Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7-8-25 Agenda PacketARCADIA PLANNINGCOMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, July 8, 2025, 7:00 P.M. Location: City Council Chambers, 240 W. Huntington Drive Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (626) 574-5455. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. (626) 574-5455 48 Pursuant to the City of Arcadia’s Language Access Services Policy, limited-English proficient speakers who require translation services in order to participate in a meeting may request the use of a volunteer or professional translator by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 574-5455 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. (626) 574- 5455 72 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Marilynne Wilander, Chair Domenico Tallerico, Vice Chair David Arvizu, Commissioner Angela Hui, Commissioner Vincent Tsoi, Commissioner SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person) Commission. Under the Brown Act, the Commission or Board Members are prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. 1 PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at a public hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. Separate and apart from the applicant (who may speak longer at the discretion of the Commission) speakers shall be limited to . The applicant may additionally submit rebuttal comments, at the discretion of the Commission. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge in court or in an administrative proceeding any action taken by the City Council regarding any public hearing item, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1. Resolution No. 2170 – Approving Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a rebuild and height modification of an existing detached garage at 1320 Oak Meadow Road Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2170 Applicant: Robert Friedman 2. Resolution No. 2169 – Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 25-01 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-03 to allow a tutoring center with a maximum of 29 students and 11 staff, with a parking modification at 20 E. Foothill Boulevard, Unit 108 CEQA: Exempt Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2169 Applicant: Umbrella Education Corporation 2 CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Commission, staff, or the public request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action. 3. Minutes of the June 10, 2025, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, July 22, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. 3 Welcome to the Arcadia Planning Commission Meeting! The Planning Commission encourages public participation and invites you to share your views on City business. MEETINGS: Regular Meetings of the Planning Commission are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A full Planning Commission agenda packet with all backup information is available at City Hall, the Arcadia Public Library, and on the City’s website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov. Copies of individual Agenda Reports are available via email upon request (Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov). Documents distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission after the posting of this agenda will be Arcadia, California. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Your participation is welcomed and invited at all Planning Commission meetings. Time is reserved at each regular meeting for those in the audience who wish to address the Planning Commission. The City requests that persons addressing the Planning Commission refrain from making personal, slanderous, profane, or disruptive remarks. When the Chair asks for those who wish to speak please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please provide a copy of any written materials used in your address to the Planning Commission as well as a copy of any printed materials you wish to be distributed to the Planning Commission. MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA should be presented during the time designated as “PUBLIC COMMENTS.” In general, each speaker will be given (5) minutes to address the Planning Commission; however, the Chair, at his/her discretion, may shorten the speaking time limit to allow all speakers time to address the Planning Commission. By State law, the Planning Commission may not discuss or vote on items not on the agenda. The matter will automatically placed on the agenda of a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS are items scheduled for which public input is either required or desired. Separate and apart from an applicant or appellant (who may speak longer at the discretion of the Planning Commission), speakers shall be limited to (5) minutes per person. The Chair, at his/her discretion, may shorten the speaking time limit to allow all speakers to address the Planning Commission. The applicant or appellant may also be AGENDA ITEMS: The Agenda contains the regular order of business of the Planning Commission. Items on the Agenda have generally been reviewed and investigated by the City 4 a matter before making its decision. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by one motion. There will be no separate so requests. In this event, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered and acted on separately. DECORUM: While members of the public are free to level criticism of City policies and the action(s) or proposed action(s) of the Planning Commission or its members, members of the public may not engage in behavior that is disruptive to the orderly conduct of the proceedings, including, but not limited to, conduct that prevents other members of the audience from being heard when it is their opportunity to speak, or which prevents members of the audience from hearing or seeing the proceedings. Members of the public may not threaten any person with physical harm or act in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as an imminent threat of physical harm. All persons attending the meeting are expected to adhere to the City’s policy barring harassment based upon a person’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, or age. The Chief of Police, or such member or members of the Police Department, may serve as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Planning Commission meeting. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall carry out all orders and instructions given by the person who violates the order and decorum of the meeting may be placed under arrest and such person may be prosecuted under the provisions of Penal Code Section 403 or applicable Arcadia Municipal Code section. 5 (Arcadia Public Library) (www.ArcadiaCA.gov) (Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov) (City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California) “” (5) (5) “” “” 403 6 DATE: July 8, 2025 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Deputy Development Services Director By: Edwin Arreola, Senior Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2170 APPROVING PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. PC AM 25-02 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR A REBUILD AND HEIGHT MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AT 1320 OAK MEADOW ROAD Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2170 SUMMARY The Applicant, Robert Friedman, on behalf of the Property Owner, Joe Sposato, is requesting approval of Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25- 02. The request is for a 504 square foot addition and rebuild of an existing 791 square foot garage located within the existing non--at 1320 Oak Meadow Road. The Applicant is also requesting to increase the height of the garage to - to accommodate a car lift within the garage. The modification would allow for the garage to exceed the maximum allowable height of --. The proposed rebuild is intended to maintain the existing non-conforming rear yard setback while allowing for the increased height. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2170 (refer to Attachment No. 1), find that the project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approve Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 19,939 square foot interior lot, currently improved with a 3,314 square foot, one-story residence and a detached 791 square foot garage at the rear of the property that was built in 1948 (see Figure 1). The property is zoned R-O, Very Low Density Residential with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Estate 7 PC AM 25-02 1320 Oak Meadow Road July 8, 2025 Page 2 of 10 Figure 1 Existing Residence refer to Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property. The property is surrounded by other R-O zoned properties and is located within the Santa Anita Oaks Association. The Applicant previously received approval for a 504 square foot addition and remodel of the existing garage through a Major Administrative Modification on December 12, 2024. This approval was required because the proposal involved expanding a legal non- - design increased garage floor level below the existing grade to accommodate a car lift. However, the Applicant encountered drainage issues that made it difficult to implement the below grade design. At that time, the modification also included an approval to exceed the existing rear yard lot coverage. However, that requirement has since been removed from the Development Code earlier this year and is no longer applicable. PROPOSAL The Property Owner is now proposing to keep the garage at its current grade and increase -- in order to accommodate a car lift within the garage. The Property Owner also proposes to expand the existing 791 square foot garage with a 504 square foot addition to the front to provide additional interior area for his classic car collection. Currently, the Property Owner utilizes the existing two-car garage and driveway to park his vehicles. The garage currently contains a small half bathroom and a storage area which will remain (see Figure 2). 8 PC AM 25-02 1320 Oak Meadow Road July 8, 2025 Page 3 of 10 - existing walls cannot simply be extended and must be removed and reconstructed to achieve the increased height, this work is considered a rebuild of the structure under the The garage finishing will match the materials and colors of the main house. As a result of the proposed improvements, two modifications are being requested for this proposal. The first is to exceed the maximum allowed - structure in the R-- -- required by the Development Code for all accessory structures in residential zones. Both modifications are subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. While the Santa Anita Oaks Association has reviewed and approved the design, the proposal is also subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to submitting plans to the Building Division for plan check. Figure 2 Proposed Garage Expansion N 9 PC AM 25-02 1320 Oak Meadow Road July 8, 2025 Page 4 of 10 The total floor area ratio (FAR) of the property will be 3,959 square feet, whereas 6,538 square feet is allowed. The site will have a total lot coverage of 23.8% (4,753 square feet), whereas 45% (8,973 square feet) is allowed. Aside from the rear yard setback and height, the proposed garage will comply with all other development standards. ANALYSIS The Property Owner is proposing an expansion of his garage space capacity while managing the limitations of the existing garage. The addition is proposed at the front because expansion in other directions is constrained: 1. To the rear, the garage is within the rear yard setback. 2. To the south, there is limited space between the garage and the side yard setback. 3. To the north, expansion is restricted due to the proximity of an existing pool. Expanding the garage forward maintains sufficient space for vehicles to manuever into the garage from the driveway (see Figure 3). Figure 3 Existing Garage 10 PC AM 25-02 1320 Oak Meadow Road July 8, 2025 Page 5 of 10 In addition to the footprint expansion, the height of the garage is proposed to be increased to accommodate a car lift, allowing for two cars to be stored vertically one on the lift and one below it. This requires raising the increases the exterior wall height. However, increasing wall height beyond 10 feet typically necessitates rebuilding, rather than modifying, the existing walls. Older construction often uses 2x4 framing, whereas modern building codes require 2x6 framing for taller walls to ensure structural integrity. Moreover, older garages may have issues such as wood rot or termite damage, further justifying a full rebuild. Therefore, the Applicant has determined that rebuilding the garage is necessary to non- conforming 4'-11" rear setback, Planning Commission approval is required. The total height of the proposed garage will exceed the maximum allowable height for accessory structures by only 2 -. Importantly, the project does not expand the garage into any required setback areas or restrict vehicle access from the driveway. The Applicant initially attempted to achieve the desired interior ceiling height by lowering the garage floor below grade to remain under the 16 - height limit. However, this design garage. As a result, raising the wall height is the only viable option to accommodate a car lift. Although the proposed garage height exceeds the accessory structure height limit, it remains compatible with neighborhood character. Residential homes within the Santa Anita Oaks Association can reach up to 30 - in height, and many existing single-story homes in the area have similar overall heights to the proposed garage. Given the site constraints, a modification for increased height without encroaching on setbacks represents a practical and contextually appropriate solution. Large garages are common in Residential Estate land use areas due to the lot sizes. While homes over 5,000 square feet or with five or more bedrooms must provide a minimum three-car garage, many properties include four-car or even larger garages. For example, the nearby property at 1421 Carmelita Place has an 1,824 square foot six-car detached garage and an attached 736 square foot three-car garage. Although the current proposal is for a smaller garage, it is consistent with the scale and use patterns observed in the area. The design of the expanded garage will be compatible with the architectural style of the existing dwelling. It will not create any new impacts on the lot or neighboring properties since the modification is an increase in the height. The structure will not extend closer to the adjacent property and the - will be maintained. Dense hedging and tall trees along the property lines will continue to provide effective screening of the garage. Furthermore, by parking the vehicles inside, the Property Owner will reduce the number of vehicles visible on the driveway. Lastly, the Santa Anita Oaks Association Architectural Review Board Chair reviewed and approved the proposed garage design and was aware of the requested modifications. 11 PC AM 25-02 1320 Oak Meadow Road July 8, 2025 Page 6 of 10 FINDINGS According to Arcadia Development Code Section 9107.05.050, it states that an Administrative Modification may be approved if at least one of the following findings can be made: 1. Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; or 2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or 3. Promote uniformity of development The requested modification to allow the reconstruction of the legal non-conforming garage with a reduced rear yard setback of -increase of -above the maximum height allowed for a residential accessory structure will result in an appropriate improvement to the property. The Property Owner is proposing to expand the existing garage to accommodate additional interior storage for a classic car collection. The physical constraints of the site, including existing setbacks, the location of a pool near the garage, and the necessity for functional access at the front of the garage limit options for horizontal expansion. As a result, vertical expansion is the only feasible alternative. The proposed increase in height will allow the installation of a car lift . The Applicant previously explored alternative design solutions, including a plan that was approved and involved lowering the garage floor to gain ceiling height. However, this approach was found to be infeasible due to drainage complications. Consequently, the current proposal which requires demolition and rebuilding of the garage is the only viable solution that meets the functional requirements without compromising site drainage or access. The proposed garage height will remain compatible with the surrounding residential context. While it exceeds the maximum height for accessory structures, it will not appear disproportionate when viewed in the context of nearby residences. Properties within the Santa Anita Oaks Association allow building heights of up to 30 feet, and many of the single-story homes in the vicinity are of comparable height to the proposed garage. Furthermore, large-scale garages are characteristic of Residential Estate properties. The adjacent property to the northeast, for example, features both a six-car detached garage and a three-car attached garage, establishing a precedent for similar structures in the neighborhood. Therefore, the requested modification is appropriate in light of the site constraints, the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding built environment, and the absence of a feasible alternative. The design of the garage will be architecturally compatible with the existing house, maintaining a cohesive visual character for the property The expansion will not negatively impact neighboring properties, as the rear elevation will maintain the existing - yard setback and will not extend further into the rear yard. Dense and mature hedging, 12 PC AM 25-02 1320 Oak Meadow Road July 8, 2025 Page 7 of 10 along with tall trees along the property lines, will provide effective screening of the garage from the adjacent properties, further mitigating any potential visual impact. Importantly, the proposed design has been reviewed and approved by the Santa Anita Oaks Association Architectural Review Board, confirming consistency with neighborhood standards and design guidelines. Therefore, based on architectural compatibility, limited physical expansion, effective screening, and approval by the homeowners association, the proposed garage rebuild and associated height modification represent an appropriate improvement to the lot. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to a Class 2 and Class 5 categorical exemption for reconstruction and a minor alteration to land use limitations in accordance with Sections 15302 and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 4 for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS June 25, 2025. It was also mailed to the property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property. At the time of the completion of this report, no comments were received regarding this project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02, find that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt Resolution No. 2170, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Property Owner/Applicant in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02, subject to the satisfaction of the Deputy Development Services Director or designee. 2. The plans submitted for Building plan check shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable: a. California Building Code b. California Electrical Code c. California Mechanical Code d. California Plumbing Code e. California Energy Code f. California Fire Code g. California Green Building Standards Code 13 PC AM 25-02 1320 Oak Meadow Road July 8, 2025 Page 8 of 10 h. California Existing Building Code i. Arcadia Municipal Code 3. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Deputy Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02 behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project. In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the City will notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings and will cooperate in the defense of the matter. The Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemn such action, the Applicant shall provide to the City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. The City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, A legal team to continue working on the matter. The City shall only refund to the Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non- appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; 14 PC AM 25-02 1320 Oak Meadow Road July 8, 2025 Page 9 of 10 or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, at the request of the Applicant or not. 5. Approval of Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02 shall not be in effect unless the Property Owner/Applicant has executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission has approved the appeal. The Acceptance Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this project, the Commission should move to approve Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02, state that the proposal satisfies the requisite findings, and adopt the attached Resolution No. 2170 that incorporates the requisite environmental and subdivision findings, and the conditions of approval as presented in this staff report, or as modified by the Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission is to deny this project, the Commission should state the specific findings that the proposal does not satisfy based on the evidence presented with specific reasons for denial, and move to deny Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the July 8, 2025, hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Edwin Arreola, at (626) 821-4334, or by email at earreola@ArcadiaCA.gov. Approved: Lisa L. Flores Deputy Development Services Director 15 PC AM 25-02 1320 Oak Meadow Road July 8, 2025 Page 10 of 10 Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2170 Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of the Subject Site Attachment No. 3: Architectural Plans Attachment No. 4: Preliminary Exemption Assessment 16 Attachment No. 1 Attachment No. 1 Resolution No. 2170 17 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2170 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. PC AM 25-02 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR A REBUILD AND HEIGHT MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AT 1320 OAK MEADOW ROAD WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, an application for Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02 was filed by Robert Friedman on behalf of the property owner, Joe Sposato, for a 504 square foot addition and rebuild of an existing 791 square foot garage within the existing non-conforming rear setback of 4’-11” at 1320 Oak Meadow Road. The application also includes a request to increase the height of the garage to 18’-2” to accommodate a car lift within the garage and exceed the 16’-0” maximum height for an accessory structure by 2’-2” (collectively, “Project”); and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025, Planning Services completed an environmental assessment for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and recommended that the Planning Commission determine that the Project qualifies as a Class 2 and Class 5 Categorical Exemption under CEQA pursuant to Sections 15302 and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines because the Project is a reconstruction and a minor alteration to the land use limitations; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2025, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said Project, 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, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 18 2 SECTION 1. The factual data submitted by the Community Development Division in the staff report dated July 8, 2025, are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds that based upon the entire record, pursuant to Section 9107.05.050 of the Arcadia Development Code, at least one of the following findings can be made. 1. Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; 2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or 3. Promote uniformity of development FACT: The requested modification to allow the reconstruction of the legal non- conforming garage with a reduced rear yard setback of 4’-11” and a height increase of 2’- 2” above the maximum height allowed for a residential accessory structure will result in an appropriate improvement to the property. The Property Owner is proposing to expand the existing garage to accommodate additional interior storage for a classic car collection. The physical constraints of the site, including existing setbacks, the location of a pool near the garage, and the necessity for functional access at the front of the garage limit options for horizontal expansion. As a result, vertical expansion is the only feasible alternative. The proposed increase in height will allow the installation of a car lift, which is essential to the owner’s intended use. The Applicant previously explored alternative design solutions, including a plan that was approved and involved lowering the garage floor to gain ceiling height. However, this approach was found to be infeasible due to drainage complications. Consequently, the current proposal which requires demolition and rebuilding of the garage is the only 19 3 viable solution that meets the functional requirements without compromising site drainage or access. The proposed garage height will remain compatible with the surrounding residential context. While it exceeds the maximum height for accessory structures, it will not appear disproportionate when viewed in the context of nearby residences. Properties within the Santa Anita Oaks Association allow building heights of up to 30 feet, and many of the single-story homes in the vicinity are of comparable height to the proposed garage. Furthermore, large-scale garages are characteristic of Residential Estate properties. The adjacent property to the northeast, for example, features both a six-car detached garage and a three-car attached garage, establishing a precedent for similar structures in the neighborhood. Therefore, the requested modification is appropriate in light of the site constraints, the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding built environment, and the absence of a feasible alternative. The design of the garage will be architecturally compatible with the existing house, maintaining a cohesive visual character for the property The expansion will not negatively impact neighboring properties, as the rear elevation will maintain the existing 4’-11” rear yard setback and will not extend further into the rear yard. Dense and mature hedging, along with tall trees along the property lines, will provide effective screening of the garage from the adjacent properties, further mitigating any potential visual impact. Importantly, the proposed design has been reviewed and approved by the Santa Anita Oaks Association Architectural Review Board, confirming consistency with neighborhood standards and design guidelines. 20 4 Therefore, based on architectural compatibility, limited physical expansion, effective screening, and approval by the homeowners association, the proposed garage rebuild and associated height modification represent an appropriate improvement to the lot. SECTION 3. For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission determines that the Project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA pursuant to Section 15302, Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Section 15305, Class 5 (Minor Alteration to the Land Use Limitations) and approves Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02 for a 504 square foot addition and rebuild of an existing 791 square foot garage within the existing 4’-11” non-conforming rear setback and to exceed the 16’- 0” maximum height for an accessory structure by 2’-2”, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON THE NEXT PAGE] 21 5 Passed, approved and adopted this 8th day of July, 2025. ______________________ Marilynne Wilander Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ______________________ Lisa L. Flores Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Michael J. Maurer City Attorney 22 6 Page Intentionally Left Blank 23 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2170 Conditions of Approval 1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Property Owner/Applicant in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02, subject to the satisfaction of the Deputy Development Services Director or designee. 2. The plans submitted for Building plan check shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable: a. California Building Code b. California Electrical Code c. California Mechanical Code d. California Plumbing Code e. California Energy Code f. California Fire Code g. California Green Building Standards Code h. California Existing Building Code i. Arcadia Municipal Code 3. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Deputy Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02 (“Project”) on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project. 24 8 In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the City will notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings and will cooperate in the defense of the matter. The Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, the Applicant shall provide to the City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. The City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. The City shall only refund to the Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non- appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, at the request of the Applicant or not. 5. Approval of Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-02 shall not be in effect unless the Property Owner/Applicant has executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission has approved the appeal. The Acceptance Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. ---- 25 Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 2 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of the Subject Site 26 Overlays Selected parcel highlighted Parcel location within City of Arcadia N/A Property Owner(s): Lot Area (sq ft): Year Built: Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): R-O (30,000) Number of Units: RE Property Characteristics 1948 3,314 1 Property Owner Site Address:1320 OAK MEADOW RD Parcel Number: 5770-016-008 N/A Zoning: General Plan: N/A Downtown Overlay: Downtown Parking Overlay: Architectural Design Overlay:Yes N/A N/A N/A Residential Flex Overlay: N/A N/A N/A Yes Special Height Overlay: N/A Parking Overlay: Racetrack Event Overlay: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Report generated 24-Jun-2025 Page 1 of 1 27 28 Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 3 Architectural Plans 29 30 31 32 Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 4 Preliminary Exemption Assessment 33 Preliminary Exemption Assessment PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT 1.Name or description of project: Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25- 02 A request for a 504 square foot addition and rebuild of an -- - -. 2.Project Location Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 1320 Oak Meadow Road The subject site is located between E. Orange Grove Avenue and Hacienda Drive. 3.Entity or person undertaking project: A. B.Other (Private) (1)Name Robert Friedman, Applicant, on behalf of Joe Sposato, Property Owner (2)Address 2059 E. Foothill Boulevard Pasadena, CA 91107 4.Staff Determination: accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a.The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b.The project is a Ministerial Project. c.The project is an Emergency Project. d.The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e.The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 15302 Class 2 (Replacement and reconstruction) 15305 Class 5 (Minor alteration to land use limitations) f.The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: g.The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h.The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: June 24, 2025 Staff: Edwin Arreola, Senior Planner 34 DATE: July 8, 2025 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Deputy Development Services Director Fiona Graham, Planning Services Manager By: Melissa Chipres, Senior Planner SUBJECT:RESOLUTION NO. 2169 – APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 25-01 AND PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. PC AM 25-03 TO ALLOW A TUTORING CENTER WITH A MAXIMUM OF 29 STUDENTS AND 11 STAFF, WITH A PARKING MODIFICATION AT 20 EAST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, UNIT 108 CEQA: Exempt Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2169 SUMMARY The Applicant, Umbrella Education Corporation (dba: UC Tutor Services), is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 25-01 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-03 for a tutoring center offering group classes and one-on-one tutoring. The proposed tutoring center will serve up to 29 students, including a maximum of nine (9) high school students, with 11 staff members. The proposed use will occupy one unit totaling 1,333 square feet, located within an existing two-story commercial office building at 20 E. Foothill Boulevard, Unit 108. An Administrative Modification is required because the proposed tutoring center will increase the on-site parking deficiency from 23 to 32 spaces. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2169 (Attachment No. 1) and find this project Categorically Exempt under CEQA and approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 25-01 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-03, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. BACKGROUND The subject site measures approximately 60,966 square feet and is developed with an existing two-story commercial office building measuring approximately 25,162 square feet (see Figure 1). The commercial office building has 16 units of varying sizes, vehicular access from E. Foothill Boulevard, and a shared parking lot at the rear of the building with 35 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 2 of 13 97 spaces. The property is zoned C-G (General Commercial) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial. The site is surrounded by other commercial properties to the west, east and north, and single-family residential properties to the south - refer to Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the subject property. UC Tutor Services has been operating in unit 216 within the building since 2020 (CUP 20-01). The previous Conditional Use Permit allowed for a maximum of 12 students and two (2) instructors. The business has become increasingly popular, and the owner wishes to increase the number of students served. Unit 216 does not have enough space to accommodate this proposed increase; therefore, the owner seeks to relocate to a larger unit within the building – Unit 108. At 1,333 square feet, it is double the size of the existing unit and is currently vacant. Most recently, it was used by a real estate office. Figure 1 - Aerial of Subject Site PROPOSAL The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a tutoring center for students from elementary to high school age within Unit 108. The services will include AP chemistry prep, AMC/SAT prep, speech and debate, and Spanish and Chinese language classes in addition to one-on-one tutoring, primarily for high school students. The one-on-one tutoring will be offered onsite in-person, in-home, or online. 36 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 3 of 13 Five (5) rooms will be available for tutoring services; classrooms 1-3 will be used for group classes and the smaller office cubicles 4 and 5 will be used for the one-on-one tutoring (refer to Figure 2, below, and Attachment No. 3). Each classroom will accommodate up to eight (8) students and two (2) instructors. A maximum of 29 students and 11 instructors will be present onsite at any given time, with up to nine (9) students being high school students. The unit does not contain its own restroom, and all students and staff will use a communal restroom near the unit (refer to the site plan in Attachment No. 3). Students needing to use a restroom will be always escorted by their teacher or a staff member. Figure 2 - Proposed Floor Plan Group classes and weekday one-on-one tutoring will operate Monday through Friday during the hours of 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Students will typically be dropped off at the location after the end of the school day by a parent/guardian or the Arcadia Unified school bus. After arriving, students will be assisted with their homework or other schoolwork until 5:00 p.m., when the group tutoring sessions begin. Classes will finish at approximately 5:45 p.m. and the students will leave by 6:00 p.m. Weekend tutoring is available by appointment only, with one-on-one sessions held between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. No group classes are proposed to be held on weekends. 37 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 4 of 13 Group classes and one-on-one tutoring will run throughout the school year. During the summer break, the tutoring center will offer group classes in STEM and languages between 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays only. During winter break, only morning STEM classes will be offered on weekdays. ANALYSIS The Arcadia Development Code allows tutoring centers in the C-G Zone subject to the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use will have five (5) classrooms for up to 29 students and 11 staff. A maximum of nine (9) students will be high school students (refer to Condition No. 1). The tutoring and educational classes will take place during the afternoon hours on weekdays and on weekends and have hours that are complementary to the existing uses within the building. The use is not expected to have any impacts on the other existing uses, which include offices, a robotics school, and a small Pilates studio. As required for all tutoring centers, the Applicant will be conditioned to install windows in each classroom to allow observation from outside of the rooms (refer to condition no. 3). The Applicant has been operating this business successfully at this location for five (5) years with no known issues. The proposal to relocate the tutoring center has been reviewed by the Building Division and Fire Department and no concerns were raised. Parking The proposed tutoring center will serve elementary, middle, and high school students. The Development Code requires: One (1) parking space per five (5) elementary and middle school students; One (1) parking space per three (3) high school students; and One (1) parking space per employee. With up to 29 students, including a maximum of nine (9) high school students, and 11 instructors, the proposed tutoring center requires a total of 18 parking spaces. The site has a total of 97 parking spaces in the rear parking lot and currently operates with a parking deficiency of 23 spaces. With the proposed relocation of UC Tutor Services, the total parking demand for the building will increase to 1 spaces, resulting in a deficiency of 3 spaces. Refer to Table 1 for a list of all existing and proposed uses and the parking requirements for each, per the Development Code. Pursuant to Section 9103.07.020 of the Development Code, where a new use has a parking deficiency of seven (7) spaces or more, a Planning Commission Administrative Modification is required. 38 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 5 of 13 Table 1 – Required Parking Suite # Tenant Name Rentable Area (SF) Required Parking 1 T-Mobile Equipment Storage 0 2 Clear Wireless (sprint) Equipment Storage 0 3 AT&T 154.74 1 100 CSI Wealth Management 1490 105 Vacant 5243 21 (if office use was present) 108 Umbrella Tutoring (Proposed Use) 1333 18 118 Yoga/Pilates 1464 6 128 Vacant 3506 14 (if office use was present) 200 Vacant 1426 (if office use was present) 203 FITS Accounting 818 3 205 Vacant 3089 12 (if office use was present) 208 Vacant 1534 6 (if office use was present) 212 Laser Star 824 213 Vacant 1250 5 (if office use was present) 215 Vacant 1542 6 216 Umbrella Tutoring (to be vacated) 762 3 (if office use was present) 217 LaserStar 2070 218 Jac Property Management 536 2 220 M.A.N. Occupation Therapy 2391 12 Total Parking 1 To confirm that adequate parking is available for both existing uses and the proposed tutoring center, the Applicant conducted a parking survey on May 23 and May 30, 2025, between 8:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. (refer to Attachment No. 4 for detailed counts with dates and times). The survey found an average of 92 parking spaces available throughout the days surveyed. These results are consistent with previous surveys conducted at the site, including a 2020 survey for UC Tutor Services’ original CUP, which found an average of 68 spaces available during weekday afternoon hours (1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), and a 2023 survey for a different educational center, which showed an average of 91 available parking spaces in the afternoon. 39 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 6 of 13 Collectively, the studies demonstrate that while the site may be under-parked according to Development Code standards, the actual parking demand remains significantly lower. In addition, staff visited the site on multiple days and observed parking conditions consistent with the May 2025 survey. Therefore, the proposed use is not expected to negatively impact parking availability, as sufficient on-site parking exists to accommodate all current and proposed uses. Parents generally do not stay at the tutoring center while their children are in attendance. Parents and students can access the unit through the rear of the building and the adjacent parking lot is available for student pick-up and drop-off. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit Section 9107.09.050(B) of the Development 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. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. Facts to Support This Finding: Approval of the tutoring center is consistent with the Commercial land use Designation of the site. The Commercial land use designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The designation allows a broad array of commercial uses, including neighborhood-serving uses such as tutoring centers. The proposed use will occupy a vacant commercial unit and will complement the existing office and commercial uses in the building. In addition, the proposal is a use permitted in the C- G (General Commercial) Zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan, and is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use and Community Design Element Policy LU-6.8: Encourage the intensification of commercial uses on underutilized commercial properties and the transitioning of non-commercial uses on commercial properties in accordance with the Land Use Policy Map and all applicable regulations. 2. The proposed uses are allowed within the applicable zone, subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal Code. Facts to Support This Finding :The site is zoned C-G, General Commercial. Arcadia Development Code Section 9102.03.020, Table 2-8, allows a tutoring center in the C- 40 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 7 of 13 G Zone subject to the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The site has an adequate number of parking spaces to serve the existing uses and proposed tutoring center, as shown in the parking study submitted as part of Planning Commission Administrative Modification application which forms part of the entitlement for the Project. The parking study indicated there is substantial parking availability throughout the day with more than enough to accommodate the demand from all existing and proposed uses. Therefore, there should be no impact to the existing businesses in the commercial office building. Lastly, the proposal complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal Code. 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Facts to Support This Finding : The proposed tutoring center will occupy an existing 1,333 square foot commercial unit located within an existing two-story commercial office building. The Applicant conducted a parking study to ensure the use would not create parking impacts for the existing uses on the subject site. The parking study determined that an average of 92 parking spaces were available during the tutoring center’s proposed hours of operation. Therefore, adequate parking will be provided at the subject site for the existing uses and the proposed tutoring center. In addition, the proposed operating hours will be compatible with the hours of operation of other office and commercial uses in the building. 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of: a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use in order to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood; Facts to Support This Finding : The site is physically suitable for the proposed tutoring center. The use will occupy an existing vacant commercial unit within an existing commercial office building. The site is improved with adequate surface parking, including the required eighteen parking spaces for the proposed tutoring center. Therefore, with adequate parking provided, the unit and site will be suitable for the proposed use. b. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access; Facts to Support This Finding: The site is located along E. Foothill Blvd., which is designated and designed with the capacity to accommodate both public and emergency vehicles. The street is adequate in width and pavement type to carry the traffic that could be generated by the tutoring center and the existing uses in the center, and to support emergency vehicle access. 41 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 8 of 13 c. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.); and Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed tutoring center will be located within an existing commercial office building. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure the tutoring center will be operated in a safe manner, and not impact public protection service. The request has been reviewed by the Fire Department and Police Department, and neither department raised concerns. Therefore, no impacts to public protection services are anticipated. d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). Facts to Support This Finding:The subject unit is located within an existing commercial office building, which is adequately serviced by existing utilities. The request does not include new construction that will impact the provision of utilities, nor will it be operated in a manner that will impact the provisions of utilities. Therefore, no impacts to the provision of utilities are anticipated. 5. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Facts to Support This Finding:The proposed tutoring center will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or the surrounding properties. The size and nature of the operations of the use will not negatively affect the existing uses in the commercial office building, or the surrounding businesses and properties. The site has been shown to have sufficient parking to meet all existing and projected parking demand onsite. Also, conditions of approval, such requiring that each classroom have windows to allow observation from outside of the rooms, and that the use be subject to periodic inspections have been included to mitigate any potential impacts. Planning Commission Administrative Modification According to Arcadia Development Code Section 9107.05.050, it states that an Administrative Modification may be approved if at least one of the following findings can be made: Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or Promote uniformity of development Facts to Support This Finding:The proposed parking modification will secure an appropriate improvement of the lot. The proposed tutoring center requires 18 parking 42 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 9 of 13 spaces per the Development Code, based on the number of students and staff. The building consists of 16 commercial office units, which collectively generate a total parking requirement of 129 spaces, including the proposed tutoring center. The building has an existing shared parking lot with 97 spaces, resulting in an overall shortfall of 32 spaces. Despite this technical deficiency, the building has historically operated well below full capacity, with approximately half of the units currently vacant and the remainder generally underutilized. A parking study conducted on both a typical Tuesday and Saturday in May found that parking availability remains consistently high. On Tuesday, an average of 91 spaces were available, with a minimum of 88. On Saturday, availability increased, with an average of 93 spaces available and a minimum of 91. These findings indicate that the lot is significantly underutilized relative to the existing uses and this has been verified by staff through multiple site visits. The tutoring center is an existing business currently operating in a smaller unit within the same building. It is seeking to expand into a larger suite to accommodate continued growth. While the tutoring center could host up to 29 students and 11 staff members, it also offers online tutoring, which typically reduces on-site attendance and, therefore, actual parking demand. Nonetheless, parking needs were conservatively calculated based on full occupancy to assess potential impacts. Additionally, the center’s peak operating hours are between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays—off-peak hours for the other office tenants in the building—further minimizing the likelihood of parking conflicts. Given the building’s current vacancies, low observed parking demand, and complementary operating hours, the requested parking modification will secure an appropriate improvement of the lot. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT It has been determined that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a) of the CEQA Guidelines for the use of an existing facility (refer to Attachment No. 5). PUBLIC COMMENTS/NOTICE A public hearing notice for this item was posted at the City Clerk’s Office, City Council Chambers, at the Arcadia Library, and on the City’s website on June 26, 2025. It was also mailed to the property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property. As of July 3, 2025, no comments were received regarding this project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2169 approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 25-01 and Planning Commission Administrative 43 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 10 of 13 Modification No. PC AM 25-03 for a new tutoring center with up to twenty-nine (29) students and a parking modification and find that the project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The use approved by CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 is limited to a tutoring center for up to 29 students, with a maximum of nine (9) students being high school students, and shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 25-01. Any changes to the number of students being tutored on the site at one time shall be subject to review and approval by the Deputy Development Services Director, or designee, unless significant modifications are proposed; in which case, the application may be referred to the Planning Commission. 2. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in termination of this use. 3. The classrooms shall maintain clear windows and other openings that allow for observation from outside of the room. 4. The existing fire alarm system shall be evaluated by the City’s Fire Marshal to ensure compliance with Group E occupancies with more than one classroom and if the system requires upgrades or modifications, then the system shall be certified by a qualified contractor prior to occupancy. 5. The main exit door shall be equipped with panic or lever type hardware. Latched or key operated locks are not permitted. A minimum rated 2A:10BC fire extinguisher shall be provided at an approved location, as determined by the City’s Fire Marshal. 6. A knox box shall be provided at an approved location, as determined by the City’s Fire Marshal. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Division, one (1) Automated External Defibrillator (AED) shall be installed. The location of the AED shall be identified on the plans submitted for plan check in Building Services and is subject to review and approval by the Deputy Development Services Director, or designee. 8. The Project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable: a. California Building Code b. California Electrical Code c. California Mechanical Code d. California Plumbing Code e. California Energy Code f. California Fire Code 44 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 11 of 13 g. California Green Building Standards Code h. California Existing Building Code i. Arcadia Municipal Code 9. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/Applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Deputy Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees. The changes to the existing facility may be subject to building permits after having fully detailed plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the aforementioned City officials. 10. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 (“Project”) on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project. In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the City will notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings and will cooperate in the defense of the matter. The Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, the Applicant shall provide to the City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. The City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. The City shall only refund to the Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non- appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to 45 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 12 of 13 select legal counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party challenge(s).In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, at the request of the Applicant or not. 11. Approval of CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 shall not be in effect unless the Property Owner and Applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission has adopted the Resolution. The Acceptance Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 25-01 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-03, stating that the proposal satisfies the requisite findings, and adopting the attached Resolution No. 2169 that incorporates the requisite environmental and Conditional Use Permit findings and the conditions of approval as presented in this staff report, or as modified by the Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 25-01 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-03, stating the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy, with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates 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 July 8, 2025, hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Melissa Chipres, at (626) 574-5447, or by email at mchipres@ArcadiaCA.gov. Approved: Fiona Graham On behalf of Lisa L. Flores Deputy Development Services Director 46 CUP 25-01 and PC AM 25-03 20 E. Foothill Blvd., Unit 108 July 8, 2025 Page 13 of 13 Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2169 Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property Attachment No. 3: Architectural Plans Attachment No. 4: Parking Survey Attachment No. 5: Preliminary Exemption Assessment 47 Attachment No. 1 Attachment No. 1 Resolution No. 2169 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 2 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of the Subject Site 61 Overlays Selected parcel highlighted Parcel location within City of Arcadia N/A Property Owner(s): Lot Area (sq ft): Year Built: Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): C-G Number of Units: C Property Characteristics 1980 25,162 0 Property Owner Site Address:20 E FOOTHILL BLVD Parcel Number: 5772-001-028 N/A Zoning: General Plan: N/A Downtown Overlay: Downtown Parking Overlay: Architectural Design Overlay:N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential Flex Overlay: N/A Yes N/A N/A Special Height Overlay: N/A Parking Overlay: Racetrack Event Overlay: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Report generated 01-Jul-2025 Page 1 of 1 62 Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 3 Architectural Plans 63 64 65 66 Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 4 Parking Survey 67 68 Attachment No. 5 Attachment No. 5 Preliminary Environmental Assessment 69 Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A” PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT 1.Name or description of project:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-03 TO ALLOW AN EDUCATIONAL CENTER WITH A MAXIMUM OF 29 STUDENTS AND A PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATION TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IN A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AT 20 EAST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, UNIT 108 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): 20 E Foothill Ave. Unit 108 3.Entity or person undertaking project: A. B.Other (Private) (1)Name Umbrella Education Corporation (2)Address 20 E Foothill Ave. Arcadia, Ca. 91007 4.Staff Determination: The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a.The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b.The project is a Ministerial Project. c.The project is an Emergency Project. d.The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e.The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 15301 – Class 1 (Use of an existing facility) f.The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: g.The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h.The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: June 9, 2025 Staff: Melissa Chipres, Senior Planner 70 ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City’s Planning Services Office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. CALL TO ORDER Chair Wilander called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Hui was excused from the meeting. PRESENT: Chair Wilander, Vice Chair Tallerico, Arvizu, and Tsoi ABSENT: Hui SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Planning Services Manager Fiona Graham reported that a letter regarding item no. 1 was received from California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF). The letter was sent to the Commissioners prior to the meeting and a hard copy was provided at the dais. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person) There were none. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Resolution No. 2167 – Approving Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 24- 02, Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 25-01 (84747), Protected Healthy Tree Removal Permit No. TRH 25-03, and Protected Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 25-05 for an 18-unit Contemporary style, multiple family residential development at 841 & 845 Arcadia Avenue CEQA: Exempt Recommendation: Adopt Applicant:Eric Tsang MOTION - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Wilander introduced the item, and Ms. Graham presented the staff report. Commissioner Tsoi pointed out the green open spaces on the plans and asked if it was for private use or a common area. Ms. Graham stated that it is a combination of both. Commissioner Tsoi asked what the minimum required dimensions for the common open space are. Ms. Graham stated that the minimum dimension required is 10 feet by 10 feet. Vice Chair Tallerico asked where the nine (9) guest parking spaces were on the site plan. Ms. Graham said they will be in front of the communal open spaces and between the buildings. 71 2 6/10/2025 Vice Chair Tallerico asked if the new fire hazard zones were relevant to this project. Ms. Graham confirmed this property is not located in a fire hazard zone. Vice Chair Tallerico asked for clarification about the underground power lines and if all power lines at the adjacent properties can remain above ground. Ms. Graham stated that it is a standard requirement that all new projects have electrical services underground. Vice Chair Tallerico asked about the process for undergrounding existing, above-ground electrical infrastructure. Ms. Graham said it would need to be discussed between the City and the utility company. She added that most commercial and multi-family projects require underground utilities as they get built, but a neighborhood undergrounding effort would be a City policy decision. Commissioner Arvizu referred to the average height of the surrounding buildings and asked if the three-story building on the adjacent property was 29 feet. Ms. Graham stated that the specific height is unknown, but it is estimated to be 28-29 feet. However, the newer development at 825 Arcadia Avenue is 28-29 1/2 feet above grade. Commissioner Arvizu asked Ms. Graham if she had information on the mean average of the building heights of the buildings in the notification area. Ms. Graham said she did not have that information. Commissioner Arvizu referred to Policy Land Use 4.1 of the General Plan and asked what criteria were used to determine that a project is consistent in scale and mass. He also asked if the criteria are subjective or objective? Ms. Graham said that the design guidelines are subjective, and the aim is consistency in scale, massing, and character. Commissioner Arvizu clarified he was referring to the scale and mass of the development. Ms. Graham explained the design elements she looked for when considering mass and scale of the project. Commissioner Arvizu asked if there was an average taken of the scale of a development when reviewing new projects. He said most new developments are bigger than the previous one and it appears that was the pattern in development. Ms. Graham stated that mass and scale can be subjective and that no metric is used when looking at neighborhood consistency. Moreover, the zoning has changed over the years, and height maximums have increased since the construction of the other buildings in the neighborhood. Commissioner Arvizu asked if this project would not be compatible or consistent with the neighborhood if there were not another 3-strory development in the area. 72 3 6/10/2025 Ms. Graham said that was a hypothetical question and was unable to answer it. The public hearing was opened. Eric Tsang, the Applicant and architect, was present alongside the property owner and said they were available for questions. He stated that they accept the conditions of approval. Celia Leaver spoke in opposition to the proposed project and expressed concerns about the construction vehicles parked along the narrow street. Mr. Tsang responded that the construction team will comply with City ordinances regarding parking and will follow all regulations pertaining to construction regulations. Jing Yi Li introduced herself as a neighbor to the east of the development and spoke in opposition stating concerns about the obstruction to the views from her balcony. Vice Chair Tallerico asked if they had voiced their concerns to the developer of the project. Ms. Li stated that they had not and only decided to attend the meeting after receiving the notice for a public hearing. Commissioner Arvizu asked Ms. Li if her residence was a purchased condominium. Ms. Li confirmed it was. Vice Chair Tallerico made a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Tsoi seconded the motion. Without objection, the motion was approved. DISCUSSION Commissioner Tsoi discussed the proposed setbacks, and the driveway of the adjacent property creates enough space for separation between both properties. Commissioner Tsoi referred to the plans and asked if AC units are allowed in the common green area. Ms. Graham explained that there are AC units in the recessed area at the rear. AC units are not permitted within the calculable required green open space. Commissioner Tsoi pointed out that the AC unit for building one, unit A, is located under the staircase but there would not be sufficient space to accommodate it. In addition, Commissioner Tsoi provided feedback that there were not enough windows in the bedrooms on the third floor. Ms. Graham deferred the question and comment to the architect. Mr. Tsang responded to Commissioner Tsoi stating that the AC in building one will be located along the heighted point of the stairs and therefore will not be visible from the elevation. He also 73 4 6/10/2025 stated that multi-split units would be proposed, and enough space was left to accommodate that equipment. Mr. Tsang stated they would consider adding more windows, however, there might be a privacy concern with more windows in the bedroom. Vice Chair Tallerico said that he had no problems with the project and that he would like to see more windows but understand the privacy concerns. He suggested the Applicant speak with the neighbors concerned about their obstructed views. He also addressed the concerns about the construction site. Ms. Graham stated that construction hours are in place in addition to a noise ordinance which the developer will be required to follow. Commissioner Arvizu stated he disagrees with the findings of the project specifically referring to the criteria about consistency with the neighborhood based on the size and scale. He said he liked the design, but believed the development is too big. He stated that the findings are inconsistent with Policy Land Use 4.1. Chair Wilander said that semisubterranean parking would reduce the height however, semisubterranean parking is no longer permitted. Ms. Wilander asked if that requirement was written in the Development Code. Deputy Development Services Director Lisa Flores provided the Commission with history for context about the City’s decision to eliminate semisubterranean parking and increase allowable building heights and density in the R-3 Zone. Commissioner Arvizu said the findings are contradicting Policy Land Use 4.1 and he asked if it can be eliminated. Ms. Flores said yes, it can be modified if the Commission agrees. Assistant City Attorney Kellan Martz, referred to the letter submitted by CalHDF and explained the Housing Accountability Act. Chair Wilander asked for further clarification about the language “if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility it must conduct a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the actions”. Mr. Martz explained that the City can be held liable if they approve a project with enough conditions to affect its feasibility. Commissioner Arvizu asked if he cannot object to a project based on subjective interpretation of Policy Land Use 4.1. Mr. Martz said yes. He would only be able to deny a project based on safety concerns. Vice Chair Tallerico said Commissioner Arvizu brought up a good point about how neighborhood is defined. He said that the definition of neighborhood is subjective, and he relies on Staff’s interpretation of the findings. 74 5 6/10/2025 Commissioner Tsoi agreed with Vice Chair Tallerico. He added that it would complicate the review of future projects. Mr. Tsoi said this project is not the first third story building in the area and it is a high-density zone therefore the proposal is appropriate for the area. He suggested adding more trees to create screening for the development. Chair Wilander asked the Applicant if it was possible to add more trees. Mr. Tsang said that there are a few areas where trees can be planted. Chair Wilander asked if construction can be delayed on trash days to eliminate crowding concerns on the street. Mr. Tsang said he will discuss it with staff to determine if that will be possible. Commissioner Arvizu addressed Ms. Lee who spoke in opposition to the project and said that he understood their concerns, however, views are not protected in the City. MOTION It was moved by Vice Chair Tallerico, seconded by Commissioner Tsoi to adopt Resolution No. 2167, approving Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 24-02, Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 25-01 (84747), Protected Tree Removal Permit No. TRH 25-03, and Protected Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 25-05 for an 18-unit Contemporary style, multiple residential development at 841 & 845 Arcadia Avenue in which the findings were made and is CEQA exempt. Commissioner Arvizu made a substitute motion, seconded by Chair Wilander to adopt Resolution No. 2167, approving Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 24-02, Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 25-01 (84747), Protected Tree Removal Permit No. TRH 25-03, and Protected Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 25-05 for an 18-unit Contemporary style, multiple residential development at 841 & 845 Arcadia Avenue in which is exempt from CEQA and remove the findings of Policy Land Use 4.1. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Wilander and Commissioner Arvizu NOES: Vice Chair Tallerico and Commissioner Tsoi ABSENT: Hui ROLL CALL FOR THE FIRST MOTION AYES: Chair Wilander, Vice Chair Tallerico, and Commissioner Tsoi NOES: Commissioner Arvizu ABSENT: Hui There is a ten (10) day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 20, 2025. 75 6 6/10/2025 2. Resolution No. 2168 – Approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 24-12 to allow a coffee shop with a drive-through and outdoor seating located at 82 Las Tunas Drive CEQA: Exempt Recommendation: Adopt Applicant: Anthony Rodriguez MOTION - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Wilander introduced the item, and Planning Services Manager Fiona Graham, presented the staff report. Commissioner Arvizu asked if a similar traffic analysis was conducted on the In-n-Out restaurant on Colorado Boulevard. Ms. Graham stated that the restaurant has been there for many years and may have been approved under different requirements of the Development Code. Commissioner Arvizu stated that he would like to see the traffic analysis for the In-n-Out restaurant. Commissioner Tsoi asked if the Applicant wishes to add more food offerings will they be required to amend the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Graham said they may need to amend the CUP depending on the scale and scope of any proposed changes, but the Applicant has not expressed any interest. The public hearing was opened. Anthony Rodriguez, the Applicant, introduced himself and was available for questions. There were no speakers present. Commissioner Tsoi made a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Arvizu seconded the motion. Without objection, the motion was approved. DISCUSSION Commissioner Tsoi liked the proposal and said it was good use for the property. Commissioner Arvizu said he was happy to see a vacant property be occupied. He also liked their proposed parking solution. He wished the applicant success. Vice Chair Tallerico said he first had concerns about the traffic patterns but was satisfied with the proposed solution. 76 7 6/10/2025 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Tsoi, seconded by Vice Chair Tallerico to adopt Resolution No. 2168, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 24-12 to allow a coffee shop with a drive- through and outdoor seating located at 82 Las Tunas Drive in which the findings were made and is CEQA exempt. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Wilander, Vice Chair Tallerico, Commissioners Arvizu, and Tsoi NOES: None ABSENT: Hui There is a ten (10) day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 20, 2025. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the April 22, 2025, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve Commissioner Tsoi motioned to approve the minutes and seconded by Vice Chair Tallerico. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Wilander, Vice Chair Tallerico, Commissioners Arvizu, and Tsoi NOES: None ABSENT: Hui The motion was approved. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON City Council Member Wang had nothing to report. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSONERS Commissioner Arvizu informed the Commission about the Patriotic festival on June 28 from 5:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Chair Wilander reported that there was a good turnout at the League of Women Voters fundraiser on May 3 at the Arcadia Community Center. Chair Wilander asked for an update on the issues with drive-through queueing at Boba Avenue located on Baldwin Avenue. Ms. Graham deferred the question to the City Engineer, Kevn Merril. Mr. Merril informed the Commission that the entrance to the property was modified as part of the Baldwin Avenue streetscape project and traffic patterns should improve. 77 8 6/10/2025 MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Assistant City Attorney Martz informed the Commission to pass along information regarding the deadline for fire debris removal in the Eaton fire area to anybody who could use the information. A permit for removal must be submitted by June 30 otherwise properties risk being held liable for the costs of abatement. MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Graham reported that the June 24 meeting will be cancelled, however there are two items on the agenda for July 8. Chair Wilander said Pasadena is endorsing a State Bill addressing copper wire theft, she asked if the City would endorse the bill. Mr. Martz said he is not aware of the bill or the City’s position but that he would pass that information on to the City Manager’s office. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m., to Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Chair Wilander, Planning Commission ATTEST: Lisa L. Flores Secretary, Planning Commission 78