO (562) 865-0123 CiZen 2.S"‘■)\QQ 1671e, `"i 'L.• 7 al\ ej\/ C-1A Z11-"DX\l\ CP on DA 41 \XS) Cs(' e_v, ec(pct. \\Ds \ixe D C1/4 krcr■■\\ ail\ A 1k, r a0 0 <;1 9 \SIXLI 1S c)vsSr\;no,,, tY \VA csO \I \S IcCo., AcrAlai>ci _GMCN 1\3 \IA .c■OV s\h-r\l'\\), 7 o,Tx)t i WV vi* tocic) Qz.1-c) SIGNED PLEASE REPLY 0 NO REPLY NECESSARY \C) SUBJECTk 1(6 \\60 \e'\ ')k\ec)C° FR... tAT'Y A oa ks CRAIG CROTTY ARBOR CULTURE P.O. Box 246 Verdugo City, CA 91046 Tel. 818 957 -8824 Client Name: [NAPA Kaizt, Address: 2 Fk Gi e L& br r ArcarLA Date: 8 3 /t Tel: (i480763I1 ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure or death of a tree. Trees are living organisms, subject to the forces of nature, and fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees or below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee a tree's health or safety. Further, Arborists cannot guarantee the effectiveness of remedial treatments, like any medicine or pruning. Property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord- tenant matters, etc. are issues outside the scope of arborist services. The client (person hiring the arborist) accepts full responsibility for authorizing any recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees c tn be managed, but not controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. I have received and read a copy of this disclosure. Client Signature: Date: g5 131(0 \Nt sk 7 1 41 ARBORIST NOTES j Assignment: 0 bS C'r i€ 1 7(1)1- ect S 61A- sr c a ut CO im c 'A e s i i 11 Vt Ck,Tu Tu c kui T Vio r Observations/Discusion: e 1 V V ZUNA Ors Q �s ��'��wARvI ,Z. j "fig t} i s Fe.vP, 0 �s ,re,,,u vet( 0 r Di- Aft eAses se,, ct toq Kr l rte e -w s ,E: „eq� iv ��s *"ee Sk 1•r e rb2 et5 DA ce clS se I aS I- me, Oak Qty -f,,s S a/A fr& 13 t E Locce14 r ,A Go teA-zr 10 S+peek s l,'1 .s r• metes a w o k- te-ct4 Recommendations: cv^ci. s 1 A'14 -pus t& At' et-44+6A t Skc r Kip 11Q_ Czetst L we °elk as \yag 1,,c„ e -1 gee --s 1)( spi•ertax 0-tiLer 114, 5.-vio us ait tiv414 l'e 1Y IS a[sn e ir Gs 4 f'l`� r t� r st S1-- fc t -c v rt -i i),:)`1 S. 13 Pc C CRAIG CROTTY ARBOR CULTURE P.O. Box 246 Verdugo City, CA 91046 Tel. 818 957 -8824 Client Name: 5 iuk_rm Kuo .t\ Address: z 76 l`TaG .Q,A.A. 'bre I A(tazGcA Date: 3 `10 Tel: (aze '607- 63 ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure or death of a tree. Trees are living organisms, subject to the forces of nature, and fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees or below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee a tree's health or safety. Further, Arborists cannot guarantee the effectiveness of remedial treatments, like any medicine or pruning. Property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord- tenant matters, etc. are issues outside the scope of arborist services. The client (person hiring the arborist) accepts full responsibility for authorizing any recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees can be managed, but not controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. I have received and read a copy of this disclosure. Client Signature: Date: (3,X1X-0 G� t l V�9 1ST Lf ARBORIST NOTES Assignment: 0 kizt l C", 1 k�,qq ¶wkc -ecL 1 i ba.c k.c( 0.4 Z1(.o CA ctA `b tTE c c��' '�'''^k -k 1/t) 624:b "S O s ervati s iscussio C L tV' 04.k. r,` I'ek._ Z4 %s o mitts t p of l r k k �t,.a.Ne LA) r a 5 tf Ai 4 rtm-k-a tei likkiVe` Wet§ max. CAA/4A, rn b ff l'`� Recommendations: opt t Sib A Ca li c S S�t ,rte �i D 4 t PX. D� 1� v'�� futz. o r r`e %24,144 wtzt Le, A ecc re444.0 tikla closer "(IAA t��o tea'' c(.l•2. ao+ "1 It 0 ALL (Wit rte. reaft4 to V'eCt I ik y t 1 re p tct.t:.�, 1 `'tit �S `�`rQSt t S ('t".r,�'t.4 t rl `j� \Mkt i'eW1 o spt al.+. cC r. Pt &c.a. w t r 1'. en. nn Pre- ILYA-12.D Address: Z7(, .6 Nreattik lsk- 1q' CRAIG CROTTY ARBOR CULTURE P.O. Box 246 Verdugo City, CA 91046 Tel. 818 957 -8824 Client Name: row W u ictiA Date: 8 3 I Tel: B1- 3I1 ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure or death of a tree. Trees are living organisms, subject to the forces of nature, and fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees or below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee a tree's health or safety. Further, Arborists cannot guarantee the effectiveness of remedial treatments, like any medicine or pruning. Property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord- tenant matters, etc. are issues outside the scope of arborist services. The client (person hiring the arborist) accepts full responsibility for authorizing any recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees can be managed, but not controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. I have received and read a copy of this disclosure. Client Signature: y Date: \AO ARBORIST NOTES Assignment: 66 .'v"2 ezAtit it»t >ti -free.‘ r7-49 &kik& r, 4 7ES 4,1-te s t! z•rc Observations/Discussion: 1_ C J C� s rive. �4k 1 t' er s ,/b ICA 14 1 ()title A. o k net f .sw -tr iltg, 2-7(; i- «da rAr watt TU. cs cam. }w i�'� )911v-task/II Recommendations: 4 t o 1" +D 1 ��C'� -1-kg ,y� km �1 �►1 C t nn,2, G I c�f2j4 Yt t SA cod k f� `1 X25 2. 1,0 DV 4 s 1 �W ta' e1�+`tr IL �.Q i�:tiK4tuiS t a.$ re it&ce s r 1 p b-.se d t cau4 1, tve Cad Q j,� t a�Yr�s cat At-I) I�'� `t7'pvCT is jt�Cit�i �t�11� C°t.tS+" kiLetAoke KO4 4 1.4 'ao,J ei s rbre r i4 IA D5if+ zq'h R- (TNIA D &P-6% cR c,LY Pc e t z-oo 14o -E. Front view of the subject property at 276 Hacienda Dr. View of the area where the tree was removed View of the trench for the block wall footing View of the trench and tree no. 5 Jim and Kathy Krause 280 Hacienda Dr Arcadia, CA 91006 Jim Kasama Community Development Administrator City of Arcadia Development Services Dept PO Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 September 20, 2010 Jim, I am the owner (since 1994) of the residence located at 280 Hacienda Dr in Arcadia. I have been asked by our Association to report if I knew of any trees that existed next door at 276 Hacienda Dr. There was a Magnolia tree in the backyard of 276 Hacienda Dr that you could see from our back yard. This tree was noticeable since it was very tall. I understand that Magnolia trees are protected under our Association guidelines. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or to discuss this issue. Sincerely, 4 AA A im Krause 276 Hacienda Issues for Modification Hearing October 26, 2010 Presented by Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association Board of Directors Listing Listing shows Buyer was informed of HOA Owner's Actions Shows total disregard of neighbors community Photos of before and after conditions Resolution 5290, Section 3, #8 "No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the Board. "(ARB) The trench was dug to provide footings for a wall or fence. "The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside the building which does not substantially change the external appearance of the building." The current project has NOT been limited to inside the building, AND it has substantially changed the external appearance. Magnolia Photo suspected large Magnolia tree in upper right comer of photo, branch is at 2 floor level Letter from Jim Krause, long -term neighbor to the west Photo new growth leaves from Magnolia stump Identified as Magnolia by Frank McDonough, Botanical Information Consultant at The Arboretum Requested Action by Modification Committee Staff recommendations are a mere slap on the wrist. If staff recommendations are approved it will encourage others to act first, and then seek forgiveness. Therefore the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association requests: Denial of permit to legalize removal of Engleman Oak Denial of permit to legalize trenching Referral to Santa Anita Oaks ARB for review of full landscape plan including replacement of protected trees, including the Magnolia, on at least a 2 for 1 basis Establishment of a timeline for completion Recommend refusal to issue any building permits, until the ARB has approved the landscap a r nd th exterior condition has been remediated. ry E. D gherty, Presid t anta Ani Oaks Home ners A ociation Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association Board Motion to Adopt Position Passed without Dissent 10/25/10 1. Legalize the non permitted removal of an Engelmann Oak tree located in the front yard. A. Administrative citation for violation of AMC 9707 the oak trees within the City are assets to the citizens and as a result of the loss of any of these oak trees, the public should be recompensed, and penalties applied to assure the primary goal of conservation, protection, and preservation of oak trees as set forth in this Chapter. Proper restitution includes: 1. payment of a fine (starts at $100 per count) Tree values shall be established as provided in the tree evaluation formula, as prepared by the International Society of Arboriculture "guide to establishing value for trees and shrubs." 2. replacement of the oak tree (2 36" box trees) The type, number, size and location of said equivalent replacement trees shall be determined by the Director of Planning. 3. The City Attorney is authorized to take whatever legal steps are necessary for recovery of civil penalties. 4. Administrative Remedies suspension of any building permits until all mitigation measures specified by the City are satisfactorily completed. 2. Legalize the non permitted trenching for the block wall footings that encroach within the dripline of two Coast Live Oak trees. Same as above 1. payment of a fine 2. The City Attorney take action to recover civil penalties. 3. replacement of soil and keep the area at the base of the tree dry 4. suspend any building permits 3. Magnolia tree that was removed and protected under the HOA guidelines. 1. replacement of the Magnolia tree with 2 new Magnolia trees. The size and location of the said equivalent replacement trees shall be determined by the Director of Planning. A10001102_16_0.jpg (JPEG Image, 640x480 pixels) 1 of 1 (preloR 70 SRLE http: /media.cdn- redfin.com/ photo /45/bigphoto /102/A10001102_16 0.jpg 10/15 /2010 6:41 PM ft- L kos_ i■ 4 N H 0 276 HACIENDA Dr, Arcadia, CA 91006 I MLS# A10001102 REDFIN 276 HACIENDA Dr Arcadia, CA 91006 BEDS: 5 BATHS: 5.25 SQ. FT.: 4,482 $ISQ. FT.: $413 LOT SIZE: 0.69 Acres PROPERTY TYPE: Residential, Single Family STYLE: Two Level, Tudor YEAR BUILT: 1937 COMMUNITY: Arcadia COUNTY: Los Angeles MLS A10001102 SOURCE: MRMLS STATUS: Closed Located in the prestigious Santa Anita "Oaks" area, this 1937 estate property is replete with character sophistication. A skylight illuminates the foyer highlights the grand sweeping staircase. Dining room appointed with chandelier, crown moldings, wainscoting pocket doors. Liv room with majestic fireplace, crown moldings picture window. Overlooking the rear yard through walls of glass, the family room features a hidden wet bar brick flooring. The sun filled breakfast room offers wainscoting and built -in buffet. There are a total of 5 bedroom suites one downstairs each uniquely distinct. Study has beamed ceilings, fireplace, and built -in cabinetry. Large beamed bonus room could be transformed into a wonderful media room or playroom. New HVAC system. One year -old roof. Secondary staircase. Grounds include mature landscaping and brick garden walls. Pool located to rear of yard. All information deemed reliable, buyer to verify. Virtu la Tnurc 0 Sold on 04/08/2010 $1,850,000 http: /www.redfin. com/CA/ Arcadia /276- Hacienda- Dr- 91006/horne/72.. Listing Provided Courtesy of: Pamela Rose, Dilbeck Real Estate Buyer's agent: OUT OF AREA ARCADIA, OUT OF AREA OFFICE 1 of6 10/15/2010 6:53 P1' 11VVV 1 lVL �._v.JNS k 1 LV 1111Cle., VTVATUV ilana.1OJ 1 of 1 nue. /111yUlO.VU1 I V11 111L Vt./11L U1SJ11UIAN 1 VL/ if 1 VVU 11 VL 10/15/2010 6:31 PM A10001102_6_0 jpg (JPEG Image, 640x480 pixels) 1 of 1 http: /media.cdn redfin.com/ photo /45/bigphoto/102/A10001102_6 0.jp€ 10/15/2010 6:34 P1\ A10001 102_10 0 jpg (JPEG Image, 640x480 pixels) http: /media.cdn- redfin.com/ photo /45/bigphoto /102/A10001102_10 0 jpg 1 of 1 10/15 /2010 6:36 PM A10001102_13_0 jpg (JPEG Image, 640x480 pixels) 1 of 1 http: /media.cdn- redfin.com/ photo /45/bigphoto/102/A10001102_13 0.JP1 10/15 /2010 6:39 PI\ tlVVUi JUL 10 UJpg, 1rrlAJ unaac, Uf.M tov inncib) 1 of 1 1114?.! HLVwa.1.u►rt cuuu.cv111/ U1U/ ►Ji uipiiuwi 1 LG.i /1.1 vvv 1 11../.4_1 O v J J 10/15/2010 6:45 PM A10001102_21_0 jpg (JPEG Image, 640x480 pixels) 1 of 1 h ttp: /media.cdn redfiacom/ photo /45/bigphoto /102/A10001102 21. 0 10/15/2010 6:47 P1\ A100Q1102 22 0.jpg (JPEG Image, 640x480 pixels) 1 of 1 http: /media.edn- redfin.com/ photo /45/bigphoto /102/A10001102 22_0 jpg 10/15/2010 6:49 PM 4/7X (cw ewr C41491TioN 0 5'7 (cuna -N'r C01413,77oA/ c c ea refeemir Ipnyoty) ,1;_S- S /rff /7 4 -)7 CUKIKk41 1328 1320 1312 1300 1433 1428 1431 CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION ARTICLE IX DIVISION AND USE OF LAND. CHAPTER 7 OAK TREE PRESERVATION 9700. INTENT AND PURPOSE. This Chapter is established to recognize oak trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources and to create favorable conditions for the preservation and propagation of irreplaceable plant heritage for the benefit of the current and future residents of the City. It is the intent of this Chapter to maintain and enhance the public health, safety and welfare through the mitigation of soil erosion and air pollution. It is also the intent of this Chapter to preserve and enhance property values through conserving and enhancing the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of many areas in the City. 9701. SCOPE. No oak tree shall be removed, damaged or have its protected zone encroached upon except in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all oak trees on all public and private property whether vacant, undeveloped, in the process of development or developed. Exceptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter: A. Combined Permit. An Oak Tree Removal Permit is not required where tree removal and /or encroachment has been specifically approved as part of a development permit. B. Emergency Situation. Cases of emergency where the Director of Public Works, or any member of a law enforcement agency or the City of Arcadia Fire Department, in the performance of his or her duties, determines that an oak tree poses an imminent threat to the public safety, or general welfare. C. Visual Barriers. Removal or relocation of oak trees necessary to obtain adequate line of -sight distances as required by the Director of Public Works. D. Public Utility Damage. Actions taken for the protection of existing electrical power or communication lines or other property of a public utility. E. City Property. Removal of oak trees on City owned property, which in the opinion of the Director of Public Works, will cause damage to existing public improvements, or which are in a location that does not permit the development of the site for public purposes. F. Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Property. Removal of oak trees on Arcadia Redevelopment Agency owned property that, in the opinion of the Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, are in a location which does not permit the development of the site. (Amended by Ord. 2207 adopted 7 -5 -05) CITY OF ARCADIA Page 1 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 9702. DEFINITIONS. g. CITY OFARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION For the purposes of this Article, certain words and phrases used herein shall be defined as follows: a. Damage. Damage shall mean any action undertaken which causes injury, death, or disfigurement to an oak tree. This includes, but is not limited to, cutting, poisoning, overwatering, relocating or transplanting an oak tree, or trenching, excavating or paving within the protected zone of an oak tree. b. Director. In a matter involving private property, "Director" shall mean the Director of Planning of the City of Arcadia or appointed designee. In the matter involving public property, "Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works of the City of Arcadia or appointed designee. c. Drip Line. Drip line shall mean a series of points formed by the vertical dripping of water, on any property, from the outward branches and leaves of an oak tree. d. Encroachment. Encroachment shall mean any intrusion into the protected zone of an oak tree including, but not limited to, grading, excavation, trenching, parking of vehicles, storage of materials or equipment, or the construction of structures or other improvements. e. Oak Trees. Oak trees shall include the following: 1. Quercus Engelmannii (Engelmann oak), or quercus agrifolia (coast live oak, California live oak) with a trunk diameter larger than four (4) inches measured at a point four and one -half (41/2) feet above the crown root, or two (2) or more trunks measuring three (3) inches each or greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one -half (41/2) feet above the crown root. 2. Any other living oak tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve (12) inches measured at a point four and one -half (41/2) feet above the crown root, or two (2) or more trunks measuring ten (10) inches each or greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one -half (41/2) feet above the crown root. f. Private Property. Private property shall mean land owned by individuals, partnerships, corporations, firms, churches, and the like to which land access by the public is generally restricted. Protected Zone. Protected zone shall mean a specifically defined area totally encompassing an oak tree within which work activities are strictly controlled. When depicted on a map, the outermost edge of the protected zone will appear as an irregular shaped circle that follows the contour of the dripline of the oak tree. In no case shall the protected zone be less than fifteen (15) feet from the trunk of an oak tree, or exclude the known root structure in the case of irregularly shaped trees. h. Public Property. Public property shall mean land owned by a public or governmental entity and generally accessible to the public. CITY OF ARCADIA Page 2 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION i. Removal. Removal shall mean the uprooting, cutting, or severing of the main trunk, or major branches, of an oak tree or any act which causes, or may be reasonably expected to cause a tree to die, including but not limited to the following: 1. Damage inflicted upon the root system by machinery, storage of materials, or soil compaction; 2. Substantially changing the grade above the root system or trunk; j• 3. Excessive pruning; 4. Excessive paving with concrete, asphalt, or other impervious materials in such a manner which may reasonably be expected to kill an oak tree; 5. Excessive watering within the dripline; 6. Encroachment into the protected zone. Root Crown. Root crown shall mean that portion of an oak tree trunk from which roots extend laterally into the ground. k. Undeveloped Property. Undeveloped property shall mean and which is in its natural, original, or pristine state. I. Vacant Property. Vacant property shall mean land on which no buildings or improvements have been erected or orchards planted but which may have been graded for drainage or other purposes. 9703. OAK TREE PROTECTION REGULATIONS. a. Oak Tree Permit Required. 1. An oak tree permit shall be obtained prior to the removal of any oak tree. 2. An oak tree permit shall be obtained prior to any encroachment into the protected zone of any oak tree. b. Required Protective Measures. The following protective measures are hereby established to protect oak trees during development or construction activity: 1. No building, structure, wall or impervious paving shall be located within the protected zone of any oak tree. 2. No construction related activities shall occur within the protected zone of any oak tree, including but not limited to, building construction, storage of materials, grade changes, or attachment of wires to or around tree trunks, stems, or limbs. 3. Each and every oak tree shall be shielded from damage during construction by a four (4) foot high barrier composed of wooden stakes, chicken wire, or chain Zink CITY OF ARCADIA Page 3 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 CITY OFARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION fencing material, which shall enclose the entire dripline area on the construction site. Such barriers shall be installed prior to the commencement of any development on the site and shall remain in place throughout the construction period. 4. Branches that may be injured by vehicles or that interfere with construction shall be pruned carefully. 9704. APPLICATION AND FEES. A. Oak Tree Permit for the Removal of Diseased and /or Hazardous Oak Trees. 1. An application for an oak tree permit for the removal of a diseased or hazardous oak tree shall be made to the Community Development Division, and shall include an evaluation from a certified arborist as to the condition of the tree. 2. There is no fee for an oak tree permit for the removal of a diseased or hazardous oak tree. B. Oak Tree Permit for the Removal of Healthy Oak Trees. 1. An application for an oak tree permit for the removal of a healthy oak tree shall be made to the Community Development Division. The content, form, instructions, procedures, and requirements of the application package deemed necessary and appropriate for the proper enforcement of this Chapter shall be established by the Community Development Division. The application shall include: (a) An explanation as to why the tree's removal is necessary; (b) An explanation as to why tree removal is more desirable than alternative project designs; (c) An explanation of any mitigation measures. (d) A fee in the same amount as required for a modification application. C. Oak Tree Permit for Encroachment into a Protected Zone. 1. An application for an oak tree permit for encroachment into a protected zone shall be made to the Community Development Division, and shall include an evaluation from a certified arborist as to the condition of the tree and the effect of the encroachment upon the tree accompanied by the appropriate photographs showing the area(s) of encroachment. 2. A fee in the same amount as required for an administrative modification application shall be submitted at the time said application is filed with the City. (Amended by Ord. 2207 adopted 7 -5 -05) 9705. ACTION ON APPLICATION A. Oak Tree Permit for the Removal of Diseased and Hazardous Oak Trees. CITY OFARCADIA Page 4 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION 1. Upon the receipt of an application to remove a diseased or hazardous oak tree, the Community Development Administrator or his /her designee shall have five (5) working days to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. 2. If the Community Development Administrator or his /her designee denies such application, the decision may be appealed to the Modification Committee. Such appeal shall be processed pursuant to the modification regulations. The fee for an appeal shall be the same as for a Modification application. 3. The privileges granted an applicant in this Section shall become null and void if not utilized within one (1) year from the date of the approval. B. Oak Tree Permit for the Removal of Healthy Oak Trees. 1. The application for an oak tree permit for the removal of a healthy oak tree or trees shall be subject to the approval or conditional approval of the Modification Committee or the Planning Commission (on appeal) or City Council (on appeal) pursuant to the modification regulations. 2. If the applicant lives within a Homeowners Association area established pursuant to Section 9272.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the applicant shall submit their tree removal plans to the Architectural Review Board (Committee) of said Homeowners Association for review and approval, conditional approval or denial, prior to filing an application with the City. 3. The Architectural Review Board's (Committee's) review and comment are not required if the Homeowners Association has filed a letter with the Community Development Division stating that their Association does not wish to perform such review. 4. The privileges granted an applicant in this Section shall become null and void if not utilized within one (1) year from the date of the approval or conditional approval. C. Oak Tree Permit for Encroachment Into a Protected Zone. 1. Upon the receipt of an application to encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree, the Community Development Administrator or his /her designee shall have five (5) working days to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. 2. If the Community Development Administrator or his /her designee denies such application or approves said application with conditions, the applicant may appeal the denial or the conditions of approval to the Modification Committee. Such appeal shall be processed pursuant to the modification regulations. The fee for an appeal shall be the same as for a modification application. 3. The privileges granted an applicant in this Section shall become null and void if not utilized within one (1) year from the date of the approval. (Amended by Ord. 2207 adopted 7 -5 -05) 9706. CONDITIONS. Conditions may be imposed on the issuance of an Oak Tree Permit including, but not limited to, the following: a. Relocating of oak trees on -site, or the planting of new oak trees. CITY OFARCADIA Page 5 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION b. Planting of additional trees, other than oak, which may be more appropriate to the site. 9707. ENFORCEMENT. a. The Planning Department, through its Code Enforcement Officers, shall enforce the provisions of this Chapter. Additionally, Police Officers, inspectors from the Building Division and Public Works Department, in the course of their duties, will monitor construction activities for compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. Any irregularities or suspected violations will be reported immediately to the Code Enforcement Division for follow -up action. b. Whenever any construction or work is being performed contrary to the provisions of this Chapter, any oak tree permit, or any conditions of the appropriate development permit, a City inspector may issue a notice to the responsible party to "stop work" on the project on which the violation has occured or upon which the danger exists. The notice shall state the nature of the violation or danger and no work shall be allowed until the violation has been rectified and approved by the Director of Planning. c. Criminal and Civil Remedies. 1. Criminal. Any person who violates any provisions of this Chapter including violations of inspector's orders shall be subject to the following remedies in addition to misdemeanor penalties for violation of the Municipal Code. 2. Restitution -Civil Penalties. (a) It has been determined that the oak trees within the City are valuable environmental assets to the citizens of this community and as a result of the loss of any of these oak trees, the public should be recompensed, and penalties applied to assure the primary goal of conservation, protection, and preservation of oak trees as set forth in this Chapter. (b) Accordingly, any person violating the provisions of this Chapter shall be responsible for proper restitution including but not limited to the following or any combination thereof: (1) payment of a fine, (2) replacement the oak tree, which has been removed, and /or (3) planting new oak trees or other trees which may be more appropriate to the site. Replacement shall be made based on the value or the actual replacement cost, whichever is higher, plus the cost of planting the replacement trees. The type, number, size and location of said equivalent replacement trees shall be determined by the Director of Planning. (c) Tree values shall be established as provided in the tree evaluation formula, as prepared by the International Society of Arboriculture "Guide to Establishing Value for Trees and Shrubs." (d) The City Attorney is authorized to take whatever legal steps are necessary for recovery of civil penalties. CITY OF ARCADIA Page 6 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION d. Administrative Remedies. 1. A suspension of any building permits until all mitigation measures specified by the City are satisfactorily completed. 2. Completion of all mitigation measures as established by the City. 9708. LIABILITY. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the City, its officers, or employees. No duty of care or maintenance is imposed upon the City, its officers or employees with reference to private property, and no private property owner or other person in possession of private property is relieved from the duties to keep oak trees in a safe condition on their property. This ordinance does not relieve the owner or possessor of private property from the duty to keep oak trees subject to this chapter in such a condition as to prevent the oak tree from constituting a hazard or dangerous condition to persons or property. (Chapter 7 added by Ord. 1962 adopted 1- 21 -92) CITY OFARCADIA Page 7 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 November 23, 2010 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner CEQA FINDINGS STAFF REPORT Development Services Department SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -16 for the interim use of a tent as a temporary patio cover for an outdoor dining area during the holiday season at 233 E. Huntington Drive. The applicant is requesting approval for the interim use of a tent as a temporary patio cover for an existing outdoor dining area at 233 E. Huntington Drive (dba: The Derby Restaurant). The temporary patio cover would allow the existing restaurant to accommodate the expected holiday customers while plans are being completed for a permanent expansion of the restaurant. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this application subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. In January 2010, the owners of the Derby Restaurant submitted Architectural Design Review Application No. ADR 10 -01 to construct a 5,448 square -foot, two -story addition to the rear of the existing restaurant. The design has been tentatively approved by staff, and the owners are now preparing to complete the Conditional Use Permit Application for the addition. In the interim, the applicant is requesting as part of the CUP, permission to use a tent to cover the outdoor patio dining area to accommodate as many customers as possible during the holiday season. Once the addition is completed, the restaurant owners state they will no longer need a tent for the outdoor dining area. The owners anticipate completing the Conditional Use Permit Application in early 2011. Staff estimates it will take 16 -to -20 months to process the Conditional Use Permit, complete the building plans, and finish construction of the addition. Therefore, approval of the interim use of a tent as a temporary patio cover should not only be for this holiday season, but for the 2011 holiday season as well. Because no significant physical alterations to the property are necessary, this project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301 of the Guidelines as an addition to an existing structure. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report. Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions can be satisfied: 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. It is staffs opinion that the proposed use satisfies each prerequisite condition. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -16 subject to the following conditions: 1. The use of the tent shall be limited to the holiday seasons, November 24, 2010 through January 3, 2011, and November 23, 2011 through January 12, 2012. The tent shall be removed during the time between and after these holiday periods. This does not preclude the use of the tent for short-term, special events that may be held at the restaurant at other times of the year with an approved Special Event Permit. 2. This use under CUP 10 -16 is limited to the temporary patio cover of the outdoor dining area and the tent shall be utilized and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal submitted and approved by CUP 10 -16, subject to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or designee. 3. The applicant shall provide in a timely manner the necessary documents and materials for the Conditional Use Permit application for the permanent addition to the restaurant and if a Conditional Use Permit is not approved by May 31, 2011, this approval shall be null and void and a tent may no longer be used for the holiday seasons, including the holiday season of November 23, 2011 through January 12, 2012. 4. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 10 -16 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals. 5. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, ingress and egress, building safety, fire detection and suppression, 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 CUP 10 -16 233 E. Huntington Drive November 23, 2010 Page 2 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. 7. Approval of CUP 10 -16 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), applicant, and business owner(s) /operator(s) have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this application, the Commission should move to approve Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -16 and adopt Resolution No. 1825, which states the supporting findings, the environmental determination, and the Commission's decision, findings, and the conditions of approval, with any modifications by the Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this application, the Commission should move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -16; state the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution that incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings for adoption at the next meeting. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the November 23 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr by calling (626) 574 -5422, or by email at tschwehr @ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Jim ama C munity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo Vicinity Map Site Plan Photos of Subject Property Resolution 1825 CUP 10 -16 233 E. Huntington Drive November 23, 2010 Page 3 'VAI_ET'S KIOSK A.c.PA:TH rTzt 'TZAVEL uJ z 4 PATIO DINING ENTRY -1 1 RESTAURANT PROP OFFICE STORAGE C,C 1 .KITCHEN EXTENSION 30' cD RESOLUTION NO. 1825 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -16 TO ALLOW THE INTERIM USE OF A TENT AS A TEMPORARY PATIO COVER FOR AN OUTDOOR DINING AREA DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON AT 233 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE. WHEREAS, on November 10, 2010, an application was filed by Mr. Michael Thomas for the interim use of a tent as a temporary patio cover for an outdoor dining area to accommodate the expected holiday customers while plans are being completed for a permanent expansion of the restaurant; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 10 -16, at 233 E. Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 23, 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 November 23, 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 use of a tent as a temporary patio cover will not adversely affect 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 9275.1.53.5 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 use of a tent as a temporary patio cover will not involve any changes to the existing landscaping, parking, or permanent alterations to the exterior of the building. 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 which is adequate in width and pavement type for the commercial traffic that is and will be generated by the subject business and the other businesses in the area, including any additional commercial traffic resulting from the use approved by Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -16. 5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -16 will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because a restaurant with outdoor dining is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation for the subject area. 6. That the use of a tent as a temporary patio cover for outdoor dining qualifies as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a conversion of a small commercial structure per Section 15301(e) 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 -16, for the interim use of a tent as a temporary patio cover for an outdoor dining area at 233 E. Huntington Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use of the tent shall be limited to the holiday seasons, November 24, 2010 through January 3, 2011, and November 23, 2011 through January 12, 2012. The tent shall be removed during the time between and after these holiday periods. This does not preclude the 2 1825 use of the tent for short-term, special events that may be held at the restaurant at other times of the year with an approved Special Event Permit. 2. The use approved by CUP 10 -16 is limited to the proposed temporary patio cover for an outdoor dining area and it shall be utilized and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal submitted and approved for CUP 10 -16, subject to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or designee. 3. The applicant shall provide in a timely manner the necessary documents and materials for the Conditional Use Permit application for the permanent addition to the restaurant and if a Conditional Use Permit is not approved by May 31, 2011, this approval shall be null and void and a tent may no longer be used for the holiday seasons, including the holiday season of November 23, 2011 through January 12, 2012. 4. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 10- 16 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals. 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 3 1825 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. 7. Approval of CUP 10 -16 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 day of 2010. Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney Chairman, Planning Commission 4 1825 MINUTES ARCADIA BUSINESS PERMIT LICENSE REVIEW BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 9, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers The Business Permit License Review Board (BPLRB) and Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Perri Ile presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Perri Ile led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Board Members and Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Chiao and Perri Ile ABSENT: None OTHERS ATTENDING City Attorney, Steve Deitsch Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama Business License Officer, Silva Vergel Detective, Luis Vicuna Associate Planner, Tom Li Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS A memo was distributed to the Commissioners regarding revised conditions of approval for item 2. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BLRB AND /OR PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS Five minute time limit per person There were none. BUSINESS PERMIT AND LICENSE REVIEW BOARD ITEMS 1. ASIANA ACUPUNCTURE 149 E. Huntington Drive Jinhong Ding, 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 Asiana Acupuncture. Business License Officer, Silva Vergel, presented the staff report. Chairman Parri lle asked if the Board Members had any questions. There were none. At this point, Board Member and Commissioner Chiao joined the meeting. The public hearing was opened. Chairman Parrille asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of this appeal. Ms. Jinhong Ding, the owner of the business, spoke through an interpreter. She said she employees a doctor at her businesses for eight hours per day but the doctor was out of the country at the time of the inspection. She offered to provide proof of the doctor's employment. Ms. Ding also said that the masseuses working for her all have California State licenses but not all have City licenses. She explained that in 2008 when she opened her business, she applied for four masseuse licenses but was only granted three and that, due to a series of circumstances, she has since been reduced to only one City license for massage. Ms. Ding said that she has been in business in Arcadia for three years and that her business required the services of additional masseuses. Since the City was no longer granting licenses for new masseuses, she had to hire them even though she knew they were not licensed. Ms. Ding said she has two spas in San Diego and that she has always tried to comply with all rules and regulations in that city as well. She said that if the revocation is upheld she would prefer to cancel her business license herself to avoid a record of action being taken against her. Board member Baderian asked Ms. Ding is she is the original owner of the business and if so, was she given a list of regulations when she opened the business. Ms. Ding confirmed that she is the original owner and that she had been given a list of regulations. Board member Baderian asked Ms. Ding is she was aware of the requirement for a City license for each masseuse. She said she was aware that they needed a City license and she applied for a license for each of them but the licenses were not granted. Board member Baderian asked Ms. Ding to confirm that she knowingly employed masseuses who were not legally licensed. Ms. Ding agreed that this is the case. Board member Baerg noted that according to the Police Report, Ms. Ding claimed that 50% of the business is from massage services and 50% from acupuncturist services. He asked Ms. Ding is this is accurate and she said that it is. Board member Beranek pointed out to Ms. Ding that she earlier stated that the acupuncturist was not present at the time of an inspection but, according to the staff report, the acupuncturist was not present during 7 out of 12 inspections. Ms. Ding said that this is not true, that in fact, the acupuncturist was there most of the time and was only away from work for a little over a week. Ms. Ding further stated that she employs two acupuncturists, Dr. Young and Dr. Moo, and that they both have the necessary licenses. Board member Baderian asked Ms. Ding if an acupuncturist was always on site when massage services were offered. Ms. Ding said yes, except for September 16 to October 7, when he was not. Board member Baderian asked if massage services were provided during BPLRD 8 PC MINUTES 11 -9-10 Page 2 this time and Ms. Ding said yes, massage services were provided while the acupuncturist was away. Ms. Ding thanked the Board members for the opportunity to present her case. She said she is very happy in the City and wants to continue doing business here and to comply with all rules and regulations. Ms. Ding asked that if the revocation is upheld, she be permitted to cancel her license herself to avoid creating a record that might have a negative affect on her other businesses. Chairman Parrille asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak in opposition to this appeal. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Board Member Baderian to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Board Member Baderian asked Mr. Deitsch what would be the ramifications of allowing the appellant to cancel her business license herself rather then having the City revoke the license. Mr. Deitsch explained that a formal revocation would include a restriction on Ms. Ding opening a new business in the City for a period of one year. If Ms. Ding cancels her business license herself, there would be no such restriction. MOTION: Based on the information provided by staff and the business owner, it was moved by Board Member Beranek, and seconded by Board Member Baderian, to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation of Asiana Acupuncture's business license and deny the business owner, a license to own or operate a business in the City of Arcadia for a period of one (1) year. ROLL CALL AYES: Board Members Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Chiao and Parnile NOES: None There is a ten (10) day appeal period after the appellant receives notice of the approval/denial of the appeal. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 2. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 09 -22 1104 -1110 South Baldwin Avenue and 657 West Duarte Road Don Mear of Pacific Design Group The applicant is requesting approval of the addition of a new 15,210 square -foot, two -story commercial building and a 98 -space subterranean parking garage to an existing 26,553 BPLRD PC MINUTES 11 -9-10 Page 3 square -foot commercial center. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Commissioner Baderian asked if this project is in accordance with the commercial and traffic plan elements of the proposed General Plan Update. Mr. Li explained that the proposed General Plan Update does not include any changes to this area. Commissioner Beranek noted that because of a previous Conditional Use Permit, the applicant is allowed a shortage of 30 parking spaces and he asked if the traffic report was reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Wray said that the Engineering Division reviewed the report and that traffic mitigation measures were incorporated into the plans and the conditions of approval and that the proposed project complies with the City's Transportation Master Plan. Commissioner Ching asked about the dedication of land along Duarte Road and Baldwin Avenue. Mr. Wray explained that the additional land is for future plans to widen the street and expand the width of the existing parkway. Commissioner Ching asked if this land is now private property. Mr. Wray said that at present, it is privately held, but that it is being dedicated now so that when the appropriate time comes to widen the street it can be easily accomplished. Commissioner Ching asked if the traffic study revealed any impact on Duarte Road or Baldwin Avenue. Mr. Wray explained that impact to on -site circulation, access points and the intersection itself were evaluated and the amount of traffic anticipated will not be enough to create problems. Mr. Wray further noted that the conditions of approval include several items designed to help ease the movement of traffic from the street. Commissioner Ching asked about a right -tum -only sign to avoid queuing traffic while waiting for those tuming left. Mr. Wray said that had been considered, but they felt it would not be necessary and that, in fact, it result in more U -tums. Chairman Parrille asked if the driveways access the subterranean parking. Mr. Wray confirmed that all the driveways enable access to the subterranean parking area, but that it will take time for people to get used to using it. Mr. Wray explained that no problems are anticipated with the access to the parking. He said that there are Tots of driveways on Baldwin Avenue, but because of the low speed of traffic there is little concern for accidents. He added that all individual parcels have a right to access the street. Chairman ParriIle asked if other uses are proposed for this building. Mr. Li said that at present only retail uses are proposed, however, in the future, restaurant uses may be considered. He added that the addition of a restaurant would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Pamlle asked about safety in the subterranean parking area. Mr. Li said that staff has made recommendations to revise and improve traffic flow and the applicant has incorporated these changes, therefore, staff believes the subterranean parking area will provide a safe environment. BPLRD PC MINUTES 11 -9 -10 Page 4 Chairman Parrille asked if the possibility of ovemight parking and vagrants staying in the subterranean parking structure had been considered. Mr. Li said these issues had not yet been addressed. Commissioner Baderian said that staff should follow up on the issue of security lights and cameras when appropriate. The Public Hearing was opened. Chairman Parri lle asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Donald Mear of Pacific Design Group, represented the owner. He thanked staff for the assistance provided on the project and said that he looks forward to a great project that will enhance the area. Chairman PerriIle asked about security for the subterranean parking structure. Mr. Mear said the owner will provide security on site during business hours, and after business hours the gate will be closed and security cameras will be working. Commissioner Baderian asked if the applicant had received the list of additional conditions of approval. Mr. Meer said that they had and that they would comply with all conditions. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Baerg, to approve Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09 -22. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Chiao and Parrille NOES: None There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the application. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 17. 2010. CONSENT ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of October 26, 2010. BPLRD PC MINUTES 11 -9-10 Page 5 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to approve the minutes of October 26, 2010 as presented. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Chiao, and Parrille NOES: None MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Kasama asked if all the Commissioners would be available for the November 23 meeting. The Commissioners confirmed that they all expect to attend the November 23 meeting. Mr. Kasama asked if the Commissioners would be available for the December 14 meeting. Chairman Parrille said he will not be available for the Planning Commission meeting but will attend the Modification Committee meeting in the moming. Commissioner Baerg and Commissioner Chiao were not yet able to confirm their availability for the meeting. Mr. Kasama noted that if three Commissioners were not available for the meeting, there would not be a quorum and the meeting would have to be cancelled. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Chairman Parrille reported that all three items on the agenda were approved. MATTERS FROM STAFF UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kasama said that the next agenda will include an appeal of an HOA decision on a porch addition and another appeal on oak tree applications on Hacienda Avenue. In addition, there may be two Conditional Use Permits; one for a martial arts studio and another for a tea house. ADJOURNED 7:55 p.m. ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission BPLRD PC MINUTES 11 -9-10 Page 6