Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3-22-11PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — 5 minute time limit per person. PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony 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 DECISION APPEAL NO. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Dr. Charles Huang The applicant has filed an appeal to reconsider the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board decision to deny the architectural design of a new 5,158 square -foot, two -story residence with 408 square -feet of porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car, detached garage. RECOMMENDATION: Uphold appeal of conditionally approved design 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 Wednesday, March 30, 2010. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -18 72 W. Live Oak Ave. Ying Wan Phu Continued from February 22, 2011 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing 869 square -foot day spa located at 70 W. Live Oak Avenue to expand into the adjacent 710 square -foot building at 72 W. Live Oak Avenue. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of 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 3 -22 -11 RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -19 MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MC 10 -35 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 71478 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 10 -18 650 W. Huntington Drive Scott Yang The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit, Modification Application, Tentative Tract Map and Architectural Design Review to allow the existing office building to be subdivided into medical office condominiums; and to expand the building to 25,105 square - feet with a parking deficiency of 128 spaces in lieu of 151 required. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-01 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 11 -01 1410 S. Sixth Ave. - Camino Grove Park Shannon Vitale of Core Development Services for Verizon Wireless The applicant has requested a Conditional use Permit and Architectural Design Review for a wireless telecommunication facility comprised of a 55 -foot tall monopole antenna support camouflaged as a pine tree with one platform array of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) four -foot (4' -0 ") diameter parabolic dish antenna, and four (4) ground- mounted equipment cabinets in a 544 square -foot concrete block enclosure. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. CONSENT ITEM 5. MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Any writings or documents provided to a majority of 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 3 -22 -11 6. RESOLUTION NO. 1831 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -02 to amend CUP 10 -10 for the tutoring center at 50 West Las Tunas Drive. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt 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 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 3 -22 -11 PLANNING COMMISSION Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the Planning Services Department at (626) 574- 5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. Public Hearing Procedure 1. The public hearing item is introduced by the Chairman of the Planning Commission. 2. The staff report is presented by staff. 3. Commissioners' questions relating to the staff report may be asked and answered at this time. 4. The Public Hearing is opened by the Chairman and the applicant is afforded the first opportunity to address the Commission. 5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 6. Those in opposition to the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 7. The applicant may be afforded the opportunity for a brief rebuttal. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 8. The Commission closes the public hearing. 9. The Commission members may discuss the proposal at this time. 10. The Commission then makes a motion and acts on the proposal to either approve, approve with conditions or modifications, deny, or continue it to a specific date. 11. Following the Commission's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission. This is usually presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. 12. Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews, there is a five (5) working day appeal period. 13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General Plan Amendments, the Commission's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council for the Council's consideration at a scheduled public hearing. 14. Following the Commission's action on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps (subdivisions) there is a ten (10) calendar day appeal period. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of 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 3 -22 -11 March 22, 2011 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner SUMMARY BACKGROUND STAFF REPORT Development Services Department SUBJECT: Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 of the denial of a proposed 5,158 square -foot, two -story residence with 408 square -feet of porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car, detached garage at 934 Paloma Drive. This is an appeal by the property owner, Mr. Charles Huang of the denial by the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) of a 5,158 square -foot, two -story residence with 408 square -feet of porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car, detached garage at 934 Paloma Drive. The Development Services Department is recommending that the Planning Commission approve appeal no. HOA 11 -01, subject to the conditions of approval listed in this staff report. The subject property is a 15,340 square -foot lot, zoned R -O &D. An aerial photo of the area and photos of the subject property are attached. It is currently improved with a 3,493 square -foot, two -story residence, a 600 square foot, two -car garage and carport, and a swimming pool and spa. The house was originally built as a one -story, 2,148 square -foot residence in 1950. A 1,345 square -foot, second -story was added to the residence in 1994. On January 26, 2011, the ARB denied an application for a new 5,158 square -foot, two - story residence. The ARB Findings and Action Report and Minutes (attached) indicate that the application was denied because of the size of the proposed house as compared to the sizes of surrounding homes, and because the proposal is not consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines regarding "Massing ". On February 4, 2011, Mr. Huang filed the attached appeal, and submitted the attached explanatory appeal letter on March 8, 2011. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on March 10, 2011 to the owners of those properties within 100 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map) to the neighbors that attended the January 26, 2011 ARB meeting, and to the Lower Rancho HOA President and ARB Chairman. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a new single - family residence is Categorically Exempt, and therefore, the notice was not published in a local newspaper. Staff received the attached four emails that express opposition to the size of the proposed house, the loss of privacy, and the blocking of the view of the mountains. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB denial of the proposed 5,158 square foot, two -story residence with 408 square -feet of porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car detached garage at 934 Paloma Drive. As stated in his March 6, 2011 appeal letter (attached) the appellant believes that the proposed, two - story residence is not too large for the area and that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood, nor change its character and complexion because the proposed residence will be comparable in size to the other homes on similar sized lots. The appellant provided the attached photos of homes that were built in the Lower Rancho in the past 4 years (Exhibit E of the attached March 6, 2011 appeal letter). The ARB of the Lower Rancho HOA believes that the design of the proposed two -story house does not meet the intent of the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines on "Massing" because the new dwelling will not be compatible in mass and scale to the surrounding houses in the neighborhood. In regards to the architectural design, the ARB offered some design suggestions to address the mass of the proposal — see the ARB's minutes of the January 26, 2011 meeting. One ARB member, Mr. Dale Brown offered to meet with the architect to offer some advice on the design. The appellant, Mr. Huang has stated that careful considerations were made in designing the proposed residence to ensure that negative impacts to the neighbors were identified and minimized; such as: 1) providing approximately 21' -0" to 24' -6" second -story setbacks that are greater than the minimum 18' -0" requirement on both sides of the house; 2) tall hedges to be placed along the perimeter of the property; and 3) providing more landscaped area than the existing condition. The appellant provided diagrams of these considerations (Exhibits C & D of the attached March 6, 2011 appeal letter). Furthermore, to address privacy, the appellant made sure that the only windows on the sides of the second floor are small, high windows, as opposed to the four large windows of the existing house. As a result, the appellant believes that the proposed project meets the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines. Lower Rancho HOA Regulations The Lower Rancho HOA regulations are established in City Council Resolution No. 5287 (attached) which states: HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive March 22, 2011 — page 2 "It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative impact on the environment of the community, effecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia." The Resolution also states that in order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within the Lower Rancho area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of the property, the following conditions are imposed pursuant to the City's zoning regulations: • FLOOR AREA. No one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height, and not less than 1,000 square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half or two stories in height. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls. • FRONT YARD. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the ARB shall have the power to require an appropriate front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as large as an adjacent front yard. • SIDE YARD. A lot with a building, or any part thereof, occupying the front 100 feet, or any part thereof, of such lot shall have a side yard of not less than ten (10) feet. • EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. • EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. City Council Resolution No. 5287 also sets forth that any body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision shall be guided by the following principles: • Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 - 01 934 Paloma Drive March 22, 2011 — page 3 features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). • Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). • A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to 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). Zoning Regulations The City's zoning regulations allow the subject property to have two stories and an overall building height of 30 feet. The setback regulations are as follows: Front Yard — Side Yards Rear Yard — 35 feet 38' -9" based on the average of the two adjacent lots and a 30- degree plane projected from ground level at the front property line. — First floor: 10 feet Second floor: 18 feet based on a requirement of 20 percent of the lot width as measured at a right angle to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. The zoning regulations allow for a much larger residence than that which is proposed. For the subject property, a two -story residence could be 2 feet taller, 6 feet wider on the first -floor and 10' -5" wider on the second -floor, and 23 feet closer to the rear property line. And, based on the 35 percent lot coverage limit for a two -story residence, the ground floor structures could have a combined area of 5,369 square feet. Single - Family Design Guidelines In regard to massing, the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines state, The Zoning Code allows a certain building envelope for each site. Proper design is often needed to soften and refine that envelope, as address by the guidelines: 1. New dwellings and additions should be compatible in mass and scale to surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and with the natural site features. HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive March 22, 2011 — page 4 2. Design elements such as eave overhangs, textured wall materials, recessed windows and door openings, ornamental details, and landscaping are encouraged for visual interest and to help reduce the impact of building scale. 3. All sides of a structure, including those that are not visible from the street, should have adequate wall and roof articulation to minimize the building's visual impact. 4. The building base should visually anchor the building by appearing more massive than the upper stories. 5. The upper story of a house should exhibit a lighter character than the base, possibly by reducing floor area and building mass. The second floor should generally step back from the ground floor. 6. Cantilevered forms are generally discouraged, particularly when they are used without aesthetic justification. 7. Building elements that emphasize a structure's verticality are generally discouraged. 8. On corner lots, wall planes facing the street should be varied and articulated into modules that reduce the overall massing and scale. Architectural projections or indentations should be provided to avoid an uninterrupted flat wall. 9. Incorporating trellises, pergolas, covered patios, and other similar features can help break up the mass of a large two -story structure and are encouraged, provided that they complement the architectural style of the house. Staff finds that the proposed design is consistent with the City's design guidelines, but the appearance of the new residence can be further softened by reducing the pitch of the roof from 6:12 to 5:12, which will reduce the amount of roof area and slightly reduce the overall height of the residence. And, to further protect the privacy of the neighbors, the hedges that are to line the rear perimeter of the property should be a type that is fast - growing and planted at 15 gallons in size. Additionally, the rear facing window by the bathtub in master bathroom #2 could be the same size as the side - facing windows. CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed project complies with all zoning requirements, and through plan check will be required to comply with all other applicable code requirements and policies as determined by the Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 to overturn the ARB denial and approve the proposed design, subject to the following conditions of approval: HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive March 22, 2011 — page 5 1. The pitch of the roof on the residence and detached garage shall be 5:12. 2. The hedges along the rear perimeter of the property shall be a type that is fast - growing and planted at 15 gallons in size. 3. The rear facing window by the bathtub in master bathroom #2 shall match the size and design of the side- facing windows. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB's denial, the Commission should move to approve Appeal No. HOA 11 -01, and state that the proposed project is consistent with the City's design guidelines, the HOA's regulations, and is harmonious and compatible with the neighborhood, is of good architectural character, and will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent properties and the neighborhood. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB's decision, the Commission should move to deny Appeal No. HOA 11 -01, and state that the proposed project does not meet the accepted standards of harmony and compatibility with the neighborhood, is of poor architectural character, or will be detrimental to the use, enjoyment or value of adjacent properties or the neighborhood. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the March 22, 2011 public hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Lisa L. Flores at (626) 574 -5445 or at Ifloresci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Jim K- aka, Community Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo Photo of the Subject Property ARB Findings and Action and Minutes Appeal letters and Exhibits Radius Map Emails in Opposition City Council Resolution No. 5287 HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive March 22, 2011 — page 6 934 Paloma Drive HOA Appeal No. 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive FILE NO.: DATE SUBMI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS: '1 0 13. PROPERTY OWNER:,", 6 /7"r4'/i./", ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT): /// Ue)au /,41 . , ; r, I /• C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation for each check). / 1. The proposed construction materials ARE & ARE NOT © compatible with the existing materials, because 2. The proposed materials WILL Q, WILL, NOT <ye a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because 3. The proposed project 1S 0, IS NOT 0 significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of way, because 4. The proposed project IS tiKS NOT 0 significantly visible from the adjoining properties, because 5. The elements of the structure's design ARE , ARE NOT 0 consistent with the existing building's design, because 6. The proposed project IS 0, IS NOT Ct"m proportion to other improvements on die subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because ,7'ht . v' `6 ci 7.6 A 0,77e OCtfa /0 %'t/5« Fz .. y 7. The location of the proposed project WILL CI, WILL NOT e detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood, because 8. The proposed project's setbacks DO 113;50 NOT 0 provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because 9. OTHER FINDINGS: 4,i" 00r -ere JV "01507,44 1 11,1.41 OA" ti4,4 r4" y f/ A 4e , 7t/t om ter~ Huo /fndingsrom, D. ACTION: El APPROVAL © APPROVAL subject to the following condition (s): ,1'` DEMAL E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION: l Z i/ F. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION: H. APPEALS 1). 6 EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL �G'c7 e er Cry' / 5 e r G. REPRESENTING THE /1 , 1 I ASSO CIATION. Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to nuke such an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements, fees and procedures. Said appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Offices, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, within seven (7) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. If for a period of one (I) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board (Committee), has bee unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association Serving the Lower Rancho & College St. Areas Date: January 26, 2011 Re: Review of 934 Paloma Drive, Arcadia CA Mtg Date: Wednesday January 26, 2011 Mtg Time: 7:30 pm to 8:30 pm (open to the public) The meeting was opened and the following board members were present: Steve Mathison Dale Brown Rick Frickie Bob Eriksson Ernie Boehr Lou Pappas The purpose of the meeting was to perform. Architectural Review for a new 2 story home at the referenced address. A good amount of residents were in attendance (they are listed at the bottom of this document). The meeting was opened and a brief description regarding the responsibilities of the board and generally how the meeting was to progress was reviewed. It was also discussed that both Steve Mathison & Ernie Boehr (ARB Members) lived close to the proposed development and they would both abstain from voting and would offer their comments as neighbors and not participate in the vote. The floor was then turned over to the Architect Robert Tong to discuss the proposed project. The home presented is approximately 5200 sf in size, in addition to approximately 640 sf of garage area.. The lot size is approximately 16000 sf Many of the concerns of the neighbors' were consistent with each other, the following notes are intended to cover the primary issues as brought up by those in attendance. Concerns of the neighbors were voiced as follows: 1) Concerns over the size of the home were shared by almost all in attendance. The size of the proposed home compared to the size of the homes on the street was a great concern and the home was considerably larger than any other home on the street. In general it was thought by most to be far too large. 2) A few neighbors voiced concerns about renovations they had done and how difficult it was to work with the ARB and could not believe that the ARB could even consider approving a home of this size. 3) One neighbor brought up "deed restrictions" and said at one point 2 story homes were not allowed in the area and wished it was still the same way. 4) A few neighbors complemented the design but felt the home was too large. 5) One neighbor questioned how close to the property line the new home would be, the setbacks were then reviewed and discussed that they were in compliance with . city code. 6) One neighbor complemented the design and said that the new larger home would increase property values in the area. He felt that the home would be a fine addition to the area. 7) Many Neighbors were very concerned regarding the size of homes starting to be built in the area. Using recent projects as examples of homes that don't fit into the area recently or currently being constructed on Monte Vista, Altura. There was overwhelming feeling that homes are becoming too large for the lots and not fitting into compatibility with the neighborhood. 8) The size of the new home was discussed, it was noted that the new home proposed is approximately 6300sf (combination of Home, Garage, Covered Porches, & 2 story ceiling area It was then noted that the average home size including these items on Paloma is probably in the 3000sf range. Tt was noted that the new home will be more than 2 times larger than the average home on the street. Currently the largest home on the street is 3700sf (refer to LA County Assessor information attached) After discussions the public meeting was closed and the ARB comments were offered as follows: 1) Dale Brown: Voiced concerns regarding the style of the home and questioned "American Traditional" style. Dale felt that the house was too big and looked massive. Dale made some suggestions to make the home look smaller by pushing the house back, deepen eaves, drop the plate height, and drop the height of the eave line at the first floor. Dale also .had concerns regarding the proposed fountain in the front yard. Dale further discussed that the home looks so massive because it is so deep as well Dale offered some design suggestions for the Architect to consider (which are attached to these notes), he also offered to meet with the architect to further offer some advise on the design. 2) Rick Frickie: Voiced concerns that the home was too large for the lot and felt it should be smaller. Rick also voiced concerns regarding the height of the home. 3) Lou Pappas: Stated that he thought the design of the home was OK, but felt that it was to large compared to the homes on the street. 4) Bob Eriksson: Voiced concerns regarding the amount of hard scape in the front yard and commented that the home was too big and needed to be smaller. It was then motioned by Lou Pappas that based on the size of the home as compared to the surrounding homes that the development was not compatible (City of Arcadia: Single Family Residential Design Guidelines "Massing "). The motion was seconded by Dale Brown, was voted and agreed upon unanimously. The meeting was then adjourned at approximately 9:00 pm. Minutes By: Steve Mathison Neighbors Attending: 1) Steve Mathison: 900 Paloma. 2) Kang Chan: 925 Paloma 3) Judy Baehr: 957 Paloma 4) Ernie l3oehr: 957 Paloma 5) Michael Zourabian: 938 Paloma 6) Catherine Lomasney: 948 Paloma 7) Jon Pawley: 1101 Paloma 8) Don Smith: 1049 Encanto 9) Richard Tipping: With Applicant 10) Robert Tong: With Applicant 11) Charles Huang: Applicant 12) Hank Jong: 881 Monte Verde 13) Carol Wopschall: 943 Paloma 14) Steve McLaren: 965 Paloma 15) Angela McLaren: 965 Paloma 16) Fred Ashkar: Encanto 17) Nanci Todd: 1010 Paloma 18) Jack Lau: 859 Monte Verde February 7, 2011 City of Arcadia Planning Department 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 RE: 934 Paloma Dr., Arcadia, CA Dear Mr. Jim Kasama, I am writing this letter to appeal the Racho Santa Anita Residents Association's decision for denial of architectural design review for 934 Paloma Dr., Arcadia, CA. The denial is based on ARB's findings which it states the proposed house is too big in size for the area. I do not agree with the ARB's decision and fmdings. This proposed house is designed based on both the Arcadia design guideline for single family residence and Resolution No. 5287 which was approved and adopted by the City. In fact, this proposed residence is significantly smaller in size than the maximum allowed per City code requirement. I will be out of town starting from February 21, 2011 to March 18, 2011. Please kindly schedule my appeal to the Planning Commission any date after March 18 ANNIMMINte RECEIVED FEB 0 Planning Services City of Arcadia Sincerely, Charles Huang, Applic 11819 Goldring Rd. #C Arcadia, CA 91006 ,col )/_ D1 March 6, 2011 City of Arcadia Planning Department Planning Commission 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 To Whom It May Concern: RECEIVED MAR 08 20H Planning Services City of Arcadia I'm writing this letter to appeal the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's decision for denial of architectural design review for 934 Paloma Dr., Arcadia. I do not agree with the ARB's findings dated 1/26/11 in which it mainly states the proposed home is too large for the area. The exiting home is a 2 -story 3,493SF living area situated on a 15,400SF lot originally built in 1950 with a detached garage and a pool in the back. The proposed new home is a 2 -story 5,158SF living area with a detached garage in the back. It meets all codes and does not require any modification or variance. See Exhibits A and D. I was very sensitive and concerned with both neighbors' privacy during the design phase and instructed my architect to 1) make sure we provide additional setbacks on both sides of the house than existing condition, 2) provide vegetation hedge along both property walls, 3) create more "green" landscaping area than exiting condition. On Exhibit B, the yellow highlighted area shows the existing foot print of the building, and the solid gray line shows the proposed home. The existing setback on the west is 15ft, proposed is 16ft. The existing setback on the east is 7ft, proposed is l Oft. The existing garage setback to the west is 3.5ft, proposed is l Oft. It clearly shows we have achieved additional setback on both sides including the garage area. On Exhibit C, we have setback the 2nd floor on the east side at 22ft, which is an additional 6ft more than the City code requirement. Also, we setback the west side by 24.5ft, which is an additional 8.5ft more than the City code requirement. Due to the driveway is located on the west and to provide additional privacy for the neighbor, we only have bathroom high windows on the entire 2nd floor facing west versus the existing 4 large windows. By using landscaping, trees, lawn, and vegetation hedge, we are able to create harmony and privacy. See Exhibit D. The January 26, 2011 meeting minute item #8 states "it was noted that the new home proposed is approximately 6300sf (combination of home, garage, covered porches, & 2 story ceiling area) ". This statement is in full contradiction with Arcadia Design Guideline for single family residence and specifically with the adopted Rancho Santa Anita Resolution No. 5287. Under the resolution section 3, it states "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 ". In fact, this proposed residence is significantly smaller in size than the maximum allowed per City code requirement. Under the City of Arcadia design and code guideline, this proposed home can be approximately 6,500SF in size. Lastly, I've provided examples of some of the new homes built in the past 3 -4 years along with their perspective lot sizes and living areas, and various designs of 2 -story single family residences in the Rancho Santa Anita area. See exhibits E & F. Sincerely, C arles Huan g, • pphcant 934 Paloma Dr. — Current 934 Paloma Dr. - Proposed Exhibit A-1 Neighbor to the East Neighbor to the West (recently remodeled) Exhibit A -2 0O3 3N ia} Tt1I?IQ VJY076d — — --- n n f � nn 7 n° 'l . Exhibit B vsnyren .aNilY OVANVS VO 'VICIV021V 3A1110 V190111d PE6 Seam AlINIH MONIS Exhibit C Existing Backyard Proposed Landscape Plan PALOAM DRIVE LSOINDi J011 NO. 01101 INEET L1 Exhibit D 9 5 Monte Verde Dr. 13,500SF Lot with 4,888SF Living Area 851 San Simeon Rd. 21,570SF Lot with 6,228SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 1 of 6 875 Monte Verde Dr. 13,235SF Lot with 4,084SF Living Area 911 Monte Verde Dr. 14,248SF Lot with 4,395SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 2 of 6 400 Altura Rd. 16,024SF Lot with 4,816SF Living Area 1010 Volante Dr. 12,105SF Lot with 4,376SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 3 of 6 1117 Encanto Dr. 14,076SF Lot with 4,820SF Living Area 1001 Panorama Dr. 13,998SF Lot with 4,282SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 4 of 6 840 Volante Dr. 13,371 SF Lot with 4,743 SF Living Area 918 Encanto Dr. 16,553SF Lot with 5,160SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 5 of 6 522 Monte Vista Dr. 13,888SF Lot with 4,488SF Living Area 321 Vaquero Rd. (under construction) 21,370SF Lot with 6,149SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 6 of 6 620 Vaquero Rd. 863 San Vicente Rd. Exhibit F Other 2-story homes in the Lower Rancho Page 1 of 4 1W On tan Me n _ & : WU Kg. ran y 821 San Vicente Rd. 588 N. Old Ranch Rd. Exhibit F Other 2 -story homes in the Lower Rancho Page 2 of 4 573 N. Old Ranch Rd. 860 San Simeon Rd. Exhibit F Other 2 -story homes in the Lower Rancho Page 3 of 4 876 San Simeon Rd. 1137 Encanto Dr. Exhibit F Other 2 -story homes in the Lower Rancho Page 4 of 4 Water Meter Location le Bridges Fire Hydrants • Water Valve Street Centerlines Buffer arcels condo parcel Features City Boundary ZacliJs q ?atom. Dr. SCALE 1 : 3,131 0-1 r 200 0 200 400 600 FEET http: / /arcadiagis /maps /water.mwf Tuesday, March 08, 2011 4:27 PN Lisa Flores From: nancilu todd [nancytd @earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:28 PM To: Lisa Flores Subject: App. No. HOA 11 -01 Attn: Lisa Flores, Senior Planner Re: App HOA 11 -01 I have been a homeowner and resident of 1010 Paloma Drive since 1966, and although I do not live within 100 feet of the proposed residence at 934 Paloma, I would like to express my concern about this planned construction. I have viewed the designs, and feel strongly that this is much too massive a building for the location. We do have other two story houses on this street, but they are built in scale to the existing ranch -style houses. The proposed design is not. It is entirely too immense for the lot it would be built on and would be out of place on Paloma Drive. It is my understanding that Arcadia, unlike our neighboring cities, unfortunately has no existing code regarding the relationship of square footage to lot size. I do hope that our City Council members will take the lead in the necessary procedures to amend our city codes to rectify this oversight. Thank you for your consideration. Nancilu Todd 1010 Paloma Drive Arcadia March 13, 2011 1 Lisa Flores Subject: FW: common for 934 Paloma Drive remodeling case Dear Lisa: This is the homeowner of 933 Encanto Drive,.our family just had a meeting to talk about the remodeling of our backyard neighbor. We just disagree their case because of two reasons - - -(1) their building will block our view to the mountain.(2)we'll have no privacy to the 2 -story house. Sincerely Yours Yulu Chou March 14, 2011 1 Lisa Flores From: Don Smith [drs1049 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:26 AM To: Lisa Flores Subject: [BULK] propose new house Importance: Low Please be advised that I am very unhappy with the size of the proposed home at 934 Paloma Dr Arcadia 91007. Lisa Flores From: Jon Pawley [jon.pawley @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:38 AM To: Lisa Flores Subject: Public Hearing 3 -22 -11 Re: HOA 11 -01 Location: 934 Paloma Dr. After attending the Lower Rancho Homeowner's Association review of this proposed project which was denied due to excessive size and design, I fail to understand why Arcadia does not regulate as to ratio sizing according to lot size and design in keeping with the historic neighbors general architecture. Jon Pawley 1101 Paloma Dr. Arcadia, CA 91107 i RESOLUTION NO. 5287 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA AREA AND IN THE AREA BETWEEN THE TURF CLUB AND COLORADO STREET "D" ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 4020, and adopts the following Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 1389, for the property described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto. To implemen. the regulations applicable to the real property within the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association "D" Architectural Design Zone area, the Architectural Review Board is established and is hereinafter referred to as the "Board ". The governing body of the Board, is the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association. SECTION 2. In order to promote and maintain the quality single - family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments, in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4, there is hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said association may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 3. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within said area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of said property, the following conditions are hereby imposed upon all property in said area pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those in control of property within said area, are subject to this Resolution and Ordinance No. 1832: 1. FLOOR AREA. No one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height, and not less than 1,000 square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half or two stories in height. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls. 2. FRONT YARD. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the Board shall have the power to require an appropriate front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as large as an adjacent front yard. 3. SIDE YARD. A lot with a building or any part thereof, occupying the front one hundred (100) feet, or arty part thereof, of such lot shall have a side yard of not less than ten (10) feet. 4. ANIMALS. Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept. 5. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. 6. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. 7. APPROVAL OF BOARD REQUIRED. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the Board. Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the Board. No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the Board. If necessary to properly consider any application, the Board may require specific plans, working drawings, specifications, color charts and material samples. The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building which does not substantially change the external . appearance of the building. 8. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. The Board shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist 2 5287 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 Board. c. Said by -laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the Board. d. Owners have been appointed to the Board in accordance with the by -laws. e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto have been filed with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. f. The Board shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, action, and decision of the Board shall be maintained by the Board. Any decision by the Board shall be accompanied by specific findings setting forth the reasons for the Board's decision. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. A copy of the Board's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3) working days of the Board's decision. h. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). 9. POWERS OF THE BOARD. The Board shall have the power to: a. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard pursuant to Condition 2 of Section 3. b. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible in accordance with the above Conditions 5 & 6 of Section 3. c. If a grading plan is required for a building permit for a structure, the Board may require such plan to be submitted along with the building plans. d. Any of the conditions set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, may be made less restrictive by the Board if the Board determines that such action will foster the development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the' adjacent lots and the general neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this resolution. e. The Board shall have the power to establish rules for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such rules shall be kept on file with the Secretary of the Association and the City Clerk. - 3 - 5287 10. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE. a. The Short Review Process may be used by the Board for the review of applications for modifications to the requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, provided that the application for a Short Review Process shall be accompanied by a completed application form which shall contain the signatures of all contiguous property owners indicating their awareness and approval of the application. b. The Board is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process Application. c. The Board Chairman or another Board member designated by the Board Chairman, to act in his absence, shall render his decision on a Short Review Process application within ten (10) working days from the date such request is filed with the Board; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. d. The Board may determine which requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3 are not appropriate for the Short Review Process, and therefore require the Regular Review Process for the consideration of such Conditions. Arty list of such Conditions which are not appropriate for the Short Review Process shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. 11. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURES. a. The Regular Review Process shall be used by the Board for the review of the Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, (eligible for Short Review) in those cases in which the applicant fails to obtain the signatures of approval from all of the required property owners. b. The Regular Review Process must be used for the review of applications to those Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, which the Board has determined are not appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above. c The Board is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process Application. d. Notice of Board's meeting shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the applicant and to all property owners within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. The applicant shall also provide the Board with the last known name and address, of such owners as shown upon the assessment rolls of the City or of the County. 4 5287 The applicant shall also provide the Board with letter size envelopes, which are addressed to the property owners who are to receive said notice. The applicant shall provide the proper postage on each of said envelopes. e. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. f. The Board shall render ifs decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date such request is filed with the Board; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. 12. EXPIRATION OF BOARD'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board, has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. 13. LIMIT ON BOARD'S POWERS. The Board shall not have the power to waive any regulations in the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the property in said area. The Board may, however, make a recommendation to the City agency, which will be considering any such waiver request, regarding waiving such regulations. 14. APPEAL. Appeals from the Board 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 Board's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal from the Board's decision, such appeal shall be processed by the Planning Department in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee. 15. STANDARDS FOR BOARD DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The Board and any body hearing an appeal from the Board's decision shall be guided by the following principles: a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. -.5 _ 5287 (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood.. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 Sr 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Condition No. 2 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Front yards). SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative impact on the environment of the community, effecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which pre- existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and 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 derision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of 6 5287 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: Js/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia /s/ DONALD PELLEGRINO Mayor of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA I, CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN, Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5287 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of April, 1986, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino NOES: j .J one ABSENT: None /s / CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 7 5287 EXHIBIT "A" Area #1 Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly line of Tract No. 13312; thence northerly and easterly along the easterly and southerly boundary of said tract to the southeasterly corner of Lot No. 1 to its intersection with the easterly line of Golden West Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Vaquero Road; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly terminus line of said Vaquero Road; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Lot 17 of Tract No. 11215; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of aforementioned Tract No. 11215; thence northerly along said easterly line and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Colorado Street; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Tract No. 17430; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36 of Tract No. 15928: EXHIBIT "A" cont'd 8 5287 EXHIBIT "A" Area #2 Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot No. 62 of Tract No. 12786; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said center line to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Tract No. 14460; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said tract; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said Tract No. 14460; thence southwesterly along said westerly line, and its southwesterly prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the northeasterly corner of Lot No. 61 of Tract No. 12786; thence westerly along the northerly line of said tract to the point of beginning, said point being the northwesterly corner of Lot 62 of Tract No. 12786; Area #3 All properties with that area bounded on the west by Baldwin Avenue, on the north and east by Colorado Street and on the south by the southerly tract boundaries of Tract Nos. 14940 and 15318. EXHIBIT "A" 9 5287 March 22, 2011 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -19, Modification No. MC 10 -35, Tentative Tract Map No. 71478, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -18 to expand the existing 17,920 square -foot office building by adding 7,463 square -feet; subdivide it into medical office condominiums; and allow a parking deficiency of 128 spaces in lieu of 151 required. SUMMARY STAFF REPORT Development Services Department The subject application was filed by Scott Yang, Representative from First Pacific Builders on behalf of the property owner, 650 W. Huntington Dr., LLC to expand the existing 17,920 square -foot office building by adding 7,463 square -feet; subdivide it into medical office condominiums; and allow a parking deficiency of 128 spaces in lieu of 151 required. The 25,105 square -feet addition will be achieved by enclosing the rear part of the first floor which is currently used as a parking area. The Development Services Department is recommending conditional approval of this application, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Scott Yang of First Pacific Builders, Inc. for property owner, 650 W. Huntington Dr., LLC LOCATION: 650 W. Huntington Drive REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit, Modification, Tentative Tract Map, and Architectural Design Review applications to allow the existing office building to be subdivided into medical office condominiums; expand the 17,920 square -foot building by adding 7,463 square -feet; and allow a parking deficiency of 128 spaces in lieu of 151 required. SITE AREA: 1.7 acres (74,052 square -feet) FRONTAGE: 270 feet along Huntington Drive. EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The lot is currently developed with a two- story,17,920 square -foot professional office building constructed in 1989 that was initially an automobile insurance adjuster's facility. The property is zoned C -O, Commercial Office. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Westfield Santa Anita Shopping Mall — zoned C -2 South: Multiple - Family Residences — zoned R -3 East: Multiple - Family Residences — zoned R -3 West : Realty office, restaurant, and retail — zoned C -2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial (0.5 FAR) -- This designation is intended to accommodate a wide range of commercial uses which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of CUP 10 -19, MC 10 -35, TTM 71478, and ADR 10 -18 were mailed on February 28, 2011 to the property owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the subject property — see the attached radius map. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public hearing notice was published in a local newspaper on March 3, 2011. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site is developed with a two -story, 17,920 square -foot professional office building constructed in 1989. The existing building was originally an automobile insurance claims facility. There are three vehicle inspection bays that currently are used for storage. The building has 24 units that are occupied by real estate, financial and other professional office uses. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to expand the building by 7,463 square -feet by remodeling the vehicle inspection bays and enclosing the ground level parking area beneath the second floor. The building is then to be subdivided into medical office condominiums. The 7,463 square -foot expansion involved remodeling of the 2,507 square -foot inspection bays, enclosing of the 6,642 parking area under the second floor, and remodeling of 256 square -feet of the second floor. The expanded building will have 25,105 square -feet. In the C -O zone, a conditional use permit is required for buildings CUP 10 -19, MC 10 -35, TTM 71478, ADR 10 -18 650 W. Huntington Drive March 22, 2011 — page 2 Parking Provided by Existing Medical Offices City of San Gabriel City Sq. Ft. Parking Provided Parking Ratio The Golden Palms Plaza, Medical Office Chino 64,636 sq. ft. 263 4/1,000 sq. ft. Nogales Medical Plaza West Covina 71,461 sq. ft. 355 5/1,000 sq. ft. Dr. Su Kim Lee San Gabriel 1,294 sq. ft. 7 5/1,000 sq. ft Parking Requirements for Medical Centers City of San Gabriel 4 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. City of Pasadena 4 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. City of Monterey Park 5.5 spaces / 1,000 sq. ft. larger than 20,000 square -feet that are within 100 feet of residentially zoned properties. The enclosure of the ground -level parking area beneath the second floor will result in the loss of 12 parking spaces. This loss of parking spaces is factored into the requested parking deficiency. Parking The change in use from professional office to medical office will have two impacts, the most significant of which is in regards to parking. The required off - street parking for medical office use is 6 spaces per 1,000 square -feet opposed to the 4 spaces per 1,000 square -feet required for general office use. The applicant's original plans proposed providing 137 spaces, in lieu of the 151 spaces required. The Building Official had a concern that providing the minimum amount of handicapped parking required by Code may not be adequate to satisfy the actual demand at a medical office building. Based on this concern, the applicant doubled the number of handicapped spaces from the required 5 to 10, which increased the total parking deficiency of the site by one space. Planning staff also had the applicant revise the plans to remove 8 proposed parking spaces that were to be located alongside the driveway because they created a driveway aisle that is too narrow per Code. After these revisions were made to the plans, there were a total of 128 proposed parking spaces, which creates a parking deficiency of 23 spaces. Based on this number, the applicant would be providing parking at a rate of 5.1 spaces per 1,000 square -feet. The applicant asserted that providing parking at this lower ratio is consistent with the requirement for medical offices and medical centers in other nearby cities. The table below illustrates this point: CUP 10 -19, MC 10 -35, TTM 71478, ADR 10 - 18 650 W. Huntington Drive March 22, 2011 — page 3 Traffic The other impact of changing the use from general offices to medical offices is the impact on traffic. Staff feels there is a difference in traffic patterns between general offices and medical offices. For this reason, the City's Engineering Services required the applicant to conduct a traffic study to evaluate the impact of a medical office building on Huntington Drive and the nearby intersections. Traffic consultants noted that the greatest impact is the projected 8% increase in traffic on Huntington Drive between Baldwin Avenue and La Cadena Avenue. This impact, however, is deemed to be minimal by the traffic consultants and the City's Engineering Services concerns with this determination. Subdivision The proposal to convert the expanded building into 17 commercial condominiums requires that the building be subdivided through the Tentative Tract Map process. This subdivision proposal is in compliance with the subdivision regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. Architectural Design The architectural design of the existing office building features a combination of brick and glass paneled walls. The proposed expansion and remodel will match the existing architecture. The existing roll -up doors at the front of the building will be replaced with glass panels to match the existing building, as will the enclosing of the ground -level parking area at the rear of the building. The expanded building will feature a new ground -floor lobby, elevator, rear stairwell access, and five additional new office units. It is staffs opinion that the architectural design is complementary to the existing building and is an appropriately designed improvement. Comment Letter Staff received the attached letter of opposition that was signed by 24 occupants of the adjacent residential condominium complex to the east. The letter expressed that the project should not be approved because, 1) there are already ample medical offices in Arcadia, 2) the increased traffic generated by the medical offices will create unsafe conditions at the entrance of their condominium complex, 3) medical offices situated in close proximity to residences could pose health risks from airborne diseases and viruses, 4) illegal parking in front of their condominium complex is likely to occur due to the parking deficiency, 5) their quality of life will be reduced due to the anticipated increase in noise, and 6) the use will exacerbate traffic congestion, which will result in hazardous conditions. CODE REQUIREMENTS All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency equipment, and parking and site design are required to be complied CUP 10 -19, MC 10 -35, TTM 71478, ADR 10 -18 650 W. Huntington Drive March 22, 2011 — page 4 with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, the attached Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. FINDINGS Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions can be satisfied: 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. The proposed addition to the existing building and change of use to medical condominiums will not have any significant adverse impacts to the neighboring businesses or properties, and will be required to comply with all County Health Code requirements. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. Medical offices are a use that is allowed in the C -O zone by right and is appropriate for the site. A commercial building in excess of 20,000 square -feet is authorized through a Conditional Use Permit by Code Sections 9261.6.8 and 9275.1.53.1. 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 proposed addition to the existing building and change of use to medical offices will increase the parking required by Code to 151 spaces, which is 23 more than is proposed. The amount of parking that is proposed; 5.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet, is consistent with the amount required by neighboring cities, as well as with the amount provided by neighboring medical office uses and is adequate to accommodate the anticipated parking demand. 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. Huntington Drive to the north of the site, Baldwin Avenue to the west, and the nearby side streets were studied by traffic consultants to determine the impact on traffic that proposed use CUP 10 -19, MC 10 -35, TTM 71478, ADR 10 -18 650 W. Huntington Drive March 22, 2011 — page 5 would have. The study found that the streets have available capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic and the impacts to them would be minimal. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. Medical offices are a commercial use that is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site. It is staff's opinion that the proposed medical condominiums satisfy each prerequisite condition. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -19, Modification No. MC 10 -35, Tentative Tract Map No. 71478, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -18, subject to the following conditions: 1. The medical office use may not include 1) outpatient surgery centers or 2) facilities that specialize in treatment or services for persons with mobility impairments due to the greater amount of handicapped parking that those uses require. 2. The applicant shall maintain the existing drive aisle just inside the front property line. 3. The existing fire sprinkler system shall be extended to all new areas. All heads in the system shall be quick response type. Existing heads shall be replaced with quick response type as necessary. A separate permit is required. 4. A sprinkler monitoring system shall be updated to current code requirements by a C- 10 licensed contractor prior to occupancy. A separate permit is required. 5. Minimum 2A:10 BC fire extinguishers shall be provided in all common areas. The maximum travel distance from any point in the building to a fire extinguisher shall be 75 feet. 6. A Knox Box shall be provided in an approved location adjacent to the front entrance. 7. The second floor exit door to the stairwell shall have its hinge relocated to the other side of the door jamb to allow adequate exit width. 8. A Water Meter Clearance application, filed with the Arcadia Water Section, shall be required prior to permit issuance to ensure adequate domestic water meter /service size. 9. Medical condominiums are going to have three services with meters. There will be one for the fire sprinkler, one for domestic use and one for irrigation of the common area. If the applicant wants each unit to be individually metered, the applicant can put their own meters on site on each service. The applicant will have the master CUP 10 -19, MC 10 -35, TTM 71478, ADR 10 -18 650 W. Huntington Drive March 22, 2011 — page 6 meter on the main service. The applicant can run one service from the main and manifold it for fire, domestic, and irrigation. 10. Unless it is possible to connect to existing water service and upgrade the water meter, a new tap on the water main will be required to be installed by the developer. Installation shall be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section, including isolation valves. Demolition of existing water services, if necessary, shall be performed by the applicant, according to Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section specifications. 11. No water service lateral, meter, flush -out, backflow prevention device or fire hydrant may be located in any driveway, nor may be closer than 3 feet from the top of "x" of any driveway or other utility. 12. An approved reduced pressure backflow preventer shall be installed on the irrigation and domestic water supply service supply, as close as possible to the water meter on the property side of the meter. An approved double check detector assembly shall be installed on the fire sprinkler service supply. The backflow preventer shall be screened from view as stipulated by the Planning Department. For uninterrupted domestic water services, a parallel RP's shall be installed. 13. All pipes, valves, hydrants, meters, fittings, and appurtenances, including disinfection and flushing, shall meet the specifications of the Arcadia Public Works Services Department, Engineering and Water Sections. 14. The 3 existing street trees in the parkway shall be removed and replaced with 3, 24 "- box Chinese Pistache trees. The installation shall include the removal and replacement of any raised /damaged sidewalk, curbs, and gutter in front of the subject property. 15. The use approved by CUP 10 -19 is limited to medical office, which shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 10 -19, and shall be subject to periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this Conditional Use Permit may be adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent streets and neighboring businesses or properties. 16. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency equipment, and parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. 17. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 10 -19, Modification No. MC 10 -35, Tentative Tract Map No. 71478, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -18, shall be grounds for immediate suspension or CUP 10 -19, MC 10 -35, TTM 71478, ADR 10 -18 650 W. Huntington Drive March 22, 2011 — page 7 revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing the medical offices on site. 18. 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. 19. Approval of CUP 10 -19, Modification No. MC 10 -35, Tentative Tract Map No. 71478, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -18, shall not take effect until the property owner(s), and applicant(s) have executed and filed an 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 these applications, the Commission should move to approve Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -19, Modification No. MC 10 -35, Tentative Tract Map No. 71478, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -18; state the supporting findings and environmental determination, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings, and the conditions of approval. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this project, the Commission should move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -19, Modification No. MC 10 -35, Tentative Tract Map No. 71478, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -18; state the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings for adoption at the next meeting. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the March 22, 2011 public hearing, please contact CUP 10 -19, MC 10 -35, TTM 71478, ADR 10 - 18 650 W. Huntington Drive March 22, 2011 — page 8 Assistant Planner, Nick Baldwin by calling (626) 574 -5444, or by email at nbaldwin@ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Ji sa a mmunity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo and Vicinity Map with Zoning Information 300 -foot Radius Map Photos of Subject Property Architectural Plans Comment Letter Environmental Documents CUP 10 -19, MC 10 -35, TTM 71478, ADR 10 -18 650 W. Huntington Drive March 22, 2011 — page 9 �r I 1 �U11L'�I�C1.C�i1 Dr'; 1 ... f f i.i liitlgiO" I 4A X011 Gocgle' 1 +11 , Out :_11031 .: Brit v. C -2 - ■ y MLA C • • C -2 Subject Property r s , C -2 C -O vJ 1 1,',■11iit,g.011 C r,ri,l + Irk R -3 .DA ELM Service Acerlcy, 1 giciataCsl?C11 Google 4 ;MS 2106 LM BERTAVEEL. MONTE, CA 91732 - FAX(628)350.1 no w 9 MwT OW Mr 1A. .w (Pr 1$ 0 NTINGTON DR. (6311) (‘I4) 8.14 'NAV O . fit O 4 1( ) _ M • mood 9 SUE MORENO (826) 3504944 OWNERSHIP / OCCUPANTS UST RADIUS NAPS -LAND USE -PLANS MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING 1 �r PROJECT INFORMATION 650 W. HUNTINGTON DR. ARCADIA, CA. 10 -253 H ar 170.9.11 PI.7J 00,4046 66.67 VIA SCALE 1" = 200' 1 0 Par. PM. I.M.• T R A N ©. 3 1 4 M. B. 0+2 !C•ndom: 1- R .A (m „a 0 CA T LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND MAILING ADDRESSES WITHIN A RADIUS OF 300 FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE APPLICATION: 16 CAMPUS DR APN 5778 -014 -012 (RED) ASSESSMENT NUMBER ON LARGE AREA MAP & CARDS 5778 -001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 -001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 -001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778- 001 -136 5778 -001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 -001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 -001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 -001 -136 5778- 001 -136 5778 -001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 -001 -136 5778 -001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 - 001 -136 5778 -001 -105 5778 - 001 -105 5778 - 001 -106 5778 - 001 -106 5778 -001 -107 5778 - 001 -107 5778 -001 -108 5778 -001 -108 5778 - 001 -109 5778 - 001 -109 5778 - 001 -110 5778 -001 -111 5778 -001 -112 5778 -001 -113 5778 - 001 -114 5778 -001 -115 5778 - 001 -116 5778 - 001 -117 5778 - 001 -117 5778- 001 -118 5778 -001 -118 5778 - 001 -119 5778 - 001 -120 5778 -001 -121 5778 - 001 -122 5778 -001 -123 5778 - 001 -124 5778 -001 -125 5778 - 001 -125 5778 -001 -126 5778 - 001 -127 5778 -001 -128 5778 - 001 -128 5778 - 001 -129 5778 - 001 -130 NUMBERTS TO CORRESPOND WITH NUMBERS ON AREA MAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 PROPERTY OWNER 650 HUNTINGTON DR LLC OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OSTROFF DAVID OCCUPANT LUM GREYSON T & TERESA S OCCUPANT MANN TONY OCCUPANT GREGOLI ANTHONY & ORLANDA OCCUPANT NORMAN GAIL L OCCUPANT YBARRA CHARLES H & DANIEL SAMKOW RUDY G & SUSANA CRUZ JORGE L CHEUNG KING W & LILAN L WENZELBERG ARVIN J CHEN ZHAO G & JIANG WANG CHIA Y FALZONE SAM J & BERNADETTE G OCCUPANT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REALTY OCCUPANT MANOHARA HARISH M JAHAGIRDAR MILIND M & SARIKAM" CHANG CAROL LU JIA A & XUAN ZHANG XIAOQIN MILLS STANLEY & FRANCES MARTIN KEITH E OCCUPANT UTSUNOMIYA TEI DOWNHOWER JANE & ANNICK J HO DAVID OCCUPANT NIXON NANCY E LEE HELEN H & TONY Y 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR .650 -W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 4731 STOETZ LN 642 W HUNTINGTON DR 1 114 ANAHOLA ST 642 W HUNTINGTON DR 2 1419 NE 166TH CT #13 642 W HUNTINGTON DR 3 19001 E LA CROSSE ST 642 W HUNTINGTON DR 4 7445 TRIBUL LN 642 W HUNTINGTON DR 5 642 W HUNTINGTON DR #6 642 W HUNTINGTON DR #7 642 W HUNTINGTON DR #8 642 W HUNTINGTON DR #9 642 W HUNTINGTON DR #10 642 W HUNTINGTON DR #11 642 W HUNTINGTON DR #12 281 W CAMINO REAL AVE 642 W HUNTINGTON DR 13 4416 PINCKNEY WAY 642 W HUNTINGTON DR 14 642 W HUNTINGTON DR #15 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #16 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #14 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #13 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #12 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #11 5276 STARDUST RD 634 W HUNTINGTON DR 10 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #9 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #8 710 E GRAND AVE 634 W HUNTINGTON DR 7 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #6 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #5 PAGE 1 OF 3 MAILING ADDRESS MAILING CITY STATE & ZIP 650 W HUNTINGTON DR #020 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 650 W HUNTINGTON DR ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 650 W HUNTINGTON DR ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3424 C004 SEBASTOPOL CA 95472 -9718 ARCADIA,CA 91007 HONOLULU HI 96825 -2017 C006 ARCADIA,CA 91007 SHORELINE WA 98155 -6043 C081 ARCADIA,CA 91007 GLENDORA CA 91741 -1922 C016 ARCADIA,CA 91007 CARLSBAD CA 92011 -5416 CO29 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3455 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3455 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3455 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3455 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3455 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3456 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3456 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -6904 C012 ARCADIA,CA 91007 MATHER CA 95655 -3068 C005 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3456 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3432 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3453 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3453 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3453 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3453 C004 LA CANADA CA 91011 -2819 C014 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3452 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3452 C004 ALHAMBRA CA 91801 -2729 CO32 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3452 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3451 C004 UNIT 101 102 103 200 201A 201E 201 C 201D 202 202A 203A 203B 203C 203D 203E 203F 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 APN 5778 -001 -131 5778 -001 -132 5778 -001 -133 5778 -001 -134 5778 -002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778-002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778-002-009 5778 - 002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778 - 002 -009 5778 - 002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778-002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778 - 002 -009 5778 -002 -009 5778 - 002 -009 5778 - 002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 -002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 -002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 -002 -008 5778 -002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 -002 -008 5778 -002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 - 002 -008 5778 -002 -008 5778 -002 -008 5778 - 002 -017 5778 -002 -018 5778 -002 -019 5778 -002 -020 5778 -002 -020 5778 - 002 -021 5778- 002 -022 5778 -002 -022 5778 -002 -023 5778-002 -023 5778 - 002 -024 5778 -002 -025 5778 -002 -025 5778 -002 -026 5778 - 002 - 001,014 5778 -002- 001,014 5778 -002- 001,014 5778 -001 -103 5778 -001 -103 5778 -001 -017 MAP NUM OWNER / OCCUPANT 28 CHEW WAI L & WEN Z 29 ESCOE CHI PEI 30 SUSANTO LEA 31 CHID DANNA X 32 DE GRAZIO MARGARET E 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 32 OCCUPANT 33 AARON PROPERTIES CORP 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 33 OCCUPANT 34 LAUIGAN JOCELYN G 35 BAUTISTA CHRISTOPHER 36 TSENG CINDY S 37 CHEN CHING -CHIEN 37 OCCUPANT 38 RAGUSA GISELE 39 YAN FANG WU 39 OCCUPANT 40 SHEN TAR LU 40 OCCUPANT 41 TRAN ERIC 42 ZHANG XIANFA 42 OCCUPANT 43 CHEN RANDY & LI HWA H 44 WIN JENNIFER 44 OCCUPANT 44 OCCUPANT 45 PACIFIC PRINCESS LLC 45 OCCUPANT 46 GERSHMAN ALICE Q ADDRESS 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #4 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #3 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #2 634 W HUNTINGTON DR #1 441 STANFORD DR 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637- FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 637 FAIRVIEW AVE 28619 TRAILRIDERS DR 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 645 FAIRVIEW AVE 653 FAIRVIEW AVE #1 653 FAIRVIEW AVE #2 653 FAIRVIEW AVE #3 9221 WEDGEWOOD ST 653 FAIRVIEW AVE 4 653 FAIRVIEW AVE #5 PO BOX 4013 653 FAIRVIEW AVE 6 8114 GOLDEN WEST AVE 653 FAIRVIEW AVE 7 653 FAIRVIEW AVE #8 930 CLOVERVIEW DR 653 FAIRVIEW AVE 9 653 FAIRVIEW AVE #10 35 N BALDWIN AVE 902 S BALDWIN AVE 860 S BALDWIN AVE 1427 W VALLEY BLVD #201 850 S BALDWIN AVE 5253 BLUEBELL AVE PAGE 2 OF 3 CITY STATE ZIP ARCADIA CA 91007 -3451 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3451 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3451 C004 ARCADIA CA 91007 -3451 C004 ARCADIA CA 91107 -2648 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 - ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 RANCHO PALOS VRDS CA 90275 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -6732 C047 ARCADIA CA 91007 -6732 C047 ARCADIA CA 91007 -6732 C047 TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 -2437 C005 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -6732 C047 EL MONTE CA 91734 -0013 8001 ARCADIA,CA 91007 TEMPLE CITY CA 91780-17'02 C011 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -6733 C047 GLENDORA CA 91741 -1975 C016 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA CA 91007 -6733 C047 SIERRA MADRE CA 91024 -1903 C002 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ALHAMBRA CA 91803 -2364 CO30 ARCADIA,CA 91007 VALLEY VILLAGE CA 91607 -2339 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 APN 5778 - 001 -017 5778 -001 -017 5778 -001 -017 5778-001-017 5778 -001 -017 5778 -001 -017 5778 - 001 -016 5778 -001 -016 5778 -001 -101 5778 -001 -102 5778 -001 -102 5778 -001 -014 MAP NUM 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 48 49 49 50 OWNER / OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT MC BALDWIN PROPERTIES LLC OCCUPANT KAM PETER M & SHUMEI CROSBY TOM H & ELLEN Y OCCUPANT COAST FEDERAL BANK LESSEE CDA ERIC / JESSICA ADDRESS 830 S BALDWIN AVE 832 S BALDWIN AVE 834 S BALDWIN AVE 836 S BALDWIN AVE 838 S BALDWIN AVE 840 S BALDWIN AVE 2313 VIA CARRILLO 820 S BALDWIN AVE 1611 S GARFIELD AVE 720 E ROSES RD 660 W HUNTINGTON DR PO BOX 10360 17528 E ROWLAND ST PAGE 3 OF 3 CITY STATE ZIP ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ARCADIA,CA 91007 PALOS VERDES ESTS CA 90274 -2716 ARCADIA,CA 91007 ALHAMBRA CA 91801 -5432 CO22 SAN GABRIEL CA 91775 -2335 CO24 ARCADIA,CA 91007 CANOGA PARK CA 91309 -1360 INDUSTRY CA 91748 « t 3I IdO NOI NI1Nf1H rissaisiffi L''' 1eI ::e • - ressesn®au1 to 1 1•M W M■ at 1 1 • I • 111 :I! It I i / — t „o Oi Al 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 IN IN 11 11 10 11 NO 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11 oh • To: Arcadia, Members of Planning Commission From our understanding of the proposed development Medical Office building #650 W Huntington Drive, we are presenting our objections as below: Reasons 1. There are ample medical offices in Arcadia and additional supply is not necessary . 2.The exit and entry to the medical office is too close to our Condominium. The increased .traffic flow will make our surrounding unsafe. 3. Infectious diseases and the spread of virus through the air will pose health risk to us. Moreover, we are not given knowledge of the type of physician's office to be housed in the building and some of which could be categorized as higher risk of spreading infections. 4. Due to insufficient parking lots, we are expecting illegal parking around the area particularly right in front of our condominium. Undesirable living conditions will bring down our home value. 5. Our quality of life is diminished by higher traffic noise. We are reaching a threshold noise level. 6. The huge numbers of commercial properties including the shopping mall caused severe congestion. The exit and entrance of the medical office is a huge traffic hazard being located at the busiest corner of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. Safety is our prime concern. In view of the above, we urge the commission 10 leave us to enjoy our existing, condominium and not to approve this proposed development. We will be very grateful if you can give us due consideration to our safety and quality of life. Thank you so much. Yours Faithfully, 1g Alt W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 FI'7 - WAR I1 ; , . r'E� ': r' H . !i � `'L'; 117 i? �i'�z it JIL PEW lU M q 2, it 114L,i iT3t ); j.L1 :f I LI-, r 1' 1 7 ar ,I - -,I ', 3 ['�l � V L�i�z >t ! l: t[` ��k�ll�'i`�clli�l , 'i'1`- [Tll�al 'TM I�'�:�r. L,�t3J��f�, s; OJ AI fiZ 1115L'1 F1 [l'Jil:; L , -•t.: f3'J 4, T =r 1 -T f '1`J+/X, )0 ■fi L1'1- , 5 , ti 1 6, 4c r'-PIfG1 1-1 1'L,'f[ 7r, L'_,yii[ jlll ; J o [ J r {I (I'1? fJ; I 1 Ji1 ; BAI_,t)V dN AVE I:IHUNTINGTONDR [= 1 % 1 4 tjr` }1,;ri�i u tt 1 , ft: :1 - ;6`i V.I. tj e, i. , if i , 03/09/2011 (' C 7l 3c «' Groh / 1 1(5 1 -4 5 c kseE w - Rrulirv= 1 i (r-tZ�'lo` CX L Z s2 1-f A iS H MAN o f ALA IC-61(4 A- (VioLLV R©BBIl &S 714m11 %`Nr UD \L) 171 w H # D C /3 t W. Hitiun►NGro,J IO , heaa-DIA 1A v ' tktNi k I S CA 1Tk0-0 Dr // q oo TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION 7` L W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 `7 e %` Zc h l fI rri db i7rTzd, Eti #/A 1, 1 -jdE. "0 [1`JLrf'tub, T Z0 2, 1rLL F=1 ,1IJ'',(` o A57ft.Q 3, 1=J414 k-r J1i7T0A -Anqn Rt L ,01Ri'7'( �'7tth}J, triA70.l o .KiATJcIFIRT A 44 4 , f-fki'7Lf / - 1.arf 4, 1T4S1O`JT,, �L1 tJ��J��o RT�E�kT17�`7lTl 6, *ith C A \II/ l'C Rjd, E0.4R T o L Erl ib 'Ja � Q XJF A BALDWIN AVE fA HUNTINGTON DR '7�c,SZ LJ &C ff 1►'7 �`7ii ��sT�A � , R11'7J nA WKIE IJO7 — ^, 'J�J��7�tCo Hwn-Lini-1--trn 0 (i TScce (9( TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION W.HUNTINGTON DR.#650 RTfidE0. -AID `3L FP' T J zo 2, —^ Q o r't - f - 5�`T�o 3, f F' 1-1 1kT1ITOA -60'3 , R: s . frAP l TJZI 7tt 3hh , fIJ t 0 J iAR fRT A Z:04 -(=3 Tt fi-' 7X11) iAA TO. * Ail`3 Virtu co 4, - 3Tz, R alflrY1 -Tj 5, * )\ife)J1 -10 6, 4.tthC ° ►NI1/1=1 LrfriLidb`7f gREA BALDWIN AVE HUNTINGTON DR 3Z fl did, lidt7tn3 T EO.TRAI T , Rif]A * V III MR /111 -- ^, fill — r. l L Chier\ UJEa yang 03/0/.2.011 TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 1, PflidE s ATL ingrf't' -G TXV4Iko 2, ItLL- ' Tt ',kjao rtaA pA — ^W r O 3, L fr't' --/ fR R'(17 A n [ , nt1Vto I �1tlTl7�t ] h, VAIP1f1)oi�JcTI'7SZTA�� 4, fT -T 11']%T,t, 0 -(=itL1- Vi -- TRAnffik. I T �k�l7�'71 T1 5, p - - )IfnAo E I TML$-A `]t'J 'AAA. 6, 0#11 3R 1=I RJf BALDWIN AVE f1=1 HUNTINGTON DR 7:Z3z. Il (14] Lb ' � " 44-2- . w . Nwn- Fii,q- kan � 3 TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION A ) E W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 1, RfjdEksA ML T'A'V -ka 2, kE 11=1 , L , A '(t P ,(∎7d o 3, L ':'db r` - 4TR i7T A J ff1, AriftM. R ,V0U CT17'(t Ala �cA�'JAtli�o 4, 1 #ttTl 'JTiT.., 1 T 1 T, 5 , A - k-XAMAovT�EL$-A 11'J`t' p) - fa 6, *t 7 itubfRid, BOIR' ilfTo EqF#'ub11'J ffl Q54.YEX . BALD WIN AVE fill HUNTINGTON DR xR Q )d, j in to a ffl i OALI'] * - Mht5 - RT►'7 — ^, 11 fC0 G�Z 1A) . l'i(Afktin,Tbrn 1/* VgaA P/•) 6) (ANY O-t*UA 3 - TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION A )t W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 FiEl : 1 2, kg'=1,L,' ''(t 'J0 o ffl7ft;:'A _'t f=1 o 3, Erir' 'tTR J=kTI'JTUA t ']aif, 3r*tL O R te' � U�k1i'J1 �f�10 AnrX glffg*o 4, 1 �r 117Tz, �RR��((L1��77��}}-``��J��a 11�E�kTI'7��1Tl 5, '9K b X I'" ti . t. r* 1kV /�J, -A N J 1.1 �1 A o 6, * E< TA A \IU r= E01R T r a BALDWIN AVE fill HUNTINGTON DR '�c..R Q yeti R1►'7AnA �� 4J07 — ^, IhT ,4t--2 (A). 1-6A-6/j-bin - it c,��N j-/nN v_//.-0/1 TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION A W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 11 8 3EYYL E 'rl dil ' - itt�J, lidnik4axmlna 1, 1 T''OJERa 2, JILITillidil Ifq R:: A" — ± n o 3, rp --)u - 14R 1k117TUA t '7 .IVA,ttT`co Rl 4, 1 , 11 - -fgr ] TZ , R * n 117 111 1 -15 5, a XI.IP)7Ao�R11,�p loo 6, 21KitEAANIIntiblRid, EkYfR7 ITo ErfrPibniltffinRYET BALDWIN AVE 5A HUNTINGTON DR ./3 X I=1 Aid , j 047 1 R117An g5MITk117 — ^, T — �-A) H uv +If„ k/1/4 X/67 / 6H14 Ye.-1 *..)011 �J� TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 RAIT:t 1x ktp1 1 1,na 1, PijdE, z-WUnC 2, kgq� ,kido f(17� Q —% , Q o �t• �t , I 'r� T1 Z o 3, Lq't � ' � -' $TR TVl i 'J 41, AriiSI lilt P,I PJ INtt (w-th h , ,: Irn] ' F o 11` -- I[fu*. 4, 1 HST.IJ wT nzT►'7nmi 5, X /MiAo M�1 T 1, A ntM 1 0 6, *i-thC 0\l!/itubTRa�, E.0.4k# T grfrrubili BALDWIN AVE fill HUNTINGTON DR xSZ 1=l fir, It J 1`Jig f 'I' R4►'7it 3� — V - gl T, �kT ►7 `7 �� ^ kT ►7 — ^, T Sc � Gs 63q—uus r PANNA-- ePig TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION 4E W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 , 1, f q1=1=1 7 2, >tEX F' 3, L , e, r` RIIITUA t J M, v,Arp o 4iAli T1R4c it v -r -A4-r if-fr7Lq)] /z 4, 1 HAnT t, 5, - A 11 *X- t��JAo e � 1 1,q -AB -1L1,t �1 `3 A r l ,�'tI 6, 4 ±Ll^ A'd \IU1'�`TR , E0." 11 J o Xr r = ]JAW Q3 ff BALDWIN AVE to HUNTINGTON DR xSZ Q 11'Ji 64 W7r 4 4- We 6eik) *(1( TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION 4E W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 in %a z` AKrYrruG`nittd, gEilA1: 1, PlidE s-A fR l`J Lq' ' T 5411. 2, iiL -' 'L cid. 3, i=i 1- -#TR IIT I - M, tlt o s fr �'7tt�11 feliPq . 4, 1 11 InT,t , T IkTn inL 1l 5, A -k;t1 -M)JAo 6, *tLCr" I' or=liL`Tkid, BALDWIN AVE fill HUNTINGTON DR Y. Q 1C , nmva R1111i0 f E0.4 W Tk4nA JAMg elk4i'J — ^, T t J /J\ dqt C o (4 Dr. 4' S �a_ltib TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 1, 14jdEi. QTR ri'J rP T o 2, ifL 4 1 , ' , RP,kjd o – W /1-14/- 3, LlT ldb! , - r" R'(I A I']ISI, rN o I; U cTI'7T3 nrpAtm. �[�lo * rr Y1re*o 4, J e t - T1nTZ, k-P Vt- R, *0 PftRTl'70'J { 5, 4M)JAo �I�(1.�ppo 6, ,&itC ONI1/[=1 E.IFOTMTo ( rridb iaWrIR .FA BALDWIN AVE *A HUNTINGTON DR x X t , j j ai, ,^ ' xE*- iAK<M Rcif7fTri`q3A. EkM[IT , kinAnA-mgmgia /i ] — ^ T —; 61.- 1A) - HIAK\ aricj,e,t4, 1+x r/ Ar'1oL Ho TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION J1E, W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 Rk1l'7 X7 a g : 1, Pff Eg-.ATaNrfr1 Ta 2, JtLErfq=iib 'f ,kilo 3, L die_, , - r aTl'7T A3S.MJIMI, 4ilVAa ft - ' - `17A UIkTi7g nithh, rirnif)11 *. 4, 1 5, '-XIt5)7111O R T 1,$-A '7t/ PP O 6, 4.±th Ikit-LAR3d, Eigs gMtlf PP=Pibnittffl BALDWIN AVE A HUNTINGTON DR xR.171 fit `J AW3g ± " ii7Af1 -Vg ftftii7 — ^, MitzZit indAqfCo 1n, . F.Imirtilizji-6-rm Tr 4 1 2 �o k ae s44i/Yi TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION - (=4 ) L IE W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 n'] s%t, #YL IMG 'tub nitt, RIMA45.nt 1 )111 4 36 gEtiiAT: 1, PiOd E 0.-h 1R n K Tt 2, JILL ' 1 41 , A1tl»,k ro It _ELF, -d 3, K 't' `tITR 7k'(I'7T ∎11(1/ A1, I 3t! 51 iJRCTI'7'(t J istlid'7RT Am 3 44 -A 4nL iL'vit I-al o SEA `J flu * o 4, fili-1 WaRzf 711'] I Ti 5, pm J)JAO n1; Aldo 6, * ±tCA rtuIIrr=1'C.,-/RJJ, z01 TIFT. L r=1'C '7tW QR,IEA BALDWIN AVE fA HUNTINGTON DR 'x_.54, t1 fir, o']$Pig w, - A- " • Ild7AMtVggiaTkT►'7_'•, fill Z 11'J /JAN fC 6 , 1-1(Aminj-t-trn Dr, # /2 ,)& TO: ARCADIA, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION W.HUNTINGTON DR. #650 I `J L' hidX Pr: icp n itt , 'SAT: 1, Filid E. - ATa n P 2, J L I L=71 , LEA II) Ida r`D ft.:: — ' t W Il a 3, L 1=' r'L TR RAI'JTtn In T, tL O lrs' l i IYA}J , rrim*. 4, 1 VI 7TZ, PMTVi'Jr`]l Tl 5, A ..Xi± o z .pmt. -A nt 'AAA. 6, 7ct C NIU 1=' Er BALDWIN AVE f Q HUNTINGTON DR 'x - '`.�Z rl ikid, /i- j rl'J `a W A, " R117A 7 *Mfg ARk11'J — ^, filTtP — , t'VJ\hJq .±Co vO, D ‘4-,6 1. Name or description of project: Conditional Use Permit No. 2010 -19, Modification Committee No. 10 -35, Tentative Tract Map Application No. 71478, and Architectural Design Review No. 10 -18 2. Project Location — Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 650 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007. The nearest cross street is Baldwin Ave. 3. Entity or Person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name: Scott Yang, Applicant (2) Address: (626) 254 -0499 The City Council/Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received during the comment period and the recommendation of the City's Staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the findings are as follows: The Lead Agency hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007 Phone No.: I (626) 574 -5444 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Lead Agency based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007 Phone No.: ; (626) 574 -5444 Date Received for Filing: Negative Declaration \2010 2__/ t( CITY OF ARCADIA 240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (-JK 3 Staff FORM "E" North: Santa Anita Mall South: Condominiums East: Condominiums CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. 2010 -19, Modification Committee No. 10 -35, Tentative Tract Map Application No. 71478 and Architectural Design Review No. 10 -18 2. Project Address (Location): 650 W. Huntington Drive 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Scott Yang, Applicant 650 W. Huntington Dr., Suite 210 Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 254 -0499 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department Community Development Division -- Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner (626) 574 -5444 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: C -O 8. Description of Project: A Conditional Use Permit and parking modification for a 6,539 square -foot addition to and conversion of an existing 17,364 square foot office building to medical condos, and approve the architectural design of the building. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) West: General Commercial 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): N/A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology/Water Quality Mineral Resources Population & Housing Recreation Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Air Quality Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Land Use & Planning Noise Public Services Transportation / Circulation I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. -2- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator For: The City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department Signature Date 2/24/11 Nick Baldwin Jim Kasama Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross - referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an -3- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 earlier EIR or Negative Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D) }. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. - CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project is not located on a scenic highway or vista. The addition to the rear of the building will enclose the part of the first floor that is currently open. The appearance of the new walls will match the existing building so that the visual character can be maintained. Therefore, the proposed project will not create a significant adverse impact in terms of aesthetic to the adjacent land uses. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ El Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ El their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? CEQA Checklist 4 The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan since it is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency environmental regulations. As such, the proposed project will have no impacts on agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The City of Arcadia is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which funded the development of the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality Plan. In 1993, the City of Arcadia adopted Resolution 5725, accepting the principles of the plan and agreeing to use the plan in the development of a local air quality program. Such a program is promoted through different approaches as outlined in the City's General Plan under Public Information and Community Involvement, Regional Coordination, Transportation Improvements and Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management, Land Use, Particulate Emissions Reduction, Energy Conservation, and Waste Recycling. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continued the trend of long -term improvement in air quality; however, air quality measurements within this region exceed both the State and Federal air quality standards on a regular basis. In Arcadia, local air quality problems are largely the result of pollutants upwind of the city. The project will accommodate a proposed medical building on the subject site, replacing the existing office building, and would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for CEQA Checklist 5 ozone precursors)? The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non - attainment area for Ozone (0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM Respirable Particulate Matter (PM, and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as the project will not increase the intensity of the existing and approved uses. e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? The uses on the subject properties are not listed as uses that emit odors and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. The allowable uses on subject site will remain consistent with the growth expectations for the region, and will not have an impact that conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The subject properties do not contain uses that are listed as uses that emit odor and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. Therefore, the project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El CEQA Checklist 6 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? There will be no elimination or reduction in the numbers of unique, rare, or endangered species of plants since the subject site does not contain any known populations of rare or endangered species. The project will not introduce any new species into the area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species since the proposed project will only remove ornamental plantings and street trees. The street trees to be removed will be replaced with tree species that are appropriate to the urban forest as determined by the City's Public Works Department Therefore, the project will not reduce the acreage of any agricultural crop since the subject site is not an agricultural use. The City has filed a CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form, and the Department of Fish and Game has determined that the proposed project will not have a de minimis effect on fish and wildlife. File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ El historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ El archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑ El site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ El formal cemeteries? CEQA Checklist 7 There are no paleontological resources on the project site and the existing building and site are not a potential cultural resource. Also, the site is not located in a sensitive area for these resources. As such, there is no significant impact to cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? v) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation CEQA Checklist 8 According to the City's General Plan there are two local faults: Raymond Hill Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault. The project proposal lies outside the Rupture Hazard Zones and Ground Rupture Areas of both faults. However, the proposed structures will be required to conform to the most current local, state, and federal building standards for the foundation design, bearing values, continuous wall footings, footings, settlement, earth pressures, slab on grade, and grading. 7. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ El hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ El project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ El emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? CEQA Checklist 9 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ El death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? The proposed project will take place in the footprint of an existing office building. Therefore, there are no foreseeable hazards associated with changing the use to medical office. Medical office use is not associated with the creation or transport of hazardous waste. There are no airstrips in the vicinity that would pose a hazard to the development. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 10 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation h) Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ ❑ El or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ k) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? ❑ ❑ El I) Potential impact of project post- construction activity on storm ❑ ❑ ❑ water runoff? m Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material ❑ ❑ ❑ storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? n) Potential for discharge of storm water to cause significant harm ❑ ❑ ❑ on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies? o) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial ❑ ❑ El uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit? File No.: CUP 10 -19 p) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of ❑ ❑ ❑ storm water runoff that can use environmental harm? q) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑ surrounding areas? CEQA Checklist 11 The proposed project will not change the currents, or the course of direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters, as the project is not located in marine or fresh water setting. Also, the entire City is located in Flood Zone D, which has no mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements. As such, there are no floodplain regulations. The proposed project must also comply with all the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ El b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposal is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan, and it will be required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. The project proposal is proceeding with modifications for parking and building size to make it compliant with zoning regulations. The approval of the project is contingent upon approval of these modifications. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El CEQA Checklist 12 The conversion of office space to medical office space will not result in a foreseeable increase in resource consumption. The addition of office space will likely result in some increase in water and energy resource consumption, but at less than significant levels. The proposed project will be required to comply with the energy and water conservation requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code. As such, the project would not result in the use of water and energy in a wasteful manner, resulting in no significant impact to energy and mineral resources. 11. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ El vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ El such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ El project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? CEQA Checklist 13 The proposed project is subject to Planning Commission's review and the Commission may impose conditions to ensure that the noise impacts are minimized to the abutting tenants. Conditions may include, but not limited to restricting the hours of operation. However, the proposed use will be similar to the previous use which was also office. As such, there will be no significant impact to the noise as a result of this project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project will have no significant impact to population and will not cause substantial impacts to the local population projections, induce substantial growth, or displace existing house since no housing is proposed with this project. As such, there will be no significant impact to population and housing as a result of this project. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 14 The proposed project would not result in a new or altered the government services. Therefore, there are no significant impacts to public services as a result of this project. 14. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project will not result in an increase in the demand for recreational facilities since the proposed use does not consist of housing. Therefore, the proposed project will not increase the demand for housing or regional parks or other recreational facilities. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 El 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? El El CEQA Checklist 15 Parking Provided by Existing Medical Offices City of San Gabriel City Sq. Ft. Parking Provided Parking Ratio The Golden Palms Plaza, Medical Office Chino 64,636 sq. ft. 263 4/1,000 sq. ft. Nogales Medical Plaza West Covina 71,461 sq. ft. 355 5/1,000 sq. ft. Dr. Su Kim Lee San Gabriel 1,294 sq. ft. 7 5/1,000 sq. ft Parking Requirements for Medical Centers City of San Gabriel 4 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. City of Pasadena 4 spaces /1,000 sq. ft. City of Monterey Park 5.5 spaces / 1,000 sq. ft. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g ) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The impacts to traffic associated with the change of use from office to medical condominium were found to be less than significant according to a traffic study performed by the traffic consultant, KOA Corporation, on February, 2011. The proposed parking will provide 128 parking spaces in lieu of 151 required by Code. The rate at which parking will be provided is 5.1 per 1,000 square -feet. Providing parking for medical office use at this rate is comparable to the requirements in nearby cities as illustrated by the following table: This parking deficiency is tolerable for the zone and is consistent with the land use designated in the General Plan. Therefore, the parking or traffic impacts on -site and off -site are found to be less than significant. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El CI Z ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 16 treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provide which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The City of Arcadia and County Sanitation District of Los Angeles (CSDLAC) will provide wastewater service to the project area, and Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) would provide natural gas to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact related to power and natural gas. File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ IZ related to solid waste? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? CEQA Checklist 17 The proposed project will not potentially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory. As such, there are no significant impacts to this mandatory finding of significance as a result of this project. b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable since it will be compatible with the surrounding uses. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed project will not have environmental effects which will cause direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings. File No.: CUP 10 -19 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 18 March 22, 2011 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas P. Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -01 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -01 for an unmanned wireless communications facility at Camino Grove Park — 1410 S. Sixth Avenue. SUMMARY Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -01 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -01 were submitted by Shannon Vitale of Core Development Services for Verizon Wireless, for a 544 square -foot, unmanned wireless communications equipment enclosure and a fifty -five foot (55') tall monopole antenna structure camouflaged as a pine tree. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of these applications with the conditions listed in the staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Shannon Vitale of Core Development Services (Representing Verizon Wireless) LOCATION: Camino Grove Park — 1410 S. Sixth Avenue REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design approval for an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility comprised of a 55 -foot tall monopole antenna support camouflaged as a pine tree with one platform array of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) four -foot (4' -0 ") diameter parabolic dish antenna, and four (4) ground- mounted equipment cabinets in a 544 square -foot concrete block enclosure. SITE AREA: 20,553 square feet (0.47 acre) FRONTAGE: 92.5 feet along Sixth Avenue STAFF REPORT Development Services Department EXISTING LAND USE: The property is a City -owned park with three tennis courts and a small park and playground area. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: The property is zoned S -2, Public Purpose. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Camino Grove School playground; zoned S -2 South: Single- family dwellings; zoned R -1 East: Camino Grove Elementary School sports field; zoned S -2 West: Single- family dwellings; zoned R -1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: P/I — Public /Institutional — Accommodates public, semi - public, and institutional uses, including but not limited to offices and facilities used by federal, state, and local government; special districts; public schools; hospitals; colleges and universities; and other public agencies and public utilities. SPECIAL INFORMATION In 2009, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2255 to establish regulations for wireless communications facilities, Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9288 et. seq. (attached). The regulations set forth location and development standards, design criteria, findings for denial, etc. Wireless communications facilities are permitted on City properties in any zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The subject applications were filed in accordance with these regulations, and the applicant is not requesting a waiver for any of these requirements. BACKGROUND The subject property is a City -owned park with three (3) tennis courts and a small park and playground area. It is adjacent to Camino Grove School. In 2005, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 05 -37 was approved to combine a light standard at the northeast corner of the tennis courts with a 50 -foot tall monopole wireless communications antenna operated by T- Mobile. A photo of this installation is included with the photo simulations, views 3 and 4. This facility was approved prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2255 and a Conditional Use Permit was not required. For the subject proposal, the wireless communications facility is in an area adjacent to the school's sports field. This area has three (3) mature trees with approximate heights of 45 feet. The T- Mobile equipment enclosure is also at this area. CUP 11 - & ADR 11 -01 March 22, 2011 Page 2 PROPOSAL & ANALYSIS The proposal is to install and operate an unmanned wireless communications facility comprised of a 55 -foot tall monopole antenna support camouflaged as a pine tree, with one (1) platform array of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) four -foot (4' -0 ") diameter parabolic dish antenna, and four (4) ground- mounted equipment cabinets in a seven -foot six -inch (7' -6 ") tall, 544 square -foot concrete block enclosure. The subject monopine and its equipment would be located approximately a hundred eighty feet (180') from Sixth Avenue. The monopine and equipment will be approximately 36' and 11', respectively, from the residential properties to the south. The monopine and equipment will be in a 7'- 6" tall block wall enclosure with a 12' -0" high gable roof that covers about half of the enclosure. Due to its proximity to the school's sports field and the tennis courts, measures should be taken to ensure that balls will not enter the subject enclosure. Staff recommends the installation of a chain link cover, or a similar solution subject to the approval of the Community Development Administrator. Noise In addition to the four (4) ground- mounted equipment cabinets, a diesel - fueled backup power generator is also proposed. The applicant hired an engineering consultant, RK Engineering Group, Inc., to prepare an in -depth acoustical study for the subject proposal. The study concluded that, if the recommended mitigation measures are taken, the noise levels associated with the project will not further impact the surrounding environment. The consultant has the following recommendations: 1. An eight -foot (8' -0 ") tall wall is recommended to enclose the equipment area. 2. The enclosure should be completely enclosed (no space between wall and roof) on the side facing the residential units. 3. Ensure that there are no air gaps in the perimeter wall enclosure. Staff concurs that these mitigation measures should be taken to minimize noise impacts on the neighboring properties and has incorporated them into the conditions of approval. For architectural consistency and to further minimize potential noise impacts, the equipment enclosure should be completely enclosed on all sides, with no gap between the wall and the roof. Architectural Design Review Concurrent with the consideration of the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the applicant's architectural design concept plans. CUP 11 -01 & ADR 11 -01 March 22, 2011 Page 3 Section 9288.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides the following design criteria for wireless communication facilities: (a) Pre - existing Character. Wireless communication facility location and development shall preserve the pre- existing character of the site as much as feasible. CEQA (b) Landscaping and Vegetation. Existing landscaping and vegetation, including trees, foliage and shrubs, whether or not utilized for stealthing, shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography of the site shall be minimized, unless removing, altering or disturbing the vegetation would result in less visual impact of the wireless communication facility on the surrounding area. Additional landscaping shall be planted where such vegetation is necessary to provide stealthing or to block the line of sight between a facility and adjacent residentially -zoned properties. If landscaping is removed to install the facility, landscaping shall be replaced on the site at a 1.5:1 ratio for the landscaping removed. (c) Stealthing. All wireless communication facilities shall be stealthed from view to the greatest extent feasible, considering technological requirements, by means of placement, camouflage, color choice, architectural compatibility and other site characteristics. The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennae and supporting equipment possible to accomplish the owner /operator's coverage objectives. The twelve panel antennas and the dish antenna proposed are to be camouflaged as a part of the monopine installation. It is staff's opinion that the proposal meets the intent of the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations since the installation will be disguised as a pine tree within a park that has multiple mature trees. Code Requirements The proposed project is required to comply with all Code requirements and policies as determined to be necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, and Public Works Services Director, and is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. CUP 11 -01 & ADR 11 -01 March 22, 2011 Page 4 FINDINGS Approval 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: Denial 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. The proposed use is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject property and will not conflict with the existing uses at the subject site. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. Arcadia Municipal Code Section No. 9275.1.11 authorizes a wireless communication facility with an approved Conditional Use Permit in any zone. 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 subject site is located in an underutilized area of the park, and will be adequate in size and shape to accommodate the antennas. 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 site is bordered by an arterial designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. A wireless communications facility is a use that is consistent with the Land Use Designation of the site. Section 9288.9 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that any decision to deny, in whole or in part, a conditional use permit, architectural design review or right -of -way encroachment permit to place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility shall be in writing (e.g., by resolution) and supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record. (a) A conditional use permit, architectural design review or encroachment permit, whichever is applicable, shall be approved unless it is determined that: (1) The applicant has failed to provide any information required in Section 9288.4 (Application Contents). CUP 11 -01 & ADR 11 -01 March 22, 2011 Page 5 (2) The proposed wireless communication facility fails to comply with the criteria of Sections 9288.6 (Location and Development Standards) and 9288.7 (Design Criteria). (3) In the case of a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission cannot make the findings required by Section 9275.1.2 of this Code, or, in the case of a right - of -way encroachment permit, the Development Services Director has grounds for denial pursuant to Section 7300.4 of this Code. (4) In the case of a new wireless communication facility, co- location at a site with an existing wireless communication facility is feasible. (b) Any decision to deny, in whole or in part, a conditional use permit, architectural design review or right -of -way encroachment permit to place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility shall also indicate one (1) of the following: (1) The applicant did not request a waiver from the requirements of this Division; or (2) The applicant did request a waiver from the requirements of this Division, but failed to present sufficient evidence that the requirements and restrictions of this Division either have the effect of prohibiting wireless communication services or unreasonably discriminate against the applicant, pursuant to Section 9288.8. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -01 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -01 for the proposed installation, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The antennas for this CUP shall be limited to twelve (12) panel antennas and a four -foot (4'-0") diameter microwave dish antenna, the panels shall be mounted at or below a height of 52' -2 ", as measured to the top of the antennas, and the dish shall be mounted at or below a height of 47' -0 ", as measured to the top of the dish. 2. The height of the enclosure shall be increased to eight feet (8' -0 ") to fully enclose the equipment. 3. The applicant shall install a chain link cover, or a similar solution to keep balls from entering the enclosure, subject to the approval of the Community Development Administrator. 4. The equipment enclosure shall be completely enclosed on all sides without gaps between the roof and the perimeter wall. 5. All City code requirements regarding construction permitting, noise, accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Public Works Services Director, Development Services Director, and the Fire Marshal. CUP 11 -01 & ADR 11 -01 March 22, 2011 Page 6 6. The proposed wireless communications facility including its colors and materials shall be maintained in a manner that is consistent with the plans and materials submitted and approved for CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01. The colors, materials and amounts of simulated foliage for the monopine shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director. All antenna panels and the microwave dish shall be finished to match the monopine, which may include, but is not limited to, sleeves over the antenna panels to blend with the simulated foliage, and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director. 7. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 8. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 11- 01 and ADR 11 -01 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals. 9. Approval of CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), and applicants have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. 10.A lease agreement in a form and substance approved by the City Attorney shall be executed with the City prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The owner or operator of the facility shall allow another carrier to co- locate its facilities and equipment thereon, upon reasonable terms and conditions mutually agreeable between the parties. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -01 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -01; adopt the Negative Declaration based on staff's determinations or other determinations by the Commission; state the supporting findings; and direct staff to CUP 11 -01 & ADR 11 -01 March 22, 2011 Page 7 prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings, and the conditions of approval. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -01 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -01, state the finding(s) and criteria that the proposal does not satisfy, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the March 22 public hearing, please contact Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447. Approved by: Jim ma Cc munity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Proposed Plans Photos of Site Photo Simulations — with photo of the existing T- Mobile light pole antenna Applicant's Project Description with Coverage Diagrams Environmental Documents AMC Code Section 9288 CUP 11 -01 & ADR 11 -01 March 22, 2011 Page 8 1410 S. Sixth Avenue CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 (J, Hi; [i llI n l rr � . t Pi z°ux i 5 'ED 2 PRA 1 0 Z o + LW Q a <7 lahe oe (:) l'iS N uRu 8 A g ; ; h mk P r g 1 1 1 111151h1111111111111 1 5 • azzjo armAy H19 • 1E _MN ILLSZLOCN 1 4- X 4 0 0 4 el z 0 W 1 - W 40 10. F., n$ Er.F. nil Std 4 p 6 0 z z 0 col 2 0 A 3f1N3AV H19 H " n .1 - � o x..SS.ZLOa iz 0 7 0) N Inoona awe oHUSw '�' WIVM3al 1P�$, GQ r\ ' fzg 3f1N3AY I-19 tl a� n .L ®e ®§ 0 oO . a5��mme�o ®W�..W�ereec=,Bs��,,.a a��__eees�s5ier I kid Site Photographs Aerial View of Site Overall View of Site View Looking South View Looking North ew Looking East View Looking South IiJ Id ia 0 < 0 cj re z ki 1- sit 1- a in 0 Ic 0 0 a+ 0 4 0 4 z taj > 1- 0 U) 0 Z W W (3 LY (0 0 0 Qt Q U Q 0 Q U W z W 1- •1e s " y ° a' E m cccm crE 'o 0 0 0 Q 0 Q u Z W ' Z W W en va LI Ce 0 to Q 0 � L a o> January 12, 2010 Subject: FCC RF Emissions Compliance Verizon Wireless (VzW) Telecommunications Facility, 1410 S. 6th Avenue, Arcadia, CA 90116 (Verizon Wireless `Fairgreen') VeriZellwireless Verizon Wireless 15505 Sand Canyon Ave. Building D -1 Irvine, CA 92618 Verizon Wireless' Network Engineering Department conducts radio frequency (RF) emission studies on all sites. The RF emission study is conducted pursuant to the guidelines and specifications provided in FCC OET Bulletin No. 65, Edition 97 -01 dated August 1997, entitled Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. All transmit and receive equipment is manufactured to meet strict FCC requirements. Prior to use, the equipment must have FCC approval as to design, use and technical parameters. The study evaluated RF emission levels at publicly accessible areas around the Verizon Wireless antennas. The calculations are made assuming `worst case' conditions i.e., all transmitters operating simultaneously at their maximum power excluding any attenuation. Based upon Verizon Wireless' engineering study and analysis, this telecommunications facility does not exceed the general population exposure limits in locations that are accessible to the general public, and is in complete compliance with the FCC's RF emission regulations. Verizon Wireless is committed to assuring the safety and welfare of its employees, the public and the environment. Should you have any additional property related concerns, please contact our property management at (949) 286 -8711. Thank you, Obi Iroezi Radio Frequency Engineering Verizon Wireless vN Ir i • eW..OA .. Neyl•.A w -s .... ..VVeI! i Wp Nvwse F Iv a er.,W5 MV MQ s ' 81PM .w3 9 M PI \ z a E E A I.V 4N8 `1 N -4 nA fN ry Vw ..VPS2 . s}dAw l e ` ` ffi $ ... ..Voles oll . -_ • AI; -I ffi ■ as • I Q ffi I A +W ..Hank) q F ag i 1,. I l ..vii S 1 I 1 ; Il I 1 dd A,, F 1 1 . , c F Pe ". . i a ,Nrw.r f Hag' F gg eMAl $ 3 F • F I- w ge # B; F F � 41 ..v 11.7-1 3 4 1 3 5. HAIM Or Seemed Pe 4 .4 3 .e� mFFF w ....Need Xylem! Goa l 6 MeedmRd 9 rAA . _ V VuPM 2 4 leMA119 .NW Mee Puss gg SNOOeMeAw. i eti .M.iFew aeO PmND s I A BI •!V 1Nt is sW OM? N a I Tai 1 w.w«;o PNS PolP0 u8 N �:.... ..@ • JLi .{ P C \� k ` /§\_o " ' \ \/ 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11- 01. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive — Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Name: Thomas Li, Associate Planner Phone: (626) 574-5447/Fax — (626) 447-9173 Email: tli@cLarcadia.ca.us 4. Project Location: 1410 S. Sixth Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Verizon Wireless 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Building D, Irvine, CA 92618 6. General Plan Designation: P /1 Public /Institutional 7. Zoning Classification: S -2 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design approval for an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility comprised of a 55 -foot tall monopole antenna support camouflaged as a pine tree with one platform array of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) four -foot (4' -0') diameter parabolic dish antenna, and four (4) ground- mounted equipment cabinets in a 544 square -foot concrete block enclosure. CEQA Checklist -1- 4 -03 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: Camino Grove School playground; zoned S -2 South: Single - family dwellings; zoned R -1 East: Camino Grove Elementary School sports field; zoned S -2 West: Single - family dwellings; zoned R -1 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Public Services [ ] Utilities / Service Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X1 CEQA Checklist Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation DETERM (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Mandatory Findings of Significance File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Air Quality Geology / Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation / Traffic I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. -2- 4 -03 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 4. Signature Date fig. $ 24./1 Thomas Li, Associate Planner For: Jim Kasama Printed Name & Title Community Development Administrator EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 -3- 4 -03 File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to Tess than significant. CEQA Checklist -4- 4 -03 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: CEQA Checklist -5- File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The subject site is bordered by a playground to the north, a sports field to the east, and single - family residences to the west and to the south. It is also adjacent to three mature trees approx. 55 feet tall. Therefore, there will be no impacts to any scenic vistas. L7 IZ There are no designated scenic highways within the City of Arcadia. The nearest designated state scenic highway is the Angeles Crest Highway approximately 15 miles away. Therefore, there will be no impacts to state scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors. El The project is to construct an unmanned wireless communications equipment enclosure and a fifty -five foot tall monopole antenna camouflaged as a pine tree. This building is subject to the City's Architectural Design Review procedure to assure that the changes complement the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The subject wireless communications facility is surrounded by a school and single- family residences. The project must comply with all applicable light and glare restrictions as set forth by the Arcadia Municipal Code and therefore would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ El Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non - agricultural use. 4 -03 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? CEQA Checklist Fife Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ El Act contract? There is no agricultural use zoning or a Williamson Act contract in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the above impacts. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land ❑ ❑ ❑ (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? El Z There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the project will not convert farmland to non - agricultural use. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ The City of Arcadia is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which funded the development of the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality Plan. In 1993, the City of Arcadia adopted Resolution 5725, accepting the principles of the plan and agreeing to use the plan in the development of a local air quality program. Such a program is promoted through different approaches as outlined in the City's General Plan under Public Information and Community Involvement, Regional Coordination, Transportation Improvements and Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management, Land Use, Particulate Emissions Reduction, Energy Conservation, and Waste Recycling. ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continued the trend of long -term improvement in air quality; however, air quality measurements within this region exceed both the State and Federal air quality standards on a regular basis. In Arcadia, local air quality problems are largely the result of pollutants upwind of the city. The project will accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment building, and would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ El pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including -6- 4 -03 releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non - attainment area for Ozone (0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM Respirable Particulate Matter (PM and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as the project will not increase the intensity of the existing and approved uses. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? The uses on the subject properties are not listed as uses that emit odors and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. The allowable uses on subject site will remain consistent with the growth expectations for the region, and will not have an impact that conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The subject properties do not contain uses that are listed as uses that emit odor and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. Therefore, the project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? CEQA Checklist ❑ ❑ ❑ El In Arcadia, biological sensitive areas occur along existing creeks, upper watershed areas, existing flood control and infiltration facilities, and in natural hillside areas within the northerly portion of the city. These areas have generally been preserved as open space for public safety purposes or as wildlife habitat areas. The subject properties are located within a fully - developed area that is not within close proximity to these biological resources, and is known to not contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ El other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? There are no designated riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the City of Arcadia. The subject properties are located within a fully- developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands ❑ ❑ ❑ El as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The subject properties are located within a fully - developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. -7- 4 -03 CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ❑ ❑ ❑ El or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia. The project will accommodate a wireless communications facility in a fully - developed area. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Arcadia has an ordinance to protect oak trees within the city. The project will not conflict with that ordinance as it does not interfere with the enforcement of the ordinance. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Conservation Community Plans, or other approved habitat conservation plan within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? There are no known historical resources on or adjacent to the site. If previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during construction on the subject property, all work in the area would cease, and a qualified historian, archaeologist or paleontologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? The subject properties are within a fully - developed area and are not known to contain any archaeological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any unrecorded archaeological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The subject properties are within a fully - developed area and are not known to contain any paleontological or unique geological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any such unrecorded paleontological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified paleontologist or geologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ El formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 El -8- 4 -03 There are no known human remains on the subject property. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that development be halted should any remain be encountered; the County Coroner shall be contacted whose responsibility is to make the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the project would not result in unacceptable impacts to human remains. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? CEQA Checklist i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The project will not involve any activity to create unstable earth conditions. Prior to any construction, soil studies are required to evaluate the potential impacts of the construction upon the soil. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ The City of Arcadia contains two local fault zones: the Raymond Hill Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault. The extremely thick alluvial deposits which underlie the seismic study area are subject to differential settlement during any intense shaking associated with seismic events. This type of seismic hazard results in damage to property when an area settles to different degrees over a relatively short distance, and almost all properties in this region are subject to this hazard, but building design standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm. The subject properties are not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other earthquake hazard zone. Nor are they located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Since the subject properties are located in a fully- developed area, the project will not have a significant impact or expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides. The City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. The proposed structures will be constructed on a pad where there are existing structures. Furthermore, these structures will be built to current building and safety standards. d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? -9- 4 -03 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential as defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code. The project will not have the above impact. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The subject site is in a fully - developed area that utilizes the local sewer system. Soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems is not applicable to this project. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The project is to construct an unmanned wireless communications equipment enclosure and a fifty -five foot tall monopole antenna camouflaged as a pine tree. This project would not generate a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? The project is to construct an unmanned wireless communications equipment enclosure and a fifty -five foot tall monopole antenna camouflaged as a pine tree. This type of development is consistent with the applicable plan, policy or regulation for the region. IZ ❑ ❑ ❑ The project does not include the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and will not have the above impact. The project does not involve hazardous materials and will not create a significant hazard to the public or release hazardous materials into the environment. El Z The project does not involve hazardous materials and would not emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ El materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? -10- 4 -03 CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The subject properties are not included on a list of hazardous material sites and will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The nearest airport to the subject site is the El Monte Airport, which is located approximately three miles away. The proposal would not contribute to any airport related safety hazards for people residing or working at the subject properties. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ El project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ El There are no known private airstrips in the area. Since the uses on the subject properties will not be changed, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project is to construct an unmanned wireless communications equipment enclosure and a fifty -five foot tall monopole antenna camouflaged as a pine tree. The proposed plans are subject to review by the emergency response units, and will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The subject properties are not located near wildlands where there is a high fire hazard and will not have the above impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑ El that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ El water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. c) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff from ❑ ❑ ❑ -11- 4 -03 g) h) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other sources? i) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and sportfishing; shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater, estuarine, wetland, marine, wildlife or biological habitat; water contact or non - contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; and groundwater recharge. The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site, replacing an existing apartment building. The project will not discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired. ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? The proposed wireless communications facility would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure that stormwater discharge causes no significant harm to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies. f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The proposal is subject to all NPDES requirements and will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. ❑ ❑ ❑ Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site, replacing the existing apartment. The proposal will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge as there will be no substantial increase in the intensity of the uses on the subject property. ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed wireless communications facility would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. El Z -12- 4 -03 area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? The proposed wireless communications facility would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. j) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off -site? The subject properties are located in a fully- developed area; the project will not increase erosion. k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? The proposed wireless communications facility would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. I) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm? The proposed wireless communications facility would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not to cause significant alteration of the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff that can cause environmental harm. m) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? n) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The proposed wireless communications facility would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ A series of flood control channels within the city convey storm water to regional facilities to the south. Due to this system, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100 -year floodplain. The City of Arcadia was located within flood Zone X as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map Community Number 065014. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500 -year flood and protected by levee from 100 -year flood. Under this zone, no floodplain management regulations have been required. Therefore, the project will not have the above impact. o) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? As discussed above, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100 -year floodplain. Therefore, the project will not have the above impact. p) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? There are no levees or dams in the vicinity of the subject site. Therefore, the proposal will not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. q) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ IZ -13- 4 -03 mudflow? 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 11. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 12. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The City of Arcadia is not located within close proximity to any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean to be inundated by a seiche or tsunami. The subject properties are on a relatively flat alluvial plain that is highly porous and is unlikely to generate mudflow. The subject site is bordered by a playground to the north, a sports field to the east, and single - family residences to the south and to the west. The proposed wireless communications facility would not physically divide an established community. 0 El The project is consistent with the land use designation of the subject property. It will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations. ❑ ❑ ❑ There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan on the subject properties. Therefore, the project could not conflict with such plans. ❑ ❑ ❑ There are no known mineral resources on the subject properties that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. ❑ ❑ ❑ The subject properties are not designated in the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above impact. -14- 4 -03 File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. An acoustical study was completed and the study concluded that the subject proposal will not increase noise levels beyond what is permitted by Code. The development of the site could create short term noise impacts resulting from construction. Construction hours are limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site, and do not include uses that would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. There may be a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or goundborne noise levels during the construction phase of the project. However, the construction will be monitored to comply with noise and time limitations. The current limitation on construction hours is from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sunday. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ El project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site and will not increase noise levels beyond what is permitted by Code. Therefore, there is no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Furthermore, the wireless communications facility is subject to the City's noise regulations. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or CEQA Checklist The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site and will not increase noise levels beyond those permitted by code requirements. Therefore, there is no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. There may be a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or goundborne noise levels during the construction phase of the project. However, the construction will be monitored to comply with noise and time limitations. The current limitation on construction hours is from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sunday. The project is located approximately three miles from the El Monte Airport. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above impact. There are no known private airstrips in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, there will not be any impact on the noise levels for people residing or working in the project area. ❑ ❑ ❑ -15- 4 -03 indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 15. RECREATION — Would the project: CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site, which will not induce substantial population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ El the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The subject proposal is a wireless communications facility on the subject site, and will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. El El The subject proposal is a wireless communications facility on the subject site, and will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ El Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ IZ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ El Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site and will not affect the above public services. Each of these City departments has reviewed the subject proposal and has concluded that it will not result in substantial adverse impacts. a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The project is a wireless communications facility within an open space recreation area and will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed wireless communications facility will not adversely impact recreational facilities. -16- 4 -03 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is a wireless communications facility in an open space recreation area and will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The open space recreation area on the subject property will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Arcadia's roadway network is nearly built out, consisting of the Foothill Freeway (1 -210), regional arterial roadways, collectors and local streets. The subject properties are bordered by a Modified One -Way Primary Arterial with 3 lanes in each direction. Based on the Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a given street and the amount of traffic each street actually carries is expressed in terms of levels of service (LOS), ranging from level A (Free Flowing) to F ( "Jammed'). Arcadia Engineering Services have reviewed the subject proposal and concluded that the levels of service of the surrounding streets will remain at an acceptable level after the completion of the project. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? CEQA Checklist The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) adopted their most recent Congestion Management Program (CMP) in 2004. For the purposes of the CMP, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V /C >_ 0.02), causing LOS F (V /C > 1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V /C >_ 0.02). The lead agency may apply more stringent criteria if desired. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report was prepared for the project. This report indicates that the levels of service of the surrounding streets will remain at an acceptable level after the completion of the project. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. The project does not change any air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. The project does not include new design features or incompatible uses. -17- 4 -03 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ El The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and found that this project will not obstruct or reduce access to emergency services. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding ❑ ❑ ❑ El public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. The project does not significantly change the use and will not conflict with alternative transportation opportunities. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is the local board with jurisdiction over Arcadia. This board has established the Basin Plan which (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. The project will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements, and it is also subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. ❑ ❑ ❑ El The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not result in the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Local Stormwater management facilities, such as the storm drains within the area roadways, are the City's responsibility, while regional facilities are the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW). The City municipal storm drain facilities will be maintained and improved in conformance with the City of Arcadia Drainage System Technical Memorandum. The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall ❑ ❑ ❑ -18- 4 -03 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). For the purposes of compliance with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221, the subject proposal does not qualify as a "project ". A 'project" means any of the following: 1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. 2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. 3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. 4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. 5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. 6) A mixed -use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. 7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then "project" means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections, or a mixed -use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. The project is consistent with the existing development on the subject properties, and will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑ which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not increase the wastewater treatment demand. Any future development shall also be subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. It will not increase the need for landfill capacity. g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? The project is to accommodate a proposed wireless communications facility on the subject site. It will not violate any federal, state or local statues and regulations relating to solid waste. This project is also subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. -19- 4 -03 CEQA Checklist File Nos.: CUP 11 -01 and ADR 11 -01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ El a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project is consistent with the general plan designation of the property and does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. It will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species since it is located in a fully- developed area. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? The project is consistent with the general plan designation of the property, and would not achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The project is consistent with the general plan designation of the property, and will not have negative impacts on the environment; neither individually limited, nor cumulatively considerable since it is located in a fully- developed area. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project is consistent with the general plan designation of the property. The project will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. It is located in a fully - developed area. CI El _20- 4 -03 City of Arcadia Environmental Checklist Form Information Sources for Evaluation of Potential Impacts 1. City of Arcadia General Plan 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan 3. City of Arcadia Municipal Zoning Code 4. Conceptual Architectural Plans with submittal date of January 21, 2011. 5. USGS Map, "Mt. Wilson, CA." 1966, photo revised 1988 and State of California Seismic Hazards Zone Map — Mt. Wilson Quadrangle - Preliminary Map — Released: March 25, 1999. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District: www.agmd.gov /prdas /aqguide /doc /chapter02.pdf 7. www.water.ca.gov /pubs /use /sb 610 sb 221 guidebook /quidebook.pdf 8. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Basin Plan 9. Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov /public 10.www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm Municode Page 5 of 10 (Ord. No. 2255, § 1, 3- 17 -09) (a) 9288.6. LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Subject to the restrictions and requirements of this Division, the following wireless communication facilities may be located in the following zones: (1) LOCATIONS: (A) Multiple - Family (R -3) zones; (B) Professional Office (C -O) zones; (C) Commercial Planned Development (CPD -1) zones; (D) Architectural Design (D) zones; (E) Central Business District (CBD) zones; and (F) Automobile Parking /Multiple - Family (PR -3) zones. ALLOWED: New roof - mounted, top- mounted and side - mounted facilities; co- locations to existing roof - mounted, top- mounted and side - mounted facilities; and co- locations to existing standalone facilities; PROHIBITED: New standalone facilities. (2) LOCATIONS: (A) Residential Mountainous (R -M) zones; (B) First One - Family (R -O) zones; (C) Second One - Family (R -1) zones; (D) Medium Density Multiple Family Residential (R -2) zones; and (E) Automobile Parking /One - Family and Medium Density Multiple - Family (PR -0, PR -1 and PR -2) zones. (Excelfbr public rights -of -way and City -owned properties) ALLOWED: None; PROHIBITED: All facilities. (3) LOCATIONS: (A) All other zones; (B) Public rights -of -way (any zone); (C) City -owned properties (any zone). ALLOWED: All facilities (new or co- located); PROHIBITED: None. (b) Setbacks /Lot Coverage /Non- Interference. Except for wireless communication facilities to be located within public rights -of -way, no facility shall be located within or extend into the required setbacks established in the applicable zone and each facility shall also comply with all applicable lot coverage and building separation standards in the applicable zone. For facilities proposed to be located within public rights -of -way, no facility shall unreasonably interfere with usual and customary access or use by pedestrians, bicycles or vehicles, or negatively impact vehicular parking, circulation, line -of -sight or safety. (c) Lights, Signals and Signs. Wireless communication facility signals, lights or signs shall be designed so as to meet but not exceed minimum requirements for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other applicable Federal or State regulations. Beacon lights shall not be included in the design of a facility unless required by the FAA. Any required lighting shall be shielded to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, impacts on surrounding areas. Any other lighting of the facility that is not otherwise required is prohibited. No facility or its supporting equipment shall bear any sign, graphic or advertising device other than warning /safety signage or those required by this Code or other applicable law. (d) Dish Antennae. Dish or parabolic antennae serving a wireless communication facility shall be situated so as to minimize visual impact without compromising their function. (NOTE: For regulations governing direct broadcast satellite (DBS) antennas (ie: radio, television, Internet service, etc.), see Division 6 (commencing with Section 9286) of Part 8 of Chapter 2 of Article IX of this Code. (e) Equipment Structures. Ground level equipment, buildings, structures, and bases shall be concealed from public view. (1) Accessory Equipment. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of a wireless communication facility shall be located inside an existing building, a new addition to an existing building or an underground vault, unless not technically feasible, at which point, accessory equipment may be located within a separate above - ground enclosure. No separate above- ground structure may exceed six (6) feet in height measured from the base of the foundation unless a greater height is necessary to maximize stealthing /architectural integration. All accessory equipment and structures, vaults or enclosures containing said equipment shall comply with the development standards of the zone in which the accessory equipment is located. (2) http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 16197 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2f%2fli... 3/17/2011 Municode 9288.2.- APPLICABILITY. 9288.3.- APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS. Page 2 of 10 "Side- mounted" means a wireless communication facility where the antennae are mounted on the side of a building or structure, other than a standalone facility. j. "Standalone facility" means a wireless communication facility where the antennae are mounted to a dedicated ground -based structure in order to elevate the antennae to a useable altitude (ie: monopole, cell tower, etc.) k. "Stealthed" means: (1) concealed or otherwise not identifiable as a wireless communication facility by a casual observer that is located on property other than the site, and (2) is aesthetically compatible and blends with the site and immediate surroundings. Stealthing may be achieved by any state -of- the -art means or combination of means including, but not limited to, the use of camouflage, textures, screening, painting or architectural integration with the surroundings (e.g., church steeple or bell tower within a church, unobtrusive penthouse on a roof, false rock, false structure or a tree amongst other trees.) I. "Wireless Communication Facility" or "facility" means a facility for the provision of wireless communication services. (Or No. 2255, § 1, 3 17 - 09) (a) Except as set forth below, the procedures and rules set forth in this Division are applicable to all wireless communication facilities built, installed or modified within all zones of the City of Arcadia after the date this Division is effective, including all wireless communication facilities built, installed or modified within all City public rights -of -way. This Division is also applicable to all lots or parcels where the construction, installation or modification of wireless communications facilities is subject to a lease, license or other agreement with the City. (b) This Division shall not apply to the following: (1) Public safety communications facilities owned or operated by the City or any other public agency. (Ord. No. 2255. § 1 3 17 - 09) (a) No wireless communication facility shall be built, installed or modified, in the public right -of -way in any zone, without first applying for and obtaining an encroachment permit from the Development Services Director. The Development Services Director shall review all encroachment permit applications in accordance with Chapter 3 of Article VII (commencing with Section 7300) of this Code. (b) No roof - mounted, top- mounted or side - mounted wireless communication facility shall be built, installed or modified, on private property or on public property that is not in the City's right -of -way in any zone, without first applying for and obtaining administrative architectural design review approval from the Development Services Director or designee. The Development Services Director or designee shall administratively review all architectural design review applications in accordance with Division 5, Part 9, Chapter 2 of Article IX (commencing with Section 9295) of this Code. (c) Except as set forth in subsection (d) below, no standalone facility shall be built, installed or modified, on private property or on public property that is not in the City's right -of -way in any zone, without first applying for and obtaining a conditional use permit and architectural design review approval from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hear all conditional use permit applications at a public hearing in accordance with Division 5, Part 7, Chapter 2 of Article IX (commencing with Section 9275) of this Code, and shall hear architectural design review concurrently. (d) Notwithstanding subsection (c) above, applicants requesting approval for a new co- location to an existing standalone facility located on private property or on public property that is not in the City's right - of -way ( "base facility ") shall only be required to obtain administrative architectural design review from the Development Services Director or designee (as set forth in subsection (b) above), if all of the following apply: (1) The base facility has already received a conditional use permit; (2) The base facility has already been reviewed and approved by the City pursuant to CEQA, resulting in the preparation of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (statutory and categorical exemptions for the base facility are insufficient); (3) The new co- location does not require a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report due to substantial changes to the base facility, its site, its circumstances, or new information; and (4) The new co- location incorporates all mitigation measures that were required by CEQA for the base facility. (e) Any decision shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the following provisions of this Code: (1) Decision of the Planning Commission with respect to a conditional use permit or http: // library. municode. com /print.aspx ?clientlD =16197 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2 f%2fli... 3/17/2011 Municode Page 3 of 10 architectural design review (to the City Council): Sections 9275.2.9, 9295.16(B) & 9600 (2) Decision of the Development Services Director or designee with respect to architectural design review (to the Planning Commission): Section 9295.16(A) (3) Decision of the Development Services Director with respect to an encroachment permit (to the City Council): Section 7300.29 (Ord. No. 2255, § 1. 3- 17 -09) 9288.4.- APPLICATION CONTENTS. Applications for the approval of wireless communication facilities shall include that information required by this Code for the applicable land use permit (conditional use permit, architectural design review or encroachment permit), plus the following information: ( Contact Information. The applicant shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact information of a form to be supplied by the City. The applicant shall notify City of any changes to the information submitted within fifteen (15) days following any such change. This information shall include, but is not limited to the following: (1) The identity, including name, address and telephone number of the owner of the wireless communication facility including official identification numbers and FCC certifications and, if different from the owner, the identity of the person or entity responsible for operating the wireless communication facility; (2) Name, address and telephone number of a local contact person for emergencies and type of service provided. (b) Location and Zoning Information. Location of the project site, including the address and the names of two nearest cross streets, as well as the present zone designation of the project site. (c) Description of the Proposed Project. A description of the proposed wireless communication facility, including whether the project is a new facility, a co- located facility, or a modification to an existing facility. If a new facility, the applicant shall include an explanation of whether the new facility will be designed to accommodate future co- locations. The applicant shall provide a written description of the stealthing measures applicant proposes to use to aesthetically blend the facility to the immediate surroundings. This should include at minimum a description of proposed stealthing techniques, and the textures and colors to be used in the stealthing process. The applicant shall also indicate the proposed height of the facility. (d) Noise. A description of the facilities and /or equipment within the applicant's project that are expected to induce or generate noise, as well as anticipated noise levels of said facilities and /or equipment. (e) Wireless Communication Facility Site Plan. Six (6) copies of a wireless communication facility site plan, at a scale of one -inch to twenty feet (1"=20') or larger and including the following: (1) The proposed wireless communication facility; (2) Location of lot lines, streets (with street names), easements, and all structures and improvements, including accessory equipment, underground utilities and support structures, existing and proposed; (3) Slopes, contours, trees and other pertinent physical features of the site, existing and proposed; (4) All exterior lighting on the site, existing and proposed; (5) Location, use and approximate distance from property lines of the nearest structures on all properties abutting the site; and (6) The location of parking for maintenance personnel. Landscape Plan. Six (6) copies of a landscape plan for the site, at a scale of one - eighth -inch to one -foot (W=1') or larger and including the following: Existing trees with trunk diameter over six inches (6 ") at four feet (4') above grade and /or fifteen feet (15') in overall height within fifty feet (50') of the proposed wireless communication facility; (2) Species, diameter and condition of all such trees; (3) Final disposition of all existing trees; and (4) Species, location and sizes of trees and other vegetation proposed to be installed with the wireless communication facility. (f) (1) http: / /library.municode.com /print. aspx ?clientlD = 16197 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2f%2fli... 3/17/2011 Municode Page 4 of 10 (g) Site Photographs. Current color photographs of the site and its surroundings. (h) Proximity Map and Information. For applications for a conditional use permit or encroachment permit, a map depicting all properties (with street addresses) within three hundred (300) feet of the project site, a list of the names and addresses of all current owners of the depicted properties, according to the last equalized assessor's roll, plus an affidavit indicating that the list of names and addresses described above is accurate, based upon due and diligent inquiry of the applicant. The proximity map and information set forth above shall not be required for an application for administrative architectural design review. (i) Visual Impact Analysis. A visual impact analysis (which shall include photomontage, photo simulation or similar technique) which demonstrates, from all four (4) primary directions (north, south, east and west) the potential visual impacts of the proposed wireless communication facility. Consideration shall be given to views from public areas as well as from private property. The analysis shall assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed wireless communication facility and other existing wireless communication facilities in the area, and shall identify and include all feasible mitigation measures consistent with the technological requirements of the proposed wireless communication service. All costs for the visual analysis, and applicable administrative costs, shall be borne by the applicant. (j) Wireless Communication Facility Mount. A description of whether the proposed facility is a co- located facility, standalone facility, roof /top- mounted, or side - mounted. (k) Justification for Location /Co- location. The applicant must provide justification as to why the applicant chose the location for the proposed wireless communication facility. Such justification shall include a written assessment of not less than two (2) alternative locations considered by the applicant and the reasons why said alternative locations were rejected as candidates. Further, pursuant to Section 9288.6 (i), the applicant shall provide written evidence that it has made a good faith effort to co- locate the proposed facility with an existing facility and indicate whether co- location is or is not feasible. (1) FCC /Signal Standards. A report certified by a licensed radio frequency engineer stating that electromagnetic (EM) emissions from the proposed facility will neither exceed standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), nor interfere with any fire, police or other emergency communications system. (m) Map of Applicant's Existing Wireless Communication Facilities. A map and narrative description of all existing wireless communication facility sites used by the applicant which are located within the City, and any wireless communication facility sites located outside of the City but which provide coverage within any part of the City. (n) Coverage Assessment. A written report setting forth how and why the proposed wireless communication facility will improve the quality of the applicants coverage. The report shall indicate the areas where coverage will be improved, and shall also include areas where the applicant currently has no coverage, a significant degradation in coverage or "dead zones ". The report shall include a capacity analysis, a propagation analysis and /or a decibel level report to indicate the quality of service provided by the applicant both at present and after installation of the proposed wireless communication facility. (o) Licenses. Documentation certifying the applicant has obtained all applicable licenses or other approvals to provide the services proposed in connection with the application, whether required by the Federal Communications Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, or any other agency with authority over the proposed wireless communication facility. (p) Application Fee. A fee in the amount established by the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. (q) Waiver. Any application to develop a wireless communication facility that does not meet the general requirements and restrictions of this Division shall include a request for a waiver, as set forth in Section 9288.8 of this Code. A request for waiver may be submitted at a later time if it is determined that the proposed facility, as originally submitted, will not meet the requirements and restrictions of this Division. (r) Proprietary or Confidential Information. Any proprietary information or trade secrets disclosed to the City or the consultant as a part of any application is hereby deemed not to be a public record pursuant to Government Code Section 6254.7(d), shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third party except: (i) with the express consent of the applicant, (ii) pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or (iii) pursuant to an order of regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the issue. (Ord. No. 2255, § 1, 3 17 - 09) (a) (b) 9288.5. NOTICE(S) OF HEARING /DETERMINATION. Whenever this Division requires a public hearing to be held before the Planning Commission, notice of hearing shall be given as prescribed in Section 9275.2.4 of this Code. Whenever this Division requires an administrative decision of the Development Services Director on an encroachment permit (but not administrative architectural design review), notice shall be mailed to the owners or authorized agents of real property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the site. The notice shall be mailed by the applicant, in a format approved by the City, not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date the Development Services Director renders his or her decision. http: / /librarv.municode.com/ print. aspx? clientID = 16197 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2 f %2fli... 3/17/2011 Municode Page 6 of 10 Security. Accessory equipment shall be equipped with tamperproof cabinets and /or locks to mitigate safety siting issues. All wireless communication facilities shall be designed so as to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions which would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight or attractive nuisances. Barbed wire or razor wire fencing is prohibited. (f) Building Codes. Wireless communication facilities shall comply with all applicable building codes. (g) Height. All wireless communication facilities shall be located at the lowest possible height that will allow them to operate. Notwithstanding any other height limitations contained in this article, wireless communication facilities may not exceed the height limitations set forth below: (1) Roof- mounted facilities (new or co- located) that are placed on an existing building, or top - mounted facilities (new or co- located) that are placed on an existing utility pole, water tank, or other similar structure may extend to, but shall not exceed, a height of ten (10) feet above the roof or top of the building or structure; (2) Side - mounted facilities (new or co- located) that are placed on an existing building, or on an existing utility pole, water tank, or other similar structure may not extend beyond the height of the existing building or structure; (3) Facilities co- located on an existing standalone facility may not extend beyond the height of the existing standalone facility; and (4) New standalone facilities may not exceed fifty -five (55) feet in height. Any applicant that proposes to construct or co- locate a wireless communication facility that would exceed the applicable height limitations set forth above must request a waiver, pursuant to Section 9288.8. (h) Signal /Power Cables. All wireless communication facility cables, wires or similar electrical transmission devices must be placed underground, be placed within the existing building or structure or in cableways, and must be properly stealthed to the maximum extent possible. (i) Co- Location Requirements: (1) Co- location. Where feasible, owners or operators shall share sites where wireless communication facilities are already located, thereby reducing the number of new facilities. (2) Good Faith Effort. All applicants shall demonstrate a good -faith effort to co- locate with existing facilities. The City may deny an approval to an applicant who has not demonstrated a good -faith effort to co- locate with an existing facility. Such good -faith effort includes written evidence by the applicant of: (A) Contact with all other licensed carriers for facilities operating in the City within the area of proposed coverage. (B) Sharing non - proprietary technical information necessary to determine if co- location is feasible under the design configuration most accommodating to co- location. In the event the applicant determines that co- location is not feasible, the applicant shall include with its application a written statement of the reasons why co- location is not feasible. In the event the applicant determines that co- location is feasible, the applicant shall include provisions for co- location of its facility in its application. (3) Numerical Limits on Co- location. Not greater than three (3) facilities shall be co- Located upon any single site. (4) All co- located facilities upon a site shall be architecturally coordinated and stealthed consistently with each other. (j) Parking. Any wireless communication facility shall not reduce the number of available parking spaces below the amount required by this Code. (k) FCC Requirements. All existing and future wireless communication facilities shall meet all applicable FCC emissions and exposure standards for electromagnetic (EM) radiation, and all required notices and signs shall be posted on the site as required by the FCC and PUC. (I) Noise. All wireless communication facilities must comply with all existing noise ordinances of the City, but in no case shall any facility generate sound in excess of: (i) 50 dB CNEL at the property line of the nearest residential use, or (ii) 65 dB CNEL at the property line of the nearest non - residential use. (Ord. No. 2255. § 1. 3- 17 -09) 9288.7.- DESIGN CRITERIA. (a) (b) Pre - existing Character. Wireless communication facility location and development shall preserve the pre - existing character of the site as much as feasible. Landscaping and Vegetation. Existing landscaping and vegetation, including trees, foliage and shrubs, whether or not utilized for stealthing, shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography of the site shall be minimized, unless removing, altering or disturbing the vegetation would result in less visual impact of the wireless communication facility on the surrounding area. Additional landscaping shall be planted where such vegetation is necessary to provide stealthing or to block the line of sight between a facility and adjacent residentially -zoned properties. If landscaping is removed to install the facility, landscaping shall be replaced on the site at a 1.5:1 ratio for the landscaping removed. http: // library. municode .com / print. aspx? clientlD = 16197 &HTMRequest= http % % 3/17/2011 Municode Page 1 of 10 Arcadia, California, Code of Ordinances >> ARTICLE IX. - DIVISION AND USE OF LAND» CHAPTER 2. - ZONING REGULATIONS » PART 8. - GENERAL PROVISIONS » DIVISION 8. - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES » DIVISION 8. - WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES 9288. - INTENT AND PURPOSE. 9288.1. - DEFINITIONS. 9288.2. - APPLICABILITY. 9288.3. - APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS. 9288.4. - APPLICATION CONTENTS. 9288.5. - NOTICE(S) OF HEARING /DETERMINATION. 9288.6. - LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 9288.7. - DESIGN CRITERIA. 9288.8. - WAIVER REQUEST. 9288.9. - FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. 9288.10. - STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 9288.11. - REVOCATIONS. 9288.12. - MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. 9288.13. - "CELLS ON WHEELS" PROHIBITED /EMERGENCY DEPLOYMENT. 9288.14. - ABANDONMENT AND REMOVAL. 9288.15. - VIOLATION PENALTY. 9288. INTENT AND PURPOSE. The purpose of these requirements is to provide placement, design, and screening criteria to regulate the establishment of wireless communication facilities to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, and quality of life in the City, while providing needed flexibility to wireless communication providers. Additionally, these regulations protect the visual aesthetics of the community through the promotion of stealthing techniques that architecturally integrate or camouflage wireless communication facilities with their surroundings. This Division shall be applied on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis to all applicants for wireless communication facilities. (Ord. No. 2255, § 1, 2- 17 -09) 9288.1.- DEFINITIONS. a . "Applicant" means a provider of wireless communication services who applies to the city to install a wireless communication facility within the city. b. "Abandonment" means inoperative or unused for a period of one hundred - eighty (180) calendar days or more. c. "Antenna" means that part of a wireless communication facility designed to transmit or receive radio frequency or electromagnetic signals, and includes panels, wires, poles, rods, dishes, or similar devices. d. "Cell site" or "site" means a parcel of land or public right -of -way location that contains a wireless communication facility(ies) including any antenna, support structure, accessory building, or other components associated with, or ancillary to, the use of the wireless communication facility. e. "Co- location" means the sharing of one (1) site and infrastructure for the purpose of locating two (2) or more wireless communication facilities. f. "Mount" means the structure or surface upon which antennae are mounted. g. "Project site" means the site on which an applicant proposes to construct a wireless communication facility, including any antenna, mount or support structure, accessory building, or other components associated with, or ancillary to, the use of the wireless communication facility. h. "Roof- or top- mounted" means a wireless communication facility where the antennae are mounted on the roof or top of a building or structure, other than a standalone facility. http:// library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientlD= 16197 &HTMRequest = http %3a %2f /o2fli... 3/17/2011 Municode Page 7 of 10 ( Stealthing. All wireless communication facilities shall be stealthed from view to the greatest extent feasible, considering technological requirements, by means of placement, camouflage, color choice, architectural compatibility and other site characteristics. The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennae and supporting equipment possible to accomplish the owner /operator's coverage objectives. Blending /Stealthing Methods: (1) All standalone facilities, plus supporting equipment, shall be composed of non - reflective materials and painted a color generally matching the surroundings or background that minimizes their visibility, unless the FCC, FAA, or other government agency requires a different color. If a new standalone facility cannot be camouflaged in any other way, it shall be camouflaged as a tree (ie: monopalm, monopine). Lattice towers, guyed towers and flag poles shall not be permitted as new standalone facilities, except by waiver granted pursuant to Section 9288.8 below. Visible ground level equipment, structures and buildings shall be stealthed from view by landscape plantings, fencing or other appropriate stealthing means, and shall be treated with graffiti- resistant paint or coating. (2) Roof- mounted, top- mounted or side - mounted wireless communication facilities shall be constructed, painted, finished and fully stealthed to match the color and texture of the building, structure and /or wall on which they are mounted. Facade mounted equipment shall be camouflaged by incorporating the antenna into the design elements of the building or structure and they shall be painted and textured to match the existing structure. If possible, antennae should be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. In no case shall antennae extend more than twenty -four (24) inches out from the building face. Equipment buildings or stealthing enclosures mounted on a roof shall be architecturally consistent with the building, such as having a finish similar to the exterior building walls. Equipment for roof -, top- or side - mounted antennae may also be located within the building on which the antenna is mounted. (3) The City Council may, by resolution, promulgate additional regulations that further define and clarify the stealthing requirements of this subsection (c), consistent with the intent and purpose of this Division. (Ord. No 2255, § 1, 3-17 -09) 9288.8.- WAIVER REQUEST. ( Waiver. A waiver of any of the location, design or other requirements and restrictions set forth in this Division, may be granted by the Planning Commission or Development Services Director, whichever is applicable, upon the request of the applicant, where the applicant demonstrates that such restriction or requirement either: (1) Prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless communication services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)); or (2) Unreasonably discriminates against the applicant when compared to other providers within the City who are providing functionally equivalent wireless communication services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)). (b) Independent Consultant. Any application for a waiver shall include the applicant's authorization for the City to retain the services of an independent, qualified consultant, at the applicants expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the waiver request. The application shall include a monetary deposit, as set by resolution of the City Council, and an agreement by the applicant to reimburse the City for all reasonable costs associated with the consultation. (Ord. No. 2255. § 1. 3- 17 -09) 9288.9.- FINDINGS FOR DENIAL. Any decision to deny, in whole or in part, a conditional use permit, architectural design review or encroachment permit to place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record. (a) A conditional use permit, architectural design review or encroachment permit, whichever is applicable, shall be approved unless it is determined that: (1) The applicant has failed to provide any information required in Section 9288.4; (2) The proposed wireless communication facility fails to comply with the criteria of Sections 9288.6 and 9288.7; (3) In the case of a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission cannot make the findings required by Section 9275.1.2 of this Code, or, in the case of an encroachment permit, the Development Services Director has grounds for denial pursuant to Section 7300.4 of this Code. (4) http: // library. municode.com / print. aspx? clientlD = 16197 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2f%2fli... 3/17/2011 Municode Page 8 of 10 In the case of a new wireless communication facility, co- location at a site with an existing wireless communication facility is feasible. (b) Any decision to deny, in whole or in part, a conditional use permit, architectural design review or encroachment permit to place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility shall also indicate one (1) of the following: (1) The applicant did not request a waiver from the requirements of this Division; or (2) The applicant did request a waiver from the requirements of this Division, but failed to present sufficient evidence that the requirements and restrictions of this Division either have the effect of prohibiting wireless communication services or unreasonably discriminate against the applicant, pursuant to Section 9288.8. (Ord No. 2255, § 1, 3- 17 -09) 9288.10.- STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. In addition to conditions of approval which may be imposed in order to ensure compliance with this Code, the following standard conditions shall be imposed on any conditional use permit, architectural design review or encroachment permit issued pursuant to this Division: (a) The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees form any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its officers, agents or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval under this Division. The applicant shall further defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any damages, liabilities, claims, suits, or causes of action of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, arising out of or in connection with the activities or performance of the applicant, its agents, employees, licensees, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors, pursuant to the approval issued by the City. (b) For all wireless communication facilities located within the public right -of -way, the applicant shall remove or relocate, at applicants expense and without expense to the City, any or all of its wireless communication facilities, by reason of any change in grade, alignment or width of any public right -of- way, installation of services, water pipes, drains, storm drains, lift stations, power or signal lines, traffic control devices, public right -of -way improvements, or any other construction, repair or improvement to the public right -of -way. (c) Where a wireless communication facility site is capable of accommodating a co- located facility upon the same site, the owner or operator of the existing facility shall allow another carrier to co- locate its facilities and equipment thereon, upon reasonable terms and conditions mutually agreeable between the parties. (d) The City may require the applicant to annually submit a written report prepared by a qualified engineer, certifying that the facility continues to comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. (Ord. No. 2255. § 1. 3 17 - 09) (a) At any time, the city may initiate proceedings to revoke an approval issued pursuant to this division. (b) The following shall constitute grounds for revocation for an approval issued pursuant to this Division: (1) The owner or operator has abandoned the wireless communication facility; or, (2) The wireless communication facility is no longer in compliance with its respective conditions of approval, with the requirements of this Division, or with any other applicable law; or (3) The wireless communication facility is no longer in compliance with applicable FCC or FAA regulations. (c) The Planning Commission may revoke a conditional use permit only after holding a noticed public hearing in accordance with Section 9275.2.15 of this Code. (d) After a final revocation decision has been rendered, the owner or operator of the wireless communication facility shall terminate operations and remove the wireless communication facility from the site in accordance with Section 9288.14. (e) Any decision of the Planning Commission or Development Services Director to revoke may be appealed pursuant to Section 9288.3(e) of this Division. (Ord. No. 2255 § 1, 3 17 - 09) All wireless communication facilities shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards: (a) 9288.11.- REVOCATIONS. 9288.12.- MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. Equipment. All facilities, including antennae, mounts, wires, conduit, lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, poles and stealthing materials (including artificial foliage), shall be maintained by the owner or operator http: / /library.municode.com/ print.aspx ?clientlD =16197 &HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2fli... 3/17/2011 Municode Page 9 of 10 in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter and graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause shall be repaired as soon as practicable so as to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. All trash, debris, litter and graffiti shall be removed by the owner /operator within forty -eight (48) hours following notification from the City. (b) Landscaping. Each facility which contains trees, foliage or other landscaping elements, whether or not used as stealthing, shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the owner or operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping as soon as practicable, and in accordance with the approved landscape plan. (c) Inspections. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely and regularly inspect each site to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in this Division. Further, the Development Services Director, or designee, may, upon providing reasonable advance notice to the owner or operator, conduct an inspection of a facility to verify compliance with the provisions of this Division. (d) To ensure compliance with this Division, the owner or operator of a facility shall affix a label or marker to the facility in a prominent location that identifies the facility and provides a telephone number that may be called to report any damage, destruction, graffiti or vandalism to the facility. (e) Backup Generators. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Ord. No. 2255. § 1 3- 17 -09) 9288.13. - "CELLS ON WHEELS" PROHIBITED /EMERGENCY DEPLOYMENT. "Cells on wheels" or other mobile wireless communication facilities are prohibited in all zones, except for the duration of a telecommunications emergency declared by the City. (Ord. No. 2255. § 1. 3- 17 -09) 9288.14.- ABANDONMENT AND REMOVAL. ( Notice of Abandonment. Where an owner or operator intends to abandon a wireless communication facility or portion thereof, the owner or operator shall notify the City by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations and the date the facility shall be removed. The notice shall be given not less than sixty (60) days prior to abandonment. Failure to give notice shall not affect the owner's or operator's obligation to remove an abandoned facility. (b) Removal Due to Utility Undergrounding. All facilities located on a utility pole or structure shall be promptly removed at the owner's or operator's expense at the time a utility is scheduled to be undergrounded. (c) Removal. Upon abandonment, revocation, or other lawful order of any federal, state or local agency to terminate facility operations, the owner or operator shall physically remove the facility or terminated /abandoned elements within thirty (30) days following the date of abandonment or termination of use. "Physically remove" shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Removal of antennae, mounts, equipment cabinets and security barriers from the subject site; (2) Transportation of the antennae, mounts, equipment cabinets and security barriers to an appropriate repository; (3) Restoring the site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the discretion of the Development Services Director. (d) Stay. The Development Services Director may stay the requirement to remove an abandoned /terminated wireless communication facility upon written request and evidence submitted by the owner or operator that another wireless provider is in reasonable negotiations to acquire and use the wireless communication facility. (e) If an owner or operator of an abandoned wireless communication facility fails to physically remove the facility and all related equipment within the time frames set forth herein, the City may do so at the owner /operators expense. (Ord. No 2255, § 1, 3-17 -09) 9288.15.- VIOLATION PENALTY. ( Any owner or operator of a wireless communication facility that violates the terms of this division shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable in accordance with section 1200 of this Code. (b) Civil Action /Nuisance Abatement. In addition to the above, if an owner or operator of a wireless communication facility violates the terms of this Division, the City may pursue any and all civil remedies available at law or equity, including but not limited to injunctive relief or initiation of a nuisance abatement action pursuant to this Code. (c) Costs of Action. All costs of taking action to enforce the terms of this Division shall be the responsibility of the owner or operator of the wireless communication facility." http: / /library . municode .com /print.aspx ?clientlD= 16197 &HTMRequest= http % % 3/17/2011 RESOLUTION NO. 1831 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 11 -02 TO AMEND CUP 10 -10 FOR THE TUTORING CENTER AT 50 WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE. WHEREAS, on February 3, 2011, an application was filed by Dr. James Su of Harvard Education Center to amend the previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -10 for the existing tutoring center at 50 West Las Tunas Drive, Development Services Department Case No. CUP 11 -02; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2011, 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 March 8, 2011 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. The proposed use is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject property and will not conflict with the existing uses at the subject site. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. Arcadia Municipal Code Section No. 9275.1.56 authorizes a tutoring center with an approved Conditional Use Permit in the CBD, CPD- 1, C -1 or any Tess restrictive commercial zone. 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. Based on the proposed schedule, and the observed parking availability at this site, this proposal should not overburden the subject site. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. The subject site is bordered by two major arterials designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. A tutoring center is a commercial use that is consistent with the Land Use Designation of the site. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -02 to extend the operating hours of an existing tutoring center at 50 West Las Tunas Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall not be more than fifty -five (55) students and two (2) faculty and staff members on weekdays. No classes are allowed on Saturdays and Sundays. 2. From June to August, classes shall be limited to 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. From September to May, class hours shall be limited to 3:45 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Administrative office hours shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week. -2- 1831 3. A fire alarm system shall be installed for the subject unit to the satisfaction of the Arcadia Fire Marshal. 4. Key operated interior locking devices shall not be used. 5. Illuminated exit signage and emergency lighting shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Arcadia Fire Marshal. 6. The rear door facing Live Oak Avenue shall remain locked from the outside at all times. 7. The use approved by CUP 11 -02 is limited to the proposed tutoring center and it shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 11 -02, subject to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or designee. 8. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 11 -02 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the tutoring center. 9. 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. 10. 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 -3- 1831 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. 11. Approval of CUP 11 -02 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), applicant, and business owner(s) /operator(s) have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to acknowledge awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2011. ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney Chairman, Planning Commission The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Parrille presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Parrille led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, and Parrille ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian to excuse Commissioner Chiao from the meeting. Without objection the motion was approved. OTHERS ATTENDING Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama Associate Planner, Tom Li Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS There were none. MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 8, 2011, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON - PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS — Five - minute time limit per person There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 11 -02 50 W. Las Tunas Drive Harvard Education Center The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit amending CUP 10 -10 to extend the operating hours of an existing tutoring center to 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, in the months of June through August for a nine -week summer session. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Commissioner Beranek asked why recoommendation 4 prohibited the use of interior locks. Mr. Li explained that recommendation 4 was a safety issue suggestion from the Fire Department that was included in a previous Conditional Use Permit and it was simply repeated in this one. In fact, he said that all the original conditions were carried over from the previous Conditional Use Permit except for the change in operating hours. The Public Hearing was opened. Chairman Parri Ile asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. There were none. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Baderian asked if the applicant had been advised of the recommendations in the staff report and if they would agree to comply with all recommendations. The applicant, Dr. James Su, assured the Commissioners that he was aware of all recommendations and would comply. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to approve Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -02, and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. CONSENT ITEMS 2. RESOLUTION NO. 1830 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -14 for a 3,740 square-foot restaurant with seating for up to 180 patrons at an existing 74,400 square -foot commercial center (Arcadia Landmark Center) at 411 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 101C. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt PC MINUTES 3-8-11 Page 2 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2011 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to adopt Resolution No. 1830 and to approve the minutes of February 22, 2011, as presented. AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION There were none. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Chairman Parrille reported that the Modification Committee was cancelled. MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kasama reported that Commissioner Chiao will not attend the next meeting but that he will attend the League of Califomia Cities Planners Institute tomorrow through Friday at the Pasadena Hilton. He said that the two Conditional Use Permits (CUP 10 -12 and CUP 10 -20) that were denied by the Planning Commission at the last meeting have been appealed to the City Council and will be reviewed at their March 15 meeting. He also said that the March 22 agenda will be very full, including a new medical condominium project, an application for a new cell tower at Camino Grove Park, and an appeal of a Homeowners' Association decision. Commissioner Baderian asked if the City Attorney will attend the meeting to comment on the cell tower application and if the staff report will include updated information on cell tower installations. Mr. Kasama said he will request that the City Attomey attend the meeting and that the most recent cell tower information be made available. ADJOURNED 7:16 p.m. ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission PC MINUTES 3-8-11 Page 3