Loading...
Regular meeting, June 12, 2018 - No. 1 minutes.pdf - Page 002UNAD OPTED MINUTES AGENDA DATE: June 26, 2018 ITEM NO.: 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA Tuesday, June 12, 2018 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the West Covina Council Chambers. Commissioner Castellanos led the Pledge of Allegiance and the Commission observed a moment of silence. ROLL CALL Present: Castellanos, Heng, Holtz, Jimenez and Redholtz Absent: None City Staff Present: Anderson, Garcia, Delostrinos, Marroquin and de Zara APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Regular meeting, May 22, 2018 - Approved as submitted. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS - None NON-HEARING ITEMS 2. SIGN CRITERIA REVIEW NO. 18-01 — REVIEW OF THREE PROPOSED SIGNS Review of sign criteria, proposed by Sign Specialist, Inc. for the building located at 2934 East Garvey Avenue South. Associate Planner Christine Delostrinos presented the staff report. During her presentation she spoke about Variance No. 17-05 which was granted in October 2017 and explained the applicant's proposal for the Master Sign program. Applicant Rick Batt, representing Sign Specialist, Inc. and Kim Hutchings spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Batt told the Commission he worked with staff on the sign program and answered questions by the Commission regarding the details of the proposed signs. Ms. Hutchings, representing Five Acres, told the Commission that \\Storagellplandata\PLANCOM\MINUTES12018 MINUTES16.12.18 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 — June 12.2018 the organization provides services to children in the Los Angeles County Foster Care and Adoption program. She also said they were tenants in the building. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the size of the sign lettering, size of each sign and the fonts to be used. In addition, the Commission discussed the monument sign. Mr. Batt told the Commission that there were currently vacancies in the building and expressed his hope that the approved sign program would encourage businesses to move into the building. Commissioner Holtz expressed his reluctance to approve the proposed size of the three signs at four feet. There was further discussion regarding the lettering and illumination of the proposed signs. Commissioner Castellanos asked the lettering to be reverse halo and illuminated. Mr. Batt suggested a less-expensive alternative. It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the Master Sign program, as amended. Motion by Castellanos, seconded by Redholtz, to approve Sign Criteria Review No. 18-01, as amended. Motion carried 4-1, (Holtz opposed.) 3. STUDY SESSION — CODE AMENDMENT NO. 18-01, REGULATION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION Commercial cultivation of marijuana in the Manufacturing (M) Zone. Senior Planner Ron Garcia presented the staff report. He told the Commission that emails had been received from Geri Potros and Robert Torres and copies had been provided to them. During the presentation, Mr. Garcia told the Commission that the City Council had initiated this code amendment to review commercial cultivation of marijuana in the M-1 (Manufacturing) Zone. He also reviewed possible requirements for this use, including a conditional use permit and a special business license. In addition, Mr. Garcia said that the Commission could consider adding separation requirements from sensitive uses such as residential, parks and churches. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding what commercial marijuana cultivation involves, where it would be sold and if the demand for medical marijuana would be affected. The Commission also discussed possible operational standards and possible limitation of the number of plants that could be grown. Commissioner Heng said she would like people living near the M-1 zone in West Covina to attend the study session so they would have an opportunity to offer their input. Staff also told the Commission that the study sessions will be attended by a representative from the City Attorney's office and the City of Costa Mesa's ordinance would be considered as a model for West Covina's ordinance. \\Storagellplandata\PLANCOM\MINUTES12018 MINUTES16.12.18 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 — June 12, 2018 It was the consensus of the Commission to receive and file the report. 4. STUDY SESSION — POSTING OF PUBLIC HEARING SITE NOTICE STANDARDS Revision to Planning Commission policy of posting public hearing site notice standards. Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation he told the Commission that in addition to mailing notices to residents within a 300- foot radius, it was Planning Commission policy to require applicants to post a public hearing notice on the property. He said posting on the property allows residents outside the 300-foot radius to be informed about the project. He also told the Commission that staff was recommending that the notice be posted in the same time frame as noticing is required by the Municipal Code, CEQA or other government requirement for the proposed project. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding transparency, spreading of misinformation, and giving residents and property owners as much notice of a project as possible. In addition, they considered who is financially responsible for the sign, and who is required to remove the sign once the public hearing is over. Commissioner Heng expressed her opinion that notices should be posted as early as possible to allow residents more time to respond. Chairman Jimenez suggested that a requirement be added that the sign posted on the property be removed by the applicant fourteen (14) days after the appeal period ends. It was the consensus of the Commission to add this requirement. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Castellanos to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 18-5951, as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Heng opposed.) 5. STUDY SESSION — RECYCLING CENTERS Review of recycling centers for compliance. Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. He told the Commission that staff had reviewed business licenses and consulted with Code Enforcement and the West Covina Police Department to determine if there had been any calls for service or violations at any of the recycling centers currently operating in the city. He added that both centers complied and that there had been no complaints or calls for service within the past year. There was a short discussion by the Commission regarding the operation of the recycling centers. After the discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to receive and file the report. \\StoragellplandataIPLANCOM\MINUTES12018 MINUTES16.12.18 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4— June 12, 2018 CONTINUATION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Commissioner Redholtz — regarding restaurants closing in West Covina, the first of the Summer Concert series and the death of West Covina citizen Royal! Brown on Sunday, June 10, 2018. Commissioner Holtz — regarding the death of former West Covina Detective John Corby who passed away last week. Chairman Jimenez reappointed Commissioners Castellanos and Heng to the Subcommittee for Design Review. 5. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: a. FORTHCOMING — June 26, 2018 b. Project Status Report June, 2018 The report was presented by Planning Director Jeff Anderson. 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: June 5, 2018 — The City Council introduced an ordinance adopting Code Amendment No. 17-03, Accessory Dwelling Units. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Jimenez adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. in memory of Royall Brown and retired West Covina Detective John Corby, who both passed away recently. Respectfully submitted: Lydia de Zara Senior Administrative Assistant ADOPTED AS SUBMITTED ON: ADOPTED AS AMENDED ON: \\Storagel \pi andata IP LANCOM \MINUTES 120 IS MINUTES16.12.18 minutes. doe 911212 1 0 San Diego St AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 DATE: June 26, 2018 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PRECISE PLAN NO. 15-07 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73652 VARIANCE NO. 15-18 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Steve Eide, Drafting and Design, Ltd. LOCATION: 1920 West Pacific Lane I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 7 condominiums. A Tentative tract map is required to subdivide the property. In addition, a variance has been requested to deviate from code requirements including rear yard setback requirements. The project site is located in a Multi-Family Residential (MF-20) zone. The site is .62 acres and is currently occupied by a single-family home, which will be demolished as part of the project. The subject property is located east of a small shopping center that is at the intersection of West Pacific Lane and West Pacific Avenue. This item was continued from the February 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. =ND a014) 01-.M ZD077 9 Bail v-1 W Pacific Ln W Pacific In 42-- 2019 0:20 9 09 63 11X4 Sett Subject Property rt. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision and the construction of seven condominiums. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP\2015 173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18 \Staff Report 6.26.18.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018 - Page 2 II. BACKGROUND On February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the proposed project. At the request of the applicant, staff scheduled a public hearing for the project to be considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission provided direction and recommended revising the project for the following: • Revise the project to provide architectural compatibility with the neighborhood, (including style and building materials and articulation of the roof and walls). • Increase on-site parking where possible. • Reduce variance requests wherever possible. At that meeting, residents near the project site raised concerns. Since that meeting, the applicant held a community meeting on April 18, 2018 at City Hall. At the meeting the applicant informed the surrounding neighbors of their revised proposal in an effort to address concerns. Approximately 12 people attended that community meeting. III. ANALYSIS The applicant has revised the project in the following manner to address the issues stated above: • The original project included a Spanish architectural design that also incorporated Arts and Crafts architectural elements. The project has been revised to propose a traditional architecture and gable roof. The buildings will feature smooth stucco exteriors, hardie plank wood siding, brick veneer, window shutters, decorative corbels, decorative wood gable vents, wood outlookers, window treatment, and varying window shapes. • The original project included a total of 6 guest parking spaces where 2 spaces are required. The Zoning Code requires .25 guest parking spaces per unit. The project has been revised to include 1 additional guest parking space. The proposed project therefore provides 7 guest parking spaces. This would essentially allow each unit a designated guest parking space. • The original project included a total of 4 variance requests. The project proposes one variance for rear yard setback adjacent to Pacific Avenue. Z:1Case Files\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Staff Report 6.26.18.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018 - Page 3 STANDARD REQUIRED/ ALLOWED PROPOSED DEVIATION S4ts-Sizre Ofte4tefe 4444" 8.tptiloo=feet4 (462=iteFr=0 (-7T1A1 a4Etutwe-feet4 4=6014=1=KliWO feet botAVidth 4404eet 440=feet 5-0-fGGt Fretbaelc-414er=ist=fricie) 40-fe-Gt 8 fcct 8 4-foot-4-iFteites kteltes Rear Yard Setback Adjacent to Pacific Avenue 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet During the review of the revised plans it was determined that the project site did not consist of two separate lots as originally proposed. The original project proposed consolidating the lots to construct the 7 condominiums. The lot consolidation required variances for lot size and lot width. Subsequently the applicant provided staff with the appropriate documentation from its title company confirming that the subject property consisted of one lot. The Engineering Division also agreed that the property is one lot. Staff also reviewed City records on the property and consulted with the City Attorney who concluded that the subject site is in fact one lot. Therefore, because the property is one lot the variances for lot size and lot width are no longer necessary. Staff included a copy of City Council Ordinance No. 871 indicating the zoning reclassification to "Multi- Family Residential" (Attachment No. 5). The proposed project is therefore requesting one variance from rear yard setback requirements adjacent to Pacific Avenue. IV. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The project site is designated as "Neighborhood Medium" in the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies and Actions: P2.1 Maintain and enhance the City's current tax base. P2.6 Create a diversity of housing options. P3.3 New growth will complete, enhance, and reinforce the form and character of the unique West Covina neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. Housing Element Goals: Goal 1 Maintain and enhance the quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods in West Covina. Goal 2 Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate all economic segments of the City. Goal 5 Identify adequate sites to achieve housing variety. Z:\Case Files\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Staff Report 6.26.18.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018 - Page 4 The proposed Precise Plan is consistent with the General Plan. V. REQUIRED FINDINGS Findings are required to allow the Planning Commission to approve the Precise Plan; Tentative Tract Map; and Variance. Precise Plan a. The proposed development plans and the uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. The project site is designated as "Neighborhood Medium" in the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies and Actions: P2.1 Maintain and enhance the City's current tax base. P2.6 Create a diversity of housing options. Housing Element Goals: Goal 1 Maintain and enhance the quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods in West Covina. Goal 2 Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate all economic segments of the City. Goal 5 Identify adequate sites to achieve housing variety. The proposed Precise Plan is consistent with the General Plan. The property is not located in a Specific Plan. b. The proposed development is consistent with adopted development standards for the zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the WCMC. The project consists of a proposal to construct seven condominiums with a total of 21 parking spaces. With approval of the requested Variance, the proposal complies with the requirements of the Multiple Family Zone. Applicable development standards in the Zoning Code include but are not limited to building colors, materials, off-street parking requirements, building coverage and allowable density. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Staff Report 6.26.18.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018 - Page 5 c. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare and would not unreasonable interfere with the use or enjoyment of property near the subject property. The project consists of residential infill development in a residential area of the City. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare and would not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property near the subject property. d. The site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the development being proposed, including vehicle access and circulation, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. The proposed residential project is adjacent to residential development on the north, east, and south. The project will include adequate off-street parking and landscaping and open space areas for residents. The proposed project will have vehicular access from West Pacific Lane. The subject project is an infill development and is therefore located within an urbanized area where utility connections are readily available. The proposed project is 11.3 units per acre in a zone that allows up to 20 units per acre. The site is 0.62 acres and, with granting of the Variance for setback, will be physically suitable for the proposed project and adequate to accommodate the size and shape of the buildings and parking. With the granting of the Variance for rear setback, the project will meet all applicable development standards for the Medium Density Multiple Family (MF-20) zone. e. The architecture, site layout, location, shape, bulk and physical characteristics of the proposed development are compatible with the existing and future land uses, will not interfere with orderly development in the vicinity. The project proposes a traditional architecture and gable roof The buildings will feature smooth stucco exteriors and will be painted a variety of earth tone colors, hardie plank wood siding, brick veneer, window shutters, decorative corbels, decorative wood gable vents, wood outlookers, window treatment, and varying window shapes. The combination of materials and architectural variation helps reduce the scale and massing of the proposed structures. ZACase Files\TRACT MA1'112015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18IStaff Report 6.26.18.doe PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018 - Page 6 Tentative Tract Map a. The proposed map is consistent with the general plan and any applicable adopted specific plans. The approval of the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the City of West Covina General Plan. The proposed 7-unit development will be constructed to meet the development standards of the zone and the California Building Code standards. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the general plan and applicable adopted specific plans. The tentative tract map provides for a development that is compatible with the "Neighborhood Medium" land use designation for the subject site in the General Plan, and the provisions for design and improvements comply with the implementation policies and objectives of the General Plan. c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density. The proposed project is a residential infill project within an urbanized area. The site is 0.62 acres and located within the "Neighborhood Medium" General Plan land use designation that allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The project consists of two two-story multi-family buildings, with Building A containing 4 units and Building B containing 3 units. d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed. The project is a residential infill development within an urbanized area where the infrastructure to support the project already exists. The site will be developed in accordance with the grading and construction requirements of the West Covina Municipal Code and the City Engineer. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP \2015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Staff Report 6.26.18.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 1548 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018- Page 7 e. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitat. The project is a residential infill development within an urbanized area where the infrastructure to support the project already exists. Most of the wildlife present on site are common within developed areas and would be expected to leave the area during active construction, then likely return. A few individual animals such as gophers and common species of lizards may be lost, but they are very common in the region and the loss of the small number expected to occur on site would not substantially affect the local or regional populations of those species. The site contains one mature mulberry tree that is located directly behind the existing house. This tree does not meet the definition of "significant" per Section 26-289 of the WCMC. Therefore, a Tree Removal Permit is not required to remove the tree. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed project will have access to a public sanitary sewer system for the removal and disposal of wastewater, and to other necessary utility services. The site will be developed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department, the Municipal Code, the California Building Code and other applicable requirements. g. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will either (i) not conflict with recorded or adjudged easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or (ii) alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. The subdivision design and type of improvements proposed as part of the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with easements. There are no easements on the subject property. Z:\Case Files\TRACT MAP\2015\73652 1920 W. Pacific Lanc\PC 6.26.18\Staff Report 6.26.18.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018 - Page 8 Variance Required findings for approval of the Variances are as follows: a. There are special circumstances (which may include, but are not limited to, size, shape, topography, location or surroundings) applicable to the property which are not applicable to other property in the property's vicinity under identical zoning classification. The subject property has been zoned Multiple-Family Residential since 1964. The property is bordered by a commercial property to the west, and a Multi-Family zoned condominium development and single-family house to the east. To the north of the property are single-family houses. The subject property is rectangular with the exception of an angle along the southerly (rear) property line adjacent to Pacific Avenue. The subject property includes an existing 944-square foot house constructed in 1947, while the remainder of the lot is vacant. There are special circumstances in that the property is located between a Multi- Family zoned condominium development and commercial development that are unlikely to be redeveloped in the near future. The property is irregular in shape in that the rear property line is angled, thereby requiring a variance to allow for the lot to be developed with deviations for rear yard setback. The building setback ranges from 15 feet on the west to 75 feet to the east due to the angle of the property line. The rear yard setback line is 20 feet compared to the adjacent Multi-Family zoned condominium development to the east with a similar lot angle. The applicant is requesting for a 5-foot encroachment into the rear yard setback which makes the development of the lot comparable with similar properties in the area. The adjacent condominium lot to the east includes a building that is approximately 11 feet closer to the property line than the proposed building. The subject property enjoys less development area on the Pacific Avenue side of the lot than other properties on the street. b. As a result of the special circumstances, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of meaningful privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The property is irregular in shape in that the rear property line is angled, thereby requiring a variance to allow for the lot to be developed with deviations for rear yard setback. The building setback ranges from 15 feet on the west to 75 feet to the east due to the angle of the property line. The property has a zoning designation of Multiple-Family Residential. In order to provide the property right to develop the property, given its configuration, the variance for rear yard setback on street frontage at an angle is necessary. Not punting the variance for the subject project would prevent the owner from having the meaningful privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zoning classification. Z:\Case Files\TRACT MAP\2015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18 \Staff Report 6.26.18.doc PP No, 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018 - Page 9 c. Such variance is necessary to allow the property in question to have the same substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. The property is irregular in shape in that the rear property line is angled, thereby requiring a variance to allow for the lot to be developed with deviations for rear yard setback. The building setback ranges from 15 feet on the west to 75 feet to the east due to the angle of the property line. The property has a zoning designation of Multiple-Family Residential. To allow the property to have the same substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, the variance for rear yard setback on street frontage at an angle is necessary in that the adjacent condominium lot to the east includes a building that is approximately 11 feet closer to the property line than the proposed building. The subject property enjoys less development area on the Pacific Avenue side of the lot than other properties on the street. Not granting the variance for the subject project would prevent the owner the substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. d. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to residents or owners of nearby properties. The proposed project is a residential infill development of 7 condominiums located between residential and commercial uses. The project is designed to provide a significant separation of the proposed units and the existing house to the east. Therefore, the project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. e. That the granting of such variance shall be consistent with the adopted general plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed project with 7 units (11.3 units per acre) is consistent with the site's General Plan designation of "Neighborhood Medium" (up to 20 dwelling units per acre). f. The variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of property. The subject property has been zoned Multiple-Family Residential since 1964. The property is bordered by a commercial property to the west, a Multi-Family zoned condominium development and single-family house to the east. The subject property also includes an existing 944-square foot house constructed in 1947, while the remainder of the lot is vacant. As allowed under the existing zoning the proposed variance does not authorize a use or activity not allowed under the existing zoning classification. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP\2015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Staff Report 6.26.18.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018 - Page 10 VI. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The changes to the proposed project do not warrant recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15073.5, the City is required to recirculate a daft MND when the document is substantially revised after public notice of its availability but prior to its adoption. A substantial revision is identified as follows: 1. A new avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; or 2. The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revision will not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measures or revisions must be required. Under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15073.5(c), recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: 1. Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1 2. New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effect identified in the proposed negative declaration with are not new avoidable significant effects. 3. Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. The Draft MND fully discloses significant impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, no changes to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are warranted nor recirculation. VII. CONCLUSION The project has been revised to comply with required yard setbacks with exception to the rear yard setback. The project site has been zoned Multi-Family Residential since 1964. The project proposes a minimum 10-foot side yard setback along the easterly and westerly property line. Based on the changes made to the project, the applicant has made an effort to address architectural compatibility, additional parking, and variance reductions as requested by the Planning Commission. ZACase Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Staff Report 6.26.18.doc 11n•nn• PREPARED BY: PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane June 26, 2018- Page 11 IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; approving Precise Plan No. 15-07, Tentative Tract Map No. 73652, and Variance No. 15-18. on Garcia Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Jeff Anderson, AICP Planning Director Attachments: Attachment No. 1 — Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution for Approval Attachment No. 2— Draft Precise Plan Resolution for Approval Attachment No. 3 — Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution Attachment No. 4 — Draft Variance Resolution for Approval Attachment No. 5 — City Council Ordinance No. 871, Dated July 27, 1964 Attachment No. 6— Responses to Comments on IS/MND Attachment No. 7 — Planning Commission Staff Report, Dated February 13, 2018 Attachment No. 8 — Planning Commission Minutes, Dated February 13, 2018 Attachment No. 9 — Projects Approved Variance Request Chart Attachment No. 10 — Letter of Concern, Dated January 31, 2018 Attachment No. 11 — Letter of Concern, Dated February 5, 2018 Attachment No. 12 — Letters of Concern received for the February 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Attachment No. 13 — Petition in opposition to proposed project, Dated February 5, 2018 Attachment No. 14 —Compact Disc of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Available for review by the public at the Library, Police Department, Planning Department, City's Website — Planning Department) Attachment No. 15 —Development Plans (Available for review by the public at the Library, Police Department and Planning Department) ZACase Files\TRACT MAP12015 173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Staff Report 6.26.18.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RE SOLUTIONNO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR PRECISE PLAN NO. 15-07, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73652 AND VARIANCE NO. 15-18 PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Steve Eide, Drafting and Design, Ltd. LOCATION: 1920 West Pacific Lane WHEREAS, there was filed with this City, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a development to: Allow the construction of 7 residential condominium units on that certain property described as: Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8459-026-002 and 003, in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for said project; and WHEREAS, based upon the findings of the initial study, it was determined that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment and will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and mitigation measures are included in ZACase Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Neg Dec Reso.doc Resolution No. June 26, 2018 — Page 2 said Negative Declaration in support of the finding that there will not be a significant effect on the environment as a result of this project. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 13th day of February, 2018, conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application; and WHEREAS, in order to allow the applicant additional time to address the issues raised by the Commission, at its regular meeting held on the 13 th day of February, 2018 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date uncertain, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 26th day of June, 2018 conduct a duly advertised public hearing to consider the subject application, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does hereby resolve as follows: 1. After receiving and considering all determinations, studies, documents, and recommendations, as well as other appropriate public comments, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina hereby certifies the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, subject to compliance with the mitigation measures that are recommended in the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as set forth in Exhibit A. 2. Non-compliance with the aforementioned mitigation measures as by the monitoring department/agency and any measures taken to correct said non-compliance shall be immediately reported to the Planning Department on the City of West Covina Monitoring Checklist Form. 3. The applicant agrees to implement the aforementioned mitigation measures and monitoring or reporting requirements. 4. Failure to comply with any aforementioned mitigation measures and/or monitoring or reporting requirements will result in a written notice of violation from the City to the applicant at which time the City may order that all or a portion of pre- construction, construction, post-construction activity or project implementation must cease until compliance is reached. 5. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and local guidelines, rules, regulations, and procedures adopted pursuant thereto permits the City of West Covina to impose any fees or charges associated with implementing the above monitoring program upon the applicant. ZACase Files\TRACT MA13\2015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Neg Dec Reso.doe Resolution No. June 26, 2018— Page 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 26 th day of June, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: June 26, 2018 EXPIRATION DATE: June 26, 2020 If not used. Jose Jimenez, Chairman Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, AICP, Secretary Planning Commission Z:\Case Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181Neg Dec Reso.doc Resolution No. June 26, 2018 — Page 4 EXHIBIT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ZACase Files\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920W. Pacific Larie\PC 6.26.181Neg Dec Reso.doc SECTION 7.0 — MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM + 7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with § 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and § 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which require all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. It is the intent of the MMRP to: (1) provide a framework for document implementation of the required mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility; (3) provide a record of the monitoring/reporting; and (4) ensure compliance with those mitigation measures that are within the responsibility of the City of West Covina (City) to implement. The following table lists impacts, mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with approval of the proposed project, level of significance after mitigation, responsible and monitoring parties, and the project phase in which the measures are to be implemented. 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision 0316-F Page 7-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE/ MONITORING PARTY. 1, 2, MONITORING AGENCY 3, MONITORING PHASE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SECTioN 7.0 — MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4+ Table 7.0-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Threshold 4.4(a) BR-1: Construction During Breeding Season Have a substantial adverse effect The breeding bird nesting season is typically from February 15 through either directly or through habitat September 15, but can vary slightly from year to year, usually depending modifications, on any species on weather conditions. if construction cannot be avoided during the identified as a candidate, sensitive, breeding season, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction or special status species in local or survey for breeding birds, and active and potential nesting sites within the regional plans, policies, or limits of project disturbance up to seven days prior to mobilization, staging regulations, or by the California and other disturbances. Department of Fish and Game or U.S. • if no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre- Fish and Wildlife Service construction survey, or if they are observed and will not be impacted, then project activities may begin and no further breeding bird monitoring will be required. • If an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction survey and could be impacted, a no-activity buffer zone will be delineated on maps and marked by flagging or other means up to SOO feet for special-status avian species and raptors, or 100 feet for non-special-status avian species. The biologist will determine the appropriate size of the buffer zone based on the type of activities planned near the nest and bird species because some bird species are more tolerant than others to noise and other disturbances. Buffer zones will not be disturbed until a qualified biologist determines that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic monitoring by a biologist will be perfoi wed to determine when nesting is complete. After the nesting cycle, project activities may begin within the buffer zone. • Birds or their active nests will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved except as noted above. Inactive nests may be moved by a qualified biologist, if necessary, to avoid disturbance by project activities. City of West Field City of West Covina Covina Verification City of West Covina During Construction 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 7-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 :.RESPONSIBIN:. ...MONITORING!' PARTY 1. ENFORCEMENT AGENCY 2. MONITORING AGENCY 3. MONITORING PHASE .:MONITORING ,ACTION. • SECTION 7.0 — MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM • Threshold 4.4(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 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 BR-2: General Plant and Wildlife Avoidance Measures City of West Field • To minimize construction-related mortalities of nocturnally Covina Verification active species such as mammals and snakes, work will be conducted during daylight hours to the extent practicable. Night time work (and use of artificial lighting) will not be permitted unless specifically authorized. If required, night lighting will be shielded to protect species from direct night lighting. All unnecessary lights will be turned off at night to avoid attracting wildlife such as insects, migratory birds, and bats. • Wildlife encountered during the course of project activities will be allowed to freely leave the area unharmed. Wildlife will not be disturbed, captured, harassed, or handled, • Active nests will not be removed or disturbed. Nests may be removed or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist. • To avoid impacts on wildlife, the applicant will comply with litter and pollution laws and institute a litter control program throughout project' construction. All contractors, subcontractors, and employees will adhere to this program. Trash and food items will be disposed of promptly in predator-proof containers with resealing lids. These covered trash receptacles will be placed at each designated work site and the contents will be properly disposed at least once a week. Trash removal will reduce the attractiveness of the area to opportunistic predators such as common ravens (Corvus corax), coyotes (Canis latrans), northern raccoons (Procyon lotor), and Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginian a). City of West Covina City of West Covina During Construction 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 7-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 +4. SECTION 7.0 — MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE! MONITORING PARTY MONITORING ACTION 1 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY 2. MONITORING AGENCY 3. MONITORING PHASE Threshold 4.4(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 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 BR-3: Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) • Project work crews will be directed to use best management practices (BMPs) to protect wildlife where applicable. These measures will be identified prior to construction and incorporated into the construction operations. City of West Covina Field Verification City of West Covina City of West Covina Prior to and During Construction CULTURAL RESOURCES Threshold 4.5 (b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? CR4: Archaeological and Native American Monitoring • A qualified archaeologist and a local Native American representative shall be provided to monitor all subsurface ground disturbing construction activity at the project site. If there are inadvertent finds, all work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery. Work shall not continue until the discovery has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, and the local Native American representative has been consulted to assist in the accurate recordation and recovery of the resources. City of West Covina Field Verification City of West Covina City of West Covina Prior to and During Construction HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Threshold 4.8 (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 HAZ-1: Performance Abatement Specification • Prior to demolition of the existing on-site single-family home, the project applicant shall ensure that an Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP) materials survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of hazardous materials within the existing single-family home. A copy of the report shall be provided to the City of West Covina prior to issuance of a demolition permit. If ACMs or LBPs are detected, the applicant shall develop and submit to the City a performance abatement specification for the removal of ACMs and/or LBPs including the utilization of proper work practices to avoid exposure. All measures outlined in the specification shall be implemented during demolition activities. Project Applicant Report Submittal and Submittal of a Performance Abatement Specification City of West Covina City of West Covina Prior to Demolition/ During Demolition 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 7-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 RESPONSII3LE/ MONITORING PARTY MONITORING ACTION IMPACT .mITI.04ppgmEAsvgg.„.i. SECTION 7.0 — MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM • 1. ENFORCEMENT AGENCY 2. MONITORING AGENCY 3. MONITORING PHASE NOISE Threshold 4.12(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise level in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies N-1: Noise Monitoring If surrounding residents or businesses complain of excessive noise during construction, then the construction contractor will conduct noise monitoring in the residential or commercial area of concern during the suspected noise-producing construction activities. If the monitored noise levels exceed regulatory noise restrictions or standards, taking into account background noise, then the construction contractor will mitigate noise levels using temporary noise shields, noise barriers or other mitigation measures to comply with those restrictions or standards. (See below.) N-2: Noise Source Controls The construction contractor will use the following source controls, except where not physirally feasible: • Use of noise-producing equipment will be limited to the interval from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. • For all noise producing equipment use types and models that have the lowest horsepower and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use. • The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating [tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately. • Have only necessary equipment onsite. • Use manually-adjustable or ambient sensitive backup alarms N-3: Noise Path Controls The contractor will use the following path controls, except where not physically feasible: • Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers. • Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources. • Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical. 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 7-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE/ MONITORING PARTY Il.:1;gNFOAcgDg.NT'AQENCY: Z:.MUNITORINGAGENCY: S. MONITORING PHASE: SECTION 7.0 — MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM + N-4: Construction Notices Advance notice of the start of construction shall be delivered to all noise sensitive receivers adjacent to the project area. The notice shall state specifically where and when construction activities will occur, and provide contact information for filing noise complaints with the contractor and the City. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES City of West Covina City of West Covina During Construction Threshold 4.17(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), TCR-1: Inadvertent Discovery City of West All work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery. Work shall not Covina continue until the discovery has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and the local Native American representative has been contacted and consulted to assist in the accurate recordation and recovery of the resources. Field Verification 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 7-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRECISE PLAN NO. 15-07. PRECISE PLAN NO. 15-07 APPLICANT: Steve Eide, Drafting and Design, Ltd. LOCATION: 1920 West Pacific Lane WHEREAS, there was filed with this City, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a precise plan to: Allow the proposed site plan and architectural design for the construction of 7 residential condominium units on that certain property described as: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8459-026-002 and 003 in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 13th day of February, 2018, conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application; and WHEREAS, in order to allow the applicant additional time to address the issues raised by the Commission, at its regular meeting held on the 13 th day of February, 2018 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date uncertain, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upon continuation of the public hearing did on the 26th day of June, 2018, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, a Tentative Tract Map (No. 73652) has been submitted for the subdivision of the property to develop the site with a 7-unit condominium development. The residential tract map proposes a density of 11.3 units per acre; and WHEREAS, a Variance has been submitted for rear yard setbacks, and Z:1Case Files1TRACT MAP12015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane1PC 6.26.151PP Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018 - Page 2 WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and on its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Precise Plan to approve the design and allow the construction of a 7 unit residential condominium project in two buildings. 2. Appropriate findings for approval of a Precise Plan are as follows: a. The proposed development plans and the uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. b. The proposed development is consistent with adopted development standards for the zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the WCMC. c. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare and would not unreasonable interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity of the subject property. d. The site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the development being proposed, including vehicle access and circulation, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. e. The architecture, site layout, location, shape, bulk and physical characteristics of the proposed development are compatible with the existing and future land uses, will not interfere with orderly development in the vicinity. 3. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT has been prepared indicating that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect due to mitigating measures. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: 1. On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: The proposed development plans and the uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. a. The project site is designated as "Neighborhood Medium" in the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies and Actions: P2.1 Maintain and enhance the City's current tax base. P2.6 Create a diversity of housing options. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18IPP Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018 - Page 3 Housing Element Goals: Goal I Maintain and enhance the quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods in West Covina, Goal 2 Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate all economic segments of the City. Goal 5 Identify adequate sites to achieve housing variety. The proposed Precise Plan is consistent with the General Plan. The property is not located in a Specific Plan. b. The project consists of a proposal to construct seven condominiums with a total of 21 parking spaces. With approval of the requested Variance, the proposal complies with the requirements of the Multiple Family Zone. Applicable development standards in the Zoning Code include but are not limited to building colors, materials, off-street parking requirements, building coverage and allowable density. c. The project consists of residential infill development in a residential area of the City. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare and would not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property near the subject property. d. The proposed residential project is adjacent to residential development on the north, east, and south. The project will include adequate off-street parking and landscaping and open space areas for residents. The proposed project will have vehicular access from West Pacific Lane. The subject project is an infill development and is therefore located within an urbanized area where utility connections are readily available. The proposed project is 11.3 units per acre in a zone that allows up to 20 units per acre. The site is 0.62 acres and, with granting of the Variance for setback, will be physically suitable for the proposed project and adequate to accommodate the size and shape of the buildings and parking. With the granting of the Variance for rear setback, the project will meet all applicable development standards for the Medium Density Multiple Family (MF-20) zone. e. The project proposes a traditional architecture and gable roof. The buildings will feature smooth stucco exteriors and will be painted a variety of earth tone colors, hardie plank wood siding, brick veneer, window shutters, decorative corbels, decorative wood gable vents, wood outlookers, window treatment, and varying window shapes. The combination of materials and architectural variation helps reduce the scale and massing of the proposed structures. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP 12015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lanc\PC 6.26.181PP Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018 - Page 4 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Precise Plan No. 15-07 is approved subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code, provided that the physical development of the herein described property shall conform to said plan and the conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly indicated, shall be fully performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the Planning Director, before the use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and the violation of any of which shall be grounds for revocation of said precise plan by the Planning Commission or City Council. 3. That the precise plan shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the Planning Director, his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this precise plan as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with the processing of this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690. 4. The costs and expenses of any enforcement activities, including, but not limited to attorneys' fees, caused by the applicant's violation of any condition imposed by this approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be paid by the applicant. 5. That the approval of the precise plan is subject to the following conditions: Planning Department a) Comply with plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2018. b) Approval of this Precise Plan is contingent upon, and shall not become effective unless and until approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 and Variance No. 15- 18. c) These conditions of approval shall be printed on the working drawings submitted to the Building Division for review. d) The landscape planter along the easterly property line adjacent to the single-family house shall include 15 gallon shrubs that will grow to 10 to 12 feet in height and form a hedge to screen the property. e) A minimum of three 24-inch box trees shall be installed in the finger planters along the easterly property line adjacent to the single-family house That the project complies with all requirements of the "Medium Density Multiple- Family" Zone and all other applicable standards of the West Covina Municipal Code with approval of the Variance for rear yard setbacks. Mase Files\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.1811 3P Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018- Page 5 Prior to requesting a final inspection by the Building Division, the Applicant shall request an inspection from the Planning Department to inspect the project. Please contact the Planning Department two weeks in advance of such inspection. h) The project shall provide 14 covered off-street parking spaces for the residential units, and 7 guest parking spaces. i) A two-car garage shall be maintained at all times for each of the units. Each garage shall include a minimum 160 cubic-foot storage area. The applicant shall sign an affidavit accepting all conditions of this approval. This approval shall become null and void if the building permit is not obtained within one (2) years of the date of this approval. The Zoning Code gives provisions for up to three one-year extensions to keep entitlements active. Therefore, prior to final approval, (if building permits have not been obtained) Applicant is urged to file a letter with the department requesting a one-year extension of time. The required submittal is a letter stating the reasons why an extension is needed, as well as an applicable processing fee. Please be advised that the Applicant will not be notified by the PlanninE Department about the pen dine expiration of the subject entitlement. 1) That any proposed change to the approved site plan, floor plan or elevations be reviewed by the Planning, Building, Fire and Police Departments and that the written authorization of the Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation. m) Comply with all requirements of the "Art in Public Places" ordinance (WCMC Chapter 17), prior to the issuance of building permits. Artwork shall be installed or required fee paid prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. n) All outstanding fees and any required development impact fees (currently $1,666 per unit) shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. o) All new gutters and downspouts shall not project from the vertical surface of the building pursuant to Section 26-568 (a) (3). p) This approval does not include approval of signs; a separate sign permit shall be obtained. All signs shall be required to comply with the City of West Covina Sign Code. All outdoor trash areas shall be screened on all sides from public view by a minimum 5'6" high decorative block wall with a gate constructed of durable materials and a solid architectural cover. Provide construction details prior to issuance of a building permit Z:\Case Files\TRACT MA1'12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18IPP Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018 Page 6 r) All new ground-mounted, wall-mounted and/or roof-mounted equipment not shown on the approved plans, shall be screened from all views, in a manner that is architecturally compatible with the main buildings. Plans and elevations indicating the type of equipment and method of concealment shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. s) The location of new electrical transformers, vaults, antennas, mechanical and all other equipment not indicated on the approved plans must be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permit. Provide construction details prior to issuance of a building permit. t) All new pole mounted parking lot lighting shall be accurately indicated on the grading plan and shall be located within landscaped or hardscaped area. Pole locations shall be accurately staked prior to installation by the Engineer. u) A parking lot lighting plan showing electrolier types and locations, average illumination levels, points of minimum illumination and photometric data in conformance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and as requested shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and the City Engineer. v) Building and parking lot lighting is required to be architecturally integrated with the building design. Standard security wall packs are not acceptable unless they are provided with hooding that is architecturally compatible with the building. w) That prior to final building permit issuance, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in compliance with AB 1881 and Executive Order B-29-15 shall be submitted for all planted areas to be affected by project. Plans shall include type, size and quantity of landscape materials and irrigation equipment. All vegetation areas shall be automatically irrigated and a detailed watering program and water budget shall be provided. All damaged vegetation shall be replaced and the site shall be kept free of diseased or dead plant materials and litter at all times. The applicant shall coordinate with the applicable water district to determine if the water district has any specific requirements for water efficient landscaping. x) All approved materials and colors shall be clearly indicated on the plans. Clinging vines shall be installed on all retaining or freestanding walls to assist in deterring graffiti. z) Graffiti-resistant coatings shall be used on all walls, fences, sign structures, or similar structures to assist in deterring graffiti. ZACase Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lanc1PC 6.26.181PP Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018 - Page 7 aa) Any graffiti that appears on the property during construction shall be cleaned or removed on the same business day. bb) The Homeowner's Association (HOA) shall be responsible for the maintenance of the common open space and all improvements. Any graffiti applied to walls shall be promptly removed by the HOA. cc) Any sidewalk, hardscape or parking facility, with potholes, broken, raised or depressed sections, large cracks, mud and/or dust, accumulation of loose material, faded or illegible pavement striping or other deterioration shall be repaired. dd) Parking lots or other paved areas with a cracked, broken or otherwise deteriorating surface, in excess of ten (10) percent of the surface area shall be considered a nuisance and shall be repaired. cc) Prior to issuance of building permits, a wall and fence plan shall be provided indicating construction details and color and material samples for any masonry walls or fences to be constructed at perimeter of project. The wall and fence plan shall indicate the location of all walls and fences, the design and the height. Walls and fencing shall not be located immediately adjacent to a sidewalk, and should be set back off the property line to allow planting and irrigation. The wall/fence plan is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. ff) Provide an open space amenities plan indicating the type and specifications of the barbeque grills, and picnic tables with shade structures prior to the issuance of building permits. gg) The construction shall be approved by the Planning Department before any permits are finalized. hh) The paved areas at the site shall be maintained clean and free of oil stains. All paved areas shall be pressure washed as needed to maintain the site in a clean and orderly manner. ii) All new utilities shall be placed underground prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. All relocated on-site utility service lines shall be underground when the cost or square footage of an addition or alteration exceeds 50% of the existing value or area. WCMC 23-273. ii) Recordation of Final Tract Map with the Los Angeles County Recorder shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. kk) The applicant shall execute an indemnity agreement, in a form provided by the City and approved by the City Attorney, indemnifying the City against any and all actions brought against the City in connection with the approvals set forth herein. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP12015 173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181PP Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018 -,Page 8 11) A declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be prepared by the developer/property owner and submitted to the Planning Director and the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, and shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map. Written proof of recordation with the Los Angeles County Recorder/Registrars Office shall be provided to the Planning Department. mm) The CC&Rs shall include the following: 1. No addition of habitable space is permitted. 2. No permanent ground floor patio covers are permitted. Non-permanent patio covers are permitted. 3. The parking or storage of recreation vehicles, such as RVs, boats, trailers, fifth wheels, ATVs, etc, is prohibited. 4. The vehicular gate located along Pacific Avenue is exclusively for the use of public safety only. 5. Parking on driving aisles is prohibited. 6. Garages shall be used to park vehicles. 7. All exterior maintenance of the structures will be the responsibility of the HOA, including garage doors, windows, exterior architectural materials and roof. 8. Cleanup of graffiti is the responsibility of the Homeowners Association (HOA). nn) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall draft a Prospective Homebuyer's Awareness Package (PHAP), and submit it to the Planning Director for review and approval. Copies of signed copies of PHAP for all lots shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Such package shall include: 1. A standardized cover sheet as approved by the Planning Department. 2. Zoning and General Plan information. 3. School information. 4. Special assessment district information. 5. Utility providers 6. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the project. Z:\Case Fitcs\TRACT MAP\2015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181PP Rcsolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018- Page 9 7. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Planning Department, Planning Commission, or City Council for the full disclosure of pertinent information. oo) The applicant shall meet any and all monitoring or reporting requirements necessary to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as those may be determined by the City, including, but not limited to, entering into an agreement to perform and/or for monitoring and reporting during project construction and implementation. The applicant further agrees it will cease construction of the project immediately upon written notice of a violation of such requirement and that such a provision may be part of any agreement of City and applicant. pp) Comply with the mitigation measures as outlined in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated January, 2018. qq) Engineering Division 1. Comply with all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 567, which outlined the requirements of grading, street improvement, exterior lighting, water supply, all bonds, trees, landscaping, drainage, and building related improvements, etc. 2. Sanitary sewers shall be provided to each "lot" in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article 2, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. The required street improvements shall include those portions of Pacific Avenue and Pacific Lane contiguous to subject property. 4. All damaged concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalk, etc., shall be removed and reconstructed per City standard. 5. A ten-foot wide required street dedication shall include that portion of Pacific Lane contiguous to the subject property and shall be recorded in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to the issuance of any Building Permits and/or Engineering Permits 6. Construct street improvements, including curbs, gutters, AC pavement, and five-foot wide sidewalk with trees along Pacific Lane adjacent to curb with trees installed at back of sidewalk with irrigation. 7. Install trees and tree wells at back of existing sidewalk with irrigation along Pacific Avenue. ZACase Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920 W. Pacific LaneTC 6.26.18TP Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26,2018 - Page 10 8. Adequate provision shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 9. Parking lot and driveway improvements on private property for this use shall comply with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and be constructed to the City of West Covina Standards. 10. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, all of the following requirements shall be satisfied: a) A final grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed elevations and drainage structures (and showing existing and proposed on-site and off-site improvements) shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and Engineering Division. b) A parking lot lighting plan showing electrolier types and locations, average illumination levels, points of minimum illumination and photometric data in conformance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and as requested shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. c) An itemized cost estimate for all on-site and off-site improvements to be constructed (except buildings) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. Based upon the approved cost estimates, required fees shall be paid and improvement securities for all on-site and off-site improvements (except buildings) and 100% labor/material securities for all off-site improvements, shall be posted prior to final approval of the plans. d) A soil erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and Engineering Division. 11. Parcel map is required and shall conform to West Covina Municipal Code Chapter 20-Subdivisions. 12. Comply with all regulations of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and Article 11 of Chapter 9 of the West Covina Municipal Code concerning Stormwater/Urban Run-Off Pollution control. 13. A park dedication in-lieu fee shall be paid to the City of West Covina prior to issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to Section 20-40 of the Municipal Code. The estimated park fee is about $76,650 (438x7 units x $25, unit price of a developed lot). 14. Conduct sewer capacity study of exiting sewer facilities to serve the proposed development. rr) Building Division ZACaseFiles\TRACT MA1)12015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181PP Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018 Page 11 1. All Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning Commission shall appear as notes on the plans submitted for building plan check and permits. 2. Building design shall comply with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and 2016 California Residential Code for single-family occupancy. 3. Separate application(s), plan check(s), and permit(s) is/are required for: a) Grading (see Engineering Division for requirements) b) Demolition work c) Retaining walls (see Engineering Division for requirements) d) Block walls exceeding 6 feet in height e) Signs Fire sprinkler/Alarm systems (see Fire Department Prevention Bureau for requirements) Each separate structure/building h) Plumbing i) Mechanical Electrical 4. Complete architectural plans prepared by a State licensed architect/engineer will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 5. Complete structural plans with calculations will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 6. Compliance with California T-24 Energy regulations will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 7. Compliance with California Green Building Standards Code will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 8. Separate plumbing, mechanical and electrical plan check will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 9. A soils and geology report is required to address the potential for and the mitigation measures of any seismic induced landslide/liquefaction. Soils report shall address foundation design and site preparation requirements. 10. All new on-site utility service lines shall be placed underground. All relocated on-site utility service lines shall be underground when the cost Z:\Case Files\TRACT MA1'12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181PP Resolutionsloc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26, 2018- Page 12 or square footage of an addition or alteration exceeds 50% of the existing value or area. WCMC 23-273. 11. A complete code analysis is required. Address type of construction, occupancy, exiting, allowable areas, allowable heights, etc. Provide a summary on the drawing. 12. Compliance with the State of California Accessibility regulations is required, including: a) Building entrances shall be provided with an accessible path of travel connecting the building entrances from the public sidewalk, accessible parking, and other buildings or essential facilities located on the site. b) Accessible parking: i) Shall be located at each main entrance. Where multiple major entrances occur, accessible parking shall be equally distributed among the entrances. ii) Shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep and be provided with a loading and unloading passenger access aisle of 8 feet wide for Van space and 5 feet wide for regular accessible spaces. c) Provide accessibility design complying with CBC Chapter 11A for residential occupancy. 13. West Covina Municipal Code requires fire sprinklers for the projects listed below except for open garages as defined by the California Building Code. WCMC § 7-18.13. a) In all new one/two family homes and townhomes. CRC § R 313.1 and 313.2. ss) Fire Department: 1. NFPA 13D Fire Sprinkler System 2. NFPA 72 — Fire Alarm/Fire Sprinkler Monitoring System 3. NFPA 10- Portable Fire Extinguishers 4. New Fire Flow Test Required 5. Required Fire Flow of 1,500 GPM @ 20 PSI for 2 hours 6. 1 fire hydrant required within 250 feet of property line Z:NCase FileATRACT MAP12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lanc\PC 6.26.181PP Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Precise Plan No. 15-07 June 26,2018 - Page 13 I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 26 th day of June, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: June 26, 2018 EXPIRATION DATE: June 26, 2020 or when Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 expires, if not recorded. Jose Jimenez, Chairman Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, Secretary Planning Commission ZACase Files\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181PP Resolution.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73652 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73652 APPLICANT: Steve Bide, Drafting and Design, Ltd. LOCATION: 1920 West Pacific Lane WHEREAS, there was filed with this City, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map to: Allow for the construction of 7 residential condominium units on that certain property described as: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8459-026-002 and 003 in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 13th day of February, 2018, conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application; and WHEREAS, in order to allow the applicant additional time to address the issues raised by the Commission, at its regular meeting held on the 13 th day of February, 2018 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date uncertain, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upon continuation of the public hearing did on the 26th day of June, 2018, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, a Precise Plan has been submitted for the site plan and building design to develop the site with a 7-unit condominium development; and WHEREAS, a Variance has been submitted for rear yard setbacks; and Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018 - Page 2 WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map to allow for the construction of a 7-unit residential condominium project in two buildings. 2. Appropriate findings for approval of a Tentative Tract Map are as follows: a. The proposed map is consistent with the general plan and any applicable adopted specific plans. b. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the general plan and applicable adopted specific plans. c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitat. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. g. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will either (i) not conflict with recorded or adjudged easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or (ii) alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. 3. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT has been prepared indicating that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect due to mitigating measures. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: 1. On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, for Tentative Tract Map No. 73652, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: Z:\Case Files\TRACT MA1'12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181TTM Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018- Page 3 a. The approval of the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the City of West Covina General Plan. The proposed 7-unit development will be constructed to meet the development standards of the zone and the California Building Code standards. b. The tentative tract map provides for a development that is compatible with the "Neighborhood Medium" land use designation for the subject site in the General Plan, and the provisions for design and improvements comply with the implementation policies and objectives of the General Plan. c. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density. The proposed project is a residential intill project within an urbanized area. The site is 0.62 acres and located within the "Neighborhood Medium" General Plan land use designation that allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The project consists of two two-story multi-family buildings, with Building A containing 4 units and Building B containing 3 units. d. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed. The project is a residential infill development within an urbanized area where the infrastructure to support the project already exists. The site will be developed in accordance with the grading and construction requirements of the West Covina Municipal Code and the City Engineer. e. The project is a residential infill development within an urbanized area where the infrastructure to support the project already exists. Most of the wildlife present on site are common within developed areas and would be expected to leave the area during active construction, then likely return. A few individual animals such as gophers and common species of lizards may be lost, but they are very common in the region and the loss of the small number expected to occur on site would not substantially affect the local or regional populations of those species. The site contains one mature mulberry tree that is located directly behind the existing house. This tree does not meet the definition of "significant" per Section 26-289 of the WCMC. Therefore, a Tree Removal Permit is not required to remove the tree. f. The proposed project will have access to a public sanitary sewer system for the removal and disposal of wastewater, and to other necessary utility services. The site will be developed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department, the Municipal Code, the California Building Code and other applicable requirements. g. The subdivision design and type of improvements proposed as part of the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with easements. There are no easements on the subject property. ZACase Files\TRACT MA1°12015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181TTM Reso with updated Findings.cloc Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018 - Page 4 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Tentative Tract Map No.73652 is approved subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code, provided that the physical development of the herein described property shall conform to said plan and the conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly indicated, shall be fully performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the Planning Director, before the use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and the violation of any of which shall be grounds for revocation of said precise plan by the Planning Commission or City Council. 3. That the Tentative Tract Map shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the Planning Director, his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this precise plan as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with the processing of this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690. 4. The costs and expenses of any enforcement activities, including, but not limited to attorneys' fees, caused by the applicant's violation of any condition imposed by this approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be paid by the applicant. 5. That the approval of the Tentative Tract Map is subject to the following conditions: Planning Department a) Comply with plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2018. b) Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is contingent upon, and shall not become effective unless and until approval of Precise Plan No. 15-07 and Variance No. 15- 18. c) These conditions of approval shall be printed on the working drawings submitted to the Building Division for review. d) The landscape planter along the easterly property line adjacent to the single-family house shall include 15 gallon shrubs that will grow to 10 to 12 feet in height and form a hedge to screen the property. e) A minimum of three 24-inch box trees shall be installed in the finger planters along the easterly property line adjacent to the single-family house. ZACase Files\TRACT MA13\2015173652 1920 W. Pacific LaneIPC 6.26.181TTM Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018 - Page 5 That the project complies with all requirements of the "Medium Density Multiple- Family" Zone and all other applicable standards of the West Covina Municipal Code with approval of the Variance for rear yard setbacks. g) Prior to requesting a final inspection by the Building Division, the Applicant shall request an inspection from the Planning Department to inspect the project. Please contact the Planning Department two weeks in advance of such inspection. h) The project shall provide 14 covered off-street parking spaces for the residential units, and 7 guest parking spaces. The applicant shall sign an affidavit accepting all conditions of this approval. This approval shall become null and void if the building permit is not obtained within two (2) years of the date of this approval. The Zoning Code gives provisions for up to three one-year extensions to keep entitlements active. Therefore, prior to final approval, (if building permits have not been obtained) Applicant is urged to file a letter with the department requesting a one-year extension of time. The required submittal is a letter stating the reasons why an extension is needed, as well as an applicable processing fee. Please be advised that the Applicant will not be notified by the Plannin2 Department about the pendin2 expiration of the subject entitlement. k) That any proposed change to the approved site plan, floor plan or elevations be reviewed by the Planning, Building, Fire and Police Departments and that the written authorization of the Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation. 1) All outstanding fees and any required development impact fees (currently $1,666 per unit) shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. m) All outdoor trash areas shall be screened on all sides from public view by a minimum 5'6" high decorative block wall with a gate constructed of durable materials and a solid architectural cover. Provide construction details prior to issuance of a building permit. n) Comply with all requirements of the "Art in Public Places" ordinance (WCMC Chapter 17), prior to the issuance of building permits. Artwork shall be installed or required fee paid prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. o) All new ground-mounted, wall-mounted and/or roof-mounted equipment not shown on the approved plans, shall be screened from all views, in a manner that is architecturally compatible with the main buildings. Plans and elevations indicating the type of equipment and method of concealment shall be submitted to Z:\Case Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18ITTM Rcso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018 - Page 6 the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 13) The location of new electrical transformers, vaults, antennas, mechanical and all other equipment not indicated on the approved plans must be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permit. Provide construction details prior to issuance of a building permit. All new pole mounted parking lot lighting shall be accurately indicated on the grading plan and shall be located within landscaped or hardscaped area. Pole locations shall be accurately staked prior to installation by the Engineer. r) A parking lot lighting plan showing electrolier types and locations, average illumination levels, points of minimum illumination and photometric data in conformance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and as requested shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and the City Engineer. s) Building and parking lot lighting is required to be architecturally integrated with the building design. Standard security wall packs are not acceptable unless they are provided with hooding that is architecturally compatible with the building. t) The Homeowner's Association (HOA) shall be responsible for the maintenance of the common open space and all improvements. Any graffiti applied to walls shall be promptly removed by the HOA. u) The construction shall be approved by the Planning Department before any permits are finalized. v) All new utilities shall be placed underground prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. All relocated on-site utility service lines shall be underground when the cost or square footage of an addition or alteration exceeds 50% of the existing value or area. WCMC 23-273. w) Recordation of Final Tract Map with the Los Angeles County Recorder shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. x) The applicant shall execute an indemnity agreement, in a form provided by the City and approved by the City Attorney, indemnifying the City against any and all actions brought against the City in connection with the approvals set forth herein. 3') A declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be prepared by the developer/property owner and submitted to the Planning Director and the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall be signed and acknowledged by all ZACase Files\TRACT MA1112015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lanc\PC 6.26.181TTM Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018 - Page 7 parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, and shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map. Written proof of recordation with the Los Angeles County Recorder/Registrars Office shall be provided to the Planning Department. z) The CC&Rs shall include the following: 1. No addition of habitable space is permitted. 2. No permanent ground floor patio covers are permitted. Non-permanent patio covers are permitted. 3. The parking or storage of recreation vehicles, such as RVs, boats, trailers, fifth wheels, ATVs, etc, is prohibited. 4. The vehicular gate located along Pacific Avenue is exclusively for the use of public safety only. 5. Parking on driving aisles is prohibited. 6. Garages shall be used to park vehicles. 7. All exterior maintenance of the structures will be the responsibility of the HOA, including garage doors, windows, exterior architectural materials and roof. S. Cleanup of graffiti is the responsibility of the Homeowners Association (HOA). aa) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall draft a Prospective Homebuyer's Awareness Package (PHAP), and submit it to the Planning Director for review and approval. Copies of signed copies of PHAP for all lots shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Such package shall include: A standardized cover sheet as approved by the Planning Department. 2. Zoning and General Plan information. 3. School information. 4. Special assessment district information. 5. Utility providers 6. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the project. 7. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Planning Department, Planning Commission, or City Council for the full disclosure of pertinent information. ZACase Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.1811'TM Res° with updated Findings.cloc Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018 Page 8 bb) The applicant shall meet any and all monitoring or reporting requirements necessary to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as those may be determined by the City, including, but not limited to, entering into an agreement to perform and/or for monitoring and reporting during project construction and implementation. The applicant further agrees it will cease construction of the project immediately upon written notice of a violation of such requirement and that such a provision may be part of any agreement of City and applicant. cc) Comply with the mitigation measures as outlined in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated January, 2018. dd) Engineering Division 1. Comply with all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 567, which outlined the requirements of grading, street improvement, exterior lighting, water supply, all bonds, trees, landscaping, drainage, and building related improvements, etc. 2. Sanitary sewers shall be provided to each "lot" in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article 2, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. The required street improvements shall include those portions of Pacific Avenue and Pacific Lane contiguous to subject property. 4. All damaged concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalk, etc., shall be removed and reconstructed per City standard. 5. A ten-foot wide required street dedication shall include that portion of Pacific Lane contiguous to the subject property and shall be recorded in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to the issuance of any Building Permits and/or Engineering Permits 6. Construct street improvements, including curbs, gutters, AC pavement, and five-foot wide sidewalk with trees along Pacific Lane adjacent to curb with trees installed at back of sidewalk with irrigation. 7. Install trees and tree wells at back of existing sidewalk with irrigation along Pacific Avenue. Z:ICase Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181TTM Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26,2018 - Page 9 8. Adequate provision shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 9. Parking lot and driveway improvements on private property for this use shall comply with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and be constructed to the City of West Covina Standards. 10. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, all of the following requirements shall be satisfied: a) A final grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed elevations and drainage structures (and showing existing and proposed on-site and off-site improvements) shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and Engineering Division. b) A parking lot lighting plan showing electrolier types and locations, average illumination levels, points of minimum illumination and photometric data in conformance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and as requested shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. c) An itemized cost estimate for all on-site and off-site improvements to be constructed (except buildings) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. Based upon the approved cost estimates, required fees shall be paid and improvement securities for all on-site and off-site improvements (except buildings) and 100% labor/material securities for all off-site improvements, shall be posted prior to final approval of the plans. d) A soil erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and Engineering Division. 11. Parcel map is required and shall conform to West Covina Municipal Code Chapter 20-Subdivisions. 12. Comply with all regulations of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and Article II of Chapter 9 of the West Covina Municipal Code concerning Stormwater/Urban Run-Off Pollution control. 13. A park dedication in-lieu fee shall be paid to the City of West Covina prior to issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to Section 20-40 of the Municipal Code. The estimated park fee is about $76,650 (438x7 units x $25, unit price of a developed lot). 14. Conduct sewer capacity study of exiting sewer facilities to serve the proposed development. ZACase Files\TRACT MA1'12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.1817M Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018- Page 10 ee) Building Division 1. All Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning Commission shall appear as notes on the plans submitted for building plan check and permits. 2. Building design shall comply with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and 2016 California Residential Code for single-family occupancy. 3. Separate application(s), plan check(s), and permit(s) is/are required for: a. Grading (see Engineering Division for requirements) b. Demolition work c. Retaining walls (see Engineering Division for requirements) d. Block walls exceeding 6 feet in height e. Signs f. Fire sprinkler/Alarm systems (see Fire Department Prevention Bureau fbr requirements) g. Each separate structure/building h. Plumbing i. Mechanical i. Electrical 4. Complete architectural plans prepared by a State licensed architect/engineer will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 5. Complete structural plans with calculations will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 6. Compliance with California T-24 Energy regulations will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 7. Compliance with California Green Building Standards Code will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 8. Separate plumbing, mechanical and electrical plan check will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 9. A soils and geology report is required to address the potential for and the mitigation measures of any seismic induced landslide/liquefaction. Soils report shall address foundation design and site preparation requirements. Mase Files \TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18I1TM Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018 - Page 11 10. All new on-site utility service lines shall be placed underground. All relocated on-site utility service lines shall be underground when the cost or square footage of an addition or alteration exceeds 50% of the existing value or area. WCMC 23-273. 11. A complete code analysis is required. Address type of construction, occupancy, exiting, allowable areas, allowable heights, etc. Provide a summary on the drawing. 12. Compliance with the State of California Accessibility regulations is required, including: a. Building entrances shall be provided with an accessible path of travel connecting the building entrances from the public sidewalk, accessible parking, and other buildings or essential facilities located on the site. b. Accessible parking: i. Shall be located at each main entrance. Where multiple major entrances occur, accessible parking shall be equally distributed among the entrances. ii. Shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep and be provided with a loading and unloading passenger access aisle of 8 feet wide for Van space and 5 feet wide for regular accessible spaces. c. Provide accessibility design complying with CBC Chapter 11A for residential occupancy. 13. West Covina Municipal Code requires fire sprinklers for the projects listed below except for open garages as defined by the California Building Code. WCMC § 7-18.13. a. In all new one/two family homes and townhomes. CRC § R 313.1 and 313.2. ff) Fire Department: 1. NFPA 13D Fire Sprinkler System 2. NFPA 72 — Fire Alarm/Fire Sprinkler Monitoring System 3. NFPA 10- Portable Fire Extinguishers 4. New Fire Flow Test Required 5. Required Fire Flow of 1,500 GPM @ 20 PSI for 2 hours Z:\Case Files\TRACT MAP\2015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18ITTM Reso with updated Findings.doe Planning Commission Resolution No. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 June 26, 2018 - Page 12 6. 1 fire hydrant required within 250 feet of property line I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 26 th day of June, 2018, by the following AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: June 26, 2018 EXPIRATION DATE: June 26, 2020 if not used. Jose Jimenez, Chairman Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, Secretary Planning Commission ZACase Files\TRACT MA1'12015173652 1920W. Pacific LaneIPC 6.26.1817M Reso with updated Findings.doe ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 15-18. VARIANCE NO. 15-18 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Steve Eide, Drafting and Design, Ltd. LOCATION: 1920 West Pacific Lane WHEREAS, there was filed with this City, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a Variance to: Deviate from rear yard setbacks for that portion of the site that is adjacent to the commercial property. The Variance would allow for the construction of 7 residential condominium units on that certain property described as: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8459-026-002 and 003 in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 13th day of February, 2018, conduct a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application; and WHEREAS, in order to allow the applicant additional time to address the issues raised by the Commission, at its regular meeting held on the 13 th day of February, 2018 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date uncertain, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upon continuation of the public hearing did on the 26th day of June, 2018, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, a Precise Plan has been submitted for the site plan and building design to develop the site with a 7-unit condominium development; and WHEREAS, a Tentative Tract Map (No. 73652) has been submitted to allow for the construction of 7 residential condominium units; and Z:\Case Flles\TRACT MA13\2015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18WAR Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Variance No. 15-18 June 26, 2018, 2017 Page 2 WHEREAS, a Variance has been submitted to deviate from required development standards, including rear yard setbacks for that portion of the site that is adjacent to the commercial property. With the approval of the Precise Plan and Tentative Tract Map, the Variance would be consistent with General Plan Land Use designation and zoning classification of the site. WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The Zoning Code requires a minimum 20-foot rear yard setback. 2. Appropriate findings for approval of a Variance are as follows: a. There are special circumstances (which may include, but are not limited to, size, shape, topography, location or surroundings) applicable to the property which are not applicable to other property in the property's vicinity under identical zoning classification. b. As a result of the special circumstances, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of meaningful privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. C, Such variance is necessary to allow the property in question to have the same substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. d. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to residents or owners of nearby properties. e. That the granting of such variance shall be consistent with the adopted general plan and any applicable specific plans. f. The variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of property. 3. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT has been prepared indicating that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect due to mitigating measures. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: 1. On basis of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: ZACase Files\TRACT MAP\2015Y73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181VAR Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Variance No. 15-18 June 26, 2018, 2017 - Page 3 a. The subject property has been zoned Multiple-Family Residential since 1964. The property is bordered by a commercial property to the west, and a Multi-Family zoned condominium development and single-family house to the east. To the north of the property are single-family houses. The subject property is rectangular with the exception of an angle along the southerly (rear) property line adjacent to Pacific Avenue. The subject property includes an existing 944-square foot house constructed in 1947, while the remainder of the lot is vacant. There are special circumstances in that the property is located between a Multi- Family zoned condominium development and commercial development that are unlikely to be redeveloped in the near future. The property is irregular in shape in that the rear property line is angled, thereby requiring a variance to allow for the lot to be developed with deviations for rear yard setback. The building setback ranges from 15 feet on the west to 75 feet to the east due to the angle of the property line. The rear yard setback line is 20 feet compared to the adjacent Multi-Family zoned condominium development to the east with a similar lot angle. The applicant is requesting for a 5 foot encroachment into the rear yard setback which makes the development of the lot comparable with similar properties in the area. The adjacent condominium lot to the east includes a building that is approximately 11 feet closer to the property line than the proposed building. The subject property enjoys less development area on the Pacific Avenue side of the lot than other properties on the street. b. The property is irregular in shape in that the rear property line is angled, thereby requiring a variance to allow for the lot to be developed with deviations for rear yard setback. The building setback ranges from 15 feet on the west to 75 feet to the east due to the angle of the property line. The property has a zoning designation of Multiple-Family Residential. In order to provide the property right to develop the property, given its configuration, the variance for rear yard setback on street frontage at an angle is necessary. Not granting the variance for the subject project would prevent the owner from having the meaningful privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zoning classification. c. The property is irregular in shape in that the rear property line is angled, thereby requiring a variance to allow for the lot to be developed with deviations for rear yard setback. The building setback ranges from 15 feet on the west to 75 feet to the east due to the angle of the property line. The property has a zoning designation of Multiple-Family Residential. To allow the property to have the same substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, the variance for rear yard setback on street frontage at an angle is necessary in that the adjacent condominium lot to the east includes a building that is approximately 11 feet closer to the property line than the proposed building. The subject property enjoys less development area on the Pacific Avenue side of the lot than other properties on the street. Not granting the variance for the subject project would prevent the owner the substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP12015\73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18WAR Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No Variance No. 1548 June 26, 2018, 2017 Page 4 d. The proposed project is a residential infill development of 7 condominiums located between residential and commercial uses. The project is designed to provide a significant separation of the proposed units and the existing house to the east. Therefore, the project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. e. The proposed project with 7 units (11.3 units per acre) is consistent with the site's General Plan designation of "Neighborhood Medium" (up to 20 dwelling units per acre). f. The subject property has been zoned Multiple-Family Residential since 1964. The property is bordered by a commercial property to the west, a Multi-Family zoned condominium development and single-family house to the east. The subject property also includes an existing 944-square foot house constructed in 1947, while the remainder of the lot is vacant, As allowed under the existing zoning the proposed variance does not authorize a use or activity not allowed under the existing zoning classification. 2. That pursuant to all evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Variance No. 15-18 is approved subject to provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code, provided physical development of the herein described property shall conform to said plan and conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly indicated, shall be fully performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the Planning Director, before use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and violation of any of which shall be grounds for revocation of said Variance by the Planning Commission or City Council. 3. That the Variance shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the Planning Department his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this Variance as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with processing this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690. 4. Costs and expenses of enforcement activities, including, but not limited to attorneys' fees, caused by applicant violation of any condition imposed by this approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be paid by applicant. 5. That pursuant to all evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Variance No, 15-18 is approved as follows, subject to the following conditions: Z:\Case Files\TRACT MA1'12015\73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane \PC 6.26.181VAR Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Variance No. 15-18 June 26, 2018, 2017 - Page 5 Planning Department a) Comply with plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2018. b) Approval of this Precise Plan is contingent upon, and shall not become effective unless and until approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 and Variance No. 15- 18. c) These conditions of approval shall be printed on the working drawings submitted to the Building Division for review. d) The landscape planter along the easterly property line adjacent to the single- family house shall include 15 gallon shrubs that will grow to 10 to 12 feet in height and form a hedge to screen the property. e) A minimum of three 24-inch box trees shall be installed in the finger planters along the easterly property line adjacent to the single-family house. That the project complies with all requirements of the "Medium Density Multiple- Family" Zone and all other applicable standards of the West Covina Municipal Code with approval of the Variance for rear yard setbacks. The applicant shall meet any and all monitoring or reporting requirements necessary to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as those may be determined by the City, including, but not limited to, entering into an agreement to perform and/or for monitoring and reporting during project construction and implementation. The applicant further agrees it will cease construction of the project immediately upon written notice of a violation of such requirement and that such a provision may be part of any agreement of City and applicant. h) Comply with the mitigation measures as outlined in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated January, 2018. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP\2015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.181VAR Reso with updated Findings.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Variance No. 15-18 June 26, 2018, 2017 Page 6 I HEREBY CERTIFY foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 26 th day of June 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: June 26, 2018 EXPIRATION DATE: June 26, 2020 if not used Jose Jimenez, Chairperson Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, Secretary Planning Commission Z:ICase Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC 6.26.18\VAR Reso with updated Findings.doe ATTACHMENT NO. 5 410 follows: ORDINANCE .NO._ 871 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO REzONE CERTAIN PREMISES. (Zone Changes No. 306 a0:1PrA$9kDXggp am d :0fign:4,10naley) The City Counell of the City of West Covina does ordain as SECTION 1, The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that the following zone changes and amendments were duly initiated, that notice of hearing thereon was duly given and published, that public hearings thereon were duly held by the Planning Commission, and by the City Council, and that the public convenience, necessity and general welfare and good zoning practice require that the following zone changes and amendments be made. SECTION 2. The West Covina Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a new section 9202.2.46 reading as follows: "9202.2.46. Zone Changes. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9202.2 and the Zoning Map referred to therein, the following described premises are hereby placed and included in the R-3 Medium Density Multiple Family Zone, to wit: Parcel 1: Lot 2 of Tract #12335 in the City of West •Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded In Book of Maps number 235 at page 6 and 7 in the office of the County recorder of said county. Beginning at a point in the Northeasterly line of Pacific Avenue, as shown on Exhibit A Superior Court Case No. 269877 of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, distant 452 feet measured along said Northeasterly line Southeasterly from the point of intersection of said Northeasterly line and the Southerly line of Pacific Lane, as shown on Tract No. 9911, as per map recorded in Book 141, page 12 of Maps records of aaid'County; thence North 44 0 57' 30" West al9ng said Northeasterly line 100 feet; thence North 5`.' 23' 10° East 243.93 feet to a point in the Southerly line of aaid Paoific Lane diatant 279 feet, measured along said Southerly line South 870 16' 00" East from the intersection of said Southerly line and said Northeasterly line of Pacific Avenue; thence along said Southerly line of Pacific Lane South 87 0 16' 00" East 100 feet; thence South 5° 23' 10" West 284.74 feet to a line which is at right angles to said Northeasterly line of Pacific Avenue and paasea through the point of beginning; thence South 450 02' 30" west 35.89 Feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: The northerly 160 feet of Lot 3 of Tract No. 12335, in the City of West Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of California) as per map recorded in book 235 Pages 6 and 7 of maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County." SECTION 3, The City Clerk Shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. -1- Passed and approved this 27th day of July 1 964. 41/ STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS. CITY OF. WEST COVINA I, ROBERT-FLOTTEN, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 871 was regularly introduced and placed UPOil its first reading at a regular meeting of the city Council on the 1311-, day of July '2 .1964. That, thereafter, said ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council. on the 27th day of July , 1964, by the following vote, to wit; AYES; Councilmen:. Jett, Krieger, Michele NOES: Councilmen; 'None ABSENT:Councilmen; Heath, Mayor-Snyder A City Clerk IP ATTACHMENT NO. 6 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 7-UNIT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 1920 WEST PACIFIC LANE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 73652 Prepared for: City of West Covina 1444 West Garvey Avenue South West Covina, CA 91790 Prepared by: LI lti-aSystems UltraSystems Environmental Inc. 16431 Scientific Way Irvine, CA 92618-4355 Telephone: (949) 788-4900 FAX: (949) 788-4901 February 2018 •:• TABLE OF CONTENTS • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Background of Environmental Review Process for the Project 1 1.2 Tribal Consultation 2 1.3 Responses to Comments 2 1.4 Intended Uses of this IS/MND 2 2.0 Public Agency Commenter 4 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (NO I), January 5, 2018 San Gabriel Valley Tribune (Legal Affidavit), Notice of Public Hearing, January 5, 2018 Los Angeles County Clerk NOC Posting/Recording, January 5, 2018 State Clearinghouse Notice of Completion (NOC), January 5, 2018 State Clearinghouse Summary Form, January 5, 2018 Certified Mail Receipts to Agencies, Districts, and Utility Companies, January 3, 2018 AB-52 Tribal Consultation Letter to Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Public Agency Commenter 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Responses to Comments (RTC) document, in conjunction with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) responds to comments on the proposed 7-Unit Residential Subdivision, 1920 West Pacific Lane - Tentative Tract Map 73652 (proposed project). While the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines do not require a final initial study nor the preparation of formal responses to comments received during the public review period for an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,i the City of West Covina (City) has determined to provide responses to the comments it received during the public review process, in order to provide further disclosure about the proposed project. 1.1 Background of Environmental Review Process for the Project The IS/MND along with a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NO!, see Attachment A) was released for public and agency review on January 5, 2018, with a 30-day review period ending on February 5, 2018. In addition, the NOI was legally published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on January 5, 2018. See Attachment B. The NOI was also posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk on January 5, 2018 (see Attachment C), and copies of the IS/MND were made available for review at the following locations: • City of West Covina website: http://www.westcovina.org/departments/planning/environmental-documents • City of West Covina Planning Department, 1444 West Covina Ave. South, West Covina, CA 91790 • County of Los Angeles Public Library, West Covina Branch, 1601 West Covina Parkway, West Covina, CA 91790 Meeting notices and/or the NOI was mailed or hand delivered to: • Residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. • Posted and available at the site. • The public hearing notice was also posted onsite by the City on or around January 5, 2018. On January 5, 2018, the State Clearinghouse sent copies of the IS/MND, along with a Notice of Completion, Environmental Document Transmittals to those State Agencies that potentially may be affected by the project. See Attachment D. The NOI was also sent via certified mail (see Attachment F) to the following recipients: • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • South Coast Air Quality Management District • Los Angeles County Public Works, Flood Control District • Los Angeles County Sanitation District • Los Angeles County, Department of Public Works • Foothill Transit • West Covina Unified School District 1 CEQA only requires the lead agency to respond to comments that are received in response to an environmental impact report (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, § 15088, Evaluation of and Response to Comments). 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • • Athens Services • Southern California Edison • Southern California Gas Company • Suburban Water • Charter Communications The NOI was also sent certified mail to the following Native American Indian Tribes: • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation • Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrielino/Tongva Nation • Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 1.2 Tribal Consultation As part of AB 52 Consultation, the City sent consultation request to on September 19, 2017 to the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. The Tribe never responded to the City within the 30 days. Therefore, AB 52 Tribal Consultation process was closed by the City. See Attachment G. 1.3 Responses to Comments This document provides a response to comments received on the IS/MND. The one (1) comment letter noted is in Section 2.0, Public Agency Commenter. 1.4 Intended Uses of this IS/MND The IS/MND will be used by the City in considering approval of the proposed urban infill residential development project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15074, the IS/MND will be used as the primary environmental document in consideration of all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the proposed project, to the extent such actions require CEQA compliance and as otherwise permitted under applicable law. 15074. CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. (a) Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision-making body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. (b) Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. (c) When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall specifr the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record ofproceedings upon which its decision is based. 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS + (d) When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. (e) A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted, for a project within two nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, without first considering whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the projectarea. (f) When a non-elected official or decision-making body of a local lead agency adopts a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, that adoption may be appealed to the agency's elected decision- making body, if one exists. For example, adoption of a negative declaration for a project by a city's planning commission may be appealed to the city council. A local lead agency may establish procedures governing such appeals. Upon review and consideration of the IS/MND, the City may take action to adopt, revise, or reject the proposed project. A decision to approve the proposed project would be made in a resolution recommending certification of the IS/MND as part of the consideration of the proposed project. The City has prepared this IS/MND and has determined that the environmental impacts of the proposed project have been reduced to a less than significant level through mitigation measures. 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 ti• RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • 2.0 PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTER The following public agency submitted written comments on the IS/MND, during the public review period. The comment letter is referenced in the attachments. Email Agency, Organization, or Individual Date A Native American Heritage Commission 1/18/2018 Comment A-1: Mitigation for inadvertent finds of Archeological Resources is missing or incomplete. The Cultural Resources Report states that the "potential for subsurface deposits... is moderate." Standard mitigation for inadvertent finds should be included in the document. Response A-1: Part b) of Section 4.5 of the IS/MND will be revised to reflect the recommendation for archaeological and tribal monitoring during ground disturbing construction work at the project site as note in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of Appendix D (the cultural resources report), pages 14-15. This will be accomplished by adding "Mitigation Measure CR-1: A qualified archaeologist and a local Native American representative shall be provided to monitor all subsurface ground disturbing construction activity at the project site. If there are inadvertent finds, all work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery. Work shall not continue until the discovery has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, and the local Native American representative has been consulted to assist in the accurate recordation and recovery of the resources." Comment A-2: The Most Likely Descendant timeline in the Cultural Resources Report is incorrect. While the appropriate codes are included in the Impact Analysis section 4.5 (d), Public Resources Code 5097.98 specifies that an MLD has 48 hours after being allowed access to the site to make recommendations for disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. This should be specified as mitigation in the MND document due to the error in Appendix D. Response A-2: The "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of Appendix D (the cultural resources report), page 15, will be revised to the following: "The MLD 'shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site (PRC 5097.98(a), amended 2009)." This revision shall be reflected in the Cultural Resources Section 4.5 of the IS/MND. 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 + RESPONSES TO COMMENTS •:* ATTACHMENT A: NOTICE OF INTENT To: From: Subject: City of West Covina Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties City of West Covina Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for a 7-Unit Residential Subdivision 0316-F The City of West Covina (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed project identified below. The City has prepared an Initial Study to determine the environmental effects of the proposed project and finds issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review. AGENCIES: The City requests that your agency review the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15086(a). ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERESTED PARTIES: The City requests your comments and concerns regarding the environmental Issues associated with the proposed project, Project Title: 7-Unit Residential Subdivision 0316-F Project Description: The project application is for a tentative tract map, precise plan, and variance to allow the development of a seven-unit residential subdivision. The existing single-family residence located on the project site would be demolished as part of the project. The proposed project would include two buildings on two separate lots: • Building A: 4 attached townhomes, • Building B: 3 attached townhomes. The proposed new development would Include variances from the zoning standards for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum setback requirements, and landscaping requirements. Project Location: 1920 West Pacific Lane, West Covina, CA 91790. Significant Environmental Effects: The IS/MND concludes that no significant unavoidable environmental effects would occur as a result of the proposed project Potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Public Review PeriodiResponses and Comments: The City is making the IS/MND available for public review and comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15087. The City will accept responses and comments for 30 days, from January 5 2018 through February 5, 2018. All comments must be submitted in written format; either in a letter or email format. Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization and send your responses or comments to: City of West Covina Department of planning Attn: Ron Garcia, Senior Planner 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina, CA 91790 E: ron.garcia©westcovina.org T: (626) 939-8765 Public Hearing: The City of West Covina Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the MND and proposed project at its regular Planning Commission meeting on February 13th at 7:00 PM, at City Hall at 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The IS/MND and associated materials are available for review during regular business hours at the following locations: • City of West Covina, Planning Department (Room 208), 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina, CA 91790. • County of Los Angeles Public Library, West Covina Branch, 1601 West Covina Parkway, West Covina, CA 91790. • The document is available online at: http://www.westcovina.orq/departments/olanninotenvironmental-documents. 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 + RESPONSES TO COMMENTS + ATTACHMENT B: SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE (LEGAL AFFIDAVIT) POSTING Sall Gabriel valley Tribune Affiliated with SGV Newspaper Group 605 E. Huntington Dr., Suite 100 Monrovia, CA 91016 626.982-8811 ext. 40891 CITY OF WEST COVINA ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 1444 WEST GARVEY AVE WEST COVINA, CA 91790 Account Number: 5007875 Ad Order Number: 0011061516 Customer's Reference Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 / PO Number: Publication: San Gabriel Valley Tribune Publication Dates: 01/05/2018 Total Amount: $517.84 Payment Amount: $0.00 Amount Due: $517.84 r L.15 n1 /1.17 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 201.8 + RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Invoice Text: NoTicE OF PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANTTO THE LAW AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE Vat ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE WEST COVINA PLANNING COMMISSION. PRECISE PLAN NO. 15.0? TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73552 VARIANCE NO. 15-18 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Steve Eide, Drafting and Design, Ltd. LOCATION: 1920 West Pacftic Lane REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to consolidate two contiguous residential lots to construct a total of 7 condominiums. These Iwo parcels total 27,129 square feet. The parcel fronting on West Pacific Lane is developed with a single-family dwelling, which will be demolished as part of the project. The proposed new development would Include variances from the zoning standards for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum setback requirements, and landscaping requirements. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT has been prepared indication the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental impact Is on file In the Planning Department, City Clerk's Off cc, Police Department and Regional Library of examination. Members of the public are Invited to make written statements regarding said report prior to the public hearing and to make verbal presentations at the public hearing. The public review period for the Negative Declaration will run from January 5,2018 and ends on February 5,2018 at 4:00 p.m. If you wish to challenge the action(s) taken on the request(s), you may be limited to raising only those issues, which you (or someone else) raised orally at this public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing. Written responses received by the Tuesday preceding the date listed below will be included with the staff report for review by the Commissioners. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD: PLACE: West Covina City Hall 1444 West Garvey Avenue South City Council Chambers - Level One DATE: February 13,2018 TIME: 7:00 p.m. If you have any questions, we urge you to contact Ron Garcia at (826) 939-8765 or Ron.Garcia@westoovIna.org or Room 208, at City Hall. Only through citizen participation can your government build a better City Dale Published: January 5,2010 BY THE ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA Pub:San Gabriel Valley Tribune, AC471051515 2 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 + RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 44 San Gabriel Valley Tribune Affiliated With SGV Newspaper Group 606 E. Huntington Dr., Suite 100 MonrOvie, CA 91016 626-962-8811 ext. 40891 5007875 CITY OF WEST COVINA ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 1444 WEST GARVEY AVE WEST COVINA, CA 91790 FILE NO. Tentative Tract Map No. 73652 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Los Angeles I am a citizen of the United Slates, and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or Interested In the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general circulation which has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia, on the date of September 10, 1957, Case Number 684891. The notice, of which the annexed Is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: 01/06/2018 I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct. Executed at West Covina, LA Co. California On this 5th day of January, 2018. (Space below for use of County Clark Only) Legal No. 0011061516 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO THE LAW AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE WEST COVINA PLANNING COMMISSION. PRECISE PLAN NO. 15-07 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73652 VARIANCE NO, 15•18 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: Steve Bide, Drafting and Design, Ltd. 1920 West Pacific Lane The applicant Is proposing to consolidate two contiguous residential lots to construct a total of 7 condominiums, These two parcels total 27,129 square Feet, The parcel tronting on West Pacific Lane Is developed with a single-family dwelling, which will be demolished as part of the protect. The proposed new development would Include variances from the zoning standards for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum setback requirements, and landscaping requirements. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT has been prepared indication the prolec1 will not have a significant effect on the environment_ A COPY of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is on tile in the Planning Department, City Clerk's Office, Police Department and Regional Library of examination. Members of the public are invited to make written statements regarding said report prior to the public hearing and to make verbal presentations at the public hearing. The public review Period tor the Negative Declaration will run from January 5, 2018 and ends an February 5.2018 at 4:00 p.m. If you wish to challenge the action(s) taken on the request(s), you may be limited to raising only those issues, which you (or someone else) raised orally at this public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing. Written responses received by the Tuesday Preceding the date listed below will be included with the staff report for review by the Commissioners. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD: PLACE: West Covina City Hall 1444 West Garvey Avenue South City Council Chambers - Level One DATE: February 13, 2018 TIME: 7:00 p.m. If you have any questions, we urge you to contact Ron Garcia at (626) 939- 8765 or Ron.Garcla@westcovincLorg or Room 208, at City Hall. Only through citizen Participation can your government build a better City Date Published: January 5, 2018 BY THE ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA PUb:San Gabriel Valley Tribune, AD*1061516 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 City of West Covina ORIGINAL FILED JAN 0 5 2010 LOS ANG ELES, COUNTY CLERK \\VI IMAM + RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ATTACHMENT C: LOS ANGELES COUNTY CLERK POSTING/RECORDING To: From: Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties City of West Covina Notice of intent to Adopt an initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for a 7-Unit Residential Subdivision 0316-F The City of West Covina (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed project Identified below. .The City has prepared an Initial Study to determine the environmental effects of the proposed project and finds issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review. AGENCIES: The City requests that your agency review the scope and content of the environmental Information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15086(a). • ORGANIZATIONS AND JNTERESTED PARTIES: The City requests your comments and concerns regarding the environmental issues associated with the proposed project Project Title: 7-Unit Residential Subdivision 0316-F Project Description: The project application is for a tentative tract map, precise plan, and variance to allow the development of a seven-unit residential subdivision. The existing single-family residence located on the project site would be demolished as part • of the project. The proposed project would Include two buildings on two separate lots: O Building A: 4 attached townhomes. O Building El: 3 attached town homes. The proposed new development would include variances from the zoning standards for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum setback requirements, and landscaping requirements, Project Location: 1920 West Pacific Lane, West Covina, CA 91790. Significant Environmental Effects: The IS/MND concludes that no significant unavoidable environmental effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Public Review PeriodfResponses and Comments: The City is making the IS/MND available for public review and comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15087. The City will accept responses and comments for 30 days, from January 5 2018 through February 5, 2018. All comments must be submitted•in written format: either in a letter or email formal. Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization and send your responses or comments to: City of West Covina Department of planning . Attn: Ron Garcia, Senior Planner • 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina, CA 91790 E: ron.garcia@westcovina.org T: (626) 939-8765 Public Hearing: The City of West Covina Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the MND and proposed project at its regular Planning Commission meeting on February 13th at 7:00 PM, at City Hall at 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The [WAND and associated materials are available for review during regular business hours at the following locations: • City of West Covina, Planning Department (Room 208), 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina, CA 91790, • County of Los Angeles Public Library, West Covina Branch, 160.1 West Covina Parkway, West Covina, CA 91790: • The document is available online at: htip://www.westcovIna.ore/departments/plannino/envIronmenial-documents. 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 + RESPONSES TO COMMENTS + Dean C. Logan Los Angeles County Registrar / Recorder 12400 Imperial Highway, Norwalk, CA (800)201-8999 BUSINESS FILINGS REGISTRATION NORWALK DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTER Cashier: F. ARIAS II *201501 051 230025* Friday, January 05, 2018 12:31 PM Item(s) Fee Qty Total NoI - County Fee 1 $0.00 2016003695 Thtal so . Do Total Documents: Customer payment(s): 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 4* ATTACHMENT D: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE - NOTICE OF COMPLETION Print Form Appendix C Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivety/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 SCH # Project Title: 7-Unit Residential Subdivision (0316-F) Lead Agency: City of West covina Mailing Address: 1444 West Garvey Avenue City: West Covina Contact Person: Ron Garcia, Senior Planner Phone: (626) 939-8765 County: Los Angeles Zip: 91790 Project Location: County:Los Angeles City/Nearest Community: West Covina Cross Streets: West Pacific Land and La Sena Avenue (1920 West Pacific Lane) Zip Code: 91790 Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): 34 04 Assessor's Parcel No.: 8459-026-002 8459-026-003 Within 2 Miles: State Hwy 8:1-10 Airports: none • 28.63- N / 117 056 '41.8 "W Total Acres: 0.62 acre Section: 17 Twp.: 118 Range: i OW Base: BldwnPric Waterways: Walnut Creek, Big/Small Dalton Wash, Vine Crk Railways: M etrolink Schools: See Attachment A 0 Draft EIR NEPA: LI NOI Other: D Joint Document o Supplement/Subsequent EIR El EA D Final Document (Prior SC-I No.) D Draft EIS 0 Other: Other: 0 FONSI Document Type: CEQA: 0 NOP O Early Cons LI Neg Dec D Mit Neg Dec Local Action Type: D General Plan Update D General Plan Amendment D General Plan Element o Community Plan D Specific Plan O Master Plan O Planned Unit Development O Site Plan D Rezone El Annexation o Prezone 0 Redevelopment O Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit O Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) El Other:TTM Development Type: El Residential: Units Acres D Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees 0 Transportation: Type_ 0 Commercial:Sq. ft. Acres Employees 0 Mining: Mineral 0 Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees 0 Power: Type_ rinv_ CI Educational: 0 Waste Treatment:Type MOD D Recreational: 0 Hazardous Waste:Type _ El Water Facilities:Type MOD D Other: Project Issues Discussed in Document: E Aesthetic/Visual 0 Fiscal E Recreation/Parks Vegetation ['Agricultural Land E3 Flood Plain/Flooding D Schools/Universities D Water Quality E Air Quality E3 Forest Land/Fire Hazard Septic Systems El Water Supply/Groundwater ligl Archeological/Historical E Geologic/Seismic 0 Sewer Capacity El Wetland/Riparian El Biological Resources El Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading 0 Growth Inducement O Coastal Zone E Noise • Solid Waste Land Use E Drainage/Absorption CI Population/Housing Balance El Toxic/Hazardous El Cumulative Effects 0 Economic/lobs E Public Services/Facilities • Traffic/Circulation 0 Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Land Use: Neighborhood Medium, Zoning: Multi-Family Residential-20 (MF-20) Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) The project application is for a tentative tract map, precise plan, and variance to allow the development of a seven-unit residential subdivision. The existing single-family residence located on the project site would be demolished as part of the project.The proposed project would include two buildings on two separate lots: Building A:4 attached townhomes Building B: 3 attached town homes. The proposed new development would include variances from the zoning standards for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum setback requirements, and landscaping requirements. Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. Ifs SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or previous draft docuntent)please fill in. 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 11 February 2018 Revised 2010 • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • Reviewing Agencies Checklist Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". Air Resources Board Boating 84 Waterways, Department of California Emergency Management Agency California Highway Patrol Ca'trans District # Ca!trans Division of Aeronautics CaWatts Planning Central Valley Flood Protection Board Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy Coastal Commission Colorado River Board Conservation, Department of Corrections, Department of Delta Protection Commission Education, Department of Energy Commission X Fish & Game Region #5 Food & Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of General Services, Department of Health Services, Department of Housing & Community Development Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Office of Public School Construction Parks & Recreation, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission Regional WQCB #4 Resources Agency Resources Recycling and Recovery, Department of S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm. San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy San Joaquin River Conservancy Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy State Lands Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Toxic Substances Control, Department of Water Resources, Department of Other: Other: Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date Ending Date Lead Agency (Complete If applicable): Consulting Firm: UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. Address: 1444 Weil Garvey Avenue City/State/Zip: West Covina, CA 91790 Contact: Ron Garcia, Senior Planner Phone: (626) 939-8765 Applicant: Golden Creek HoldingscioSteve EideDesignGroup Address: 158 West Orange Street City/State/Zip: Covina, CA 91723-2011 Phone: 626-915-2303 Signature of Lead Agency Representative: Date: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code. Revised 2010 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 •:* RESPONSES TO COMMENTS •:* ATTACHMENT E: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE - SUMMARY FORM Print Form Summary Form for Electronic Document Submittal Form F Lead agencies may Include 15 hardcopies of this document when submitting electronic copies of Environmental Impact Reports, Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, or Notices of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse (SCH). The SCH also accepts other summaries, such as ER Executive Summaries prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123, Please include one copy of the Notice of Completion Form (NOC) with your submission and attach the summary to each electronic copy of the document. SCH #: Project Title: 7-Unit Residential Subdivision (0316-F) Lead Agency.CitY of West Covina Contact Name: Ron Garcia, Senior Planner Email. ron.garcia@westcovina.org Phone Number. (626) 939-8765 Project Location-1020 West Pacific Lane, West Covina City Project Decription (Proposed actions, location, and/or consequences). Los Angeles County The project application is for a tentative tract map, precise plan, and variance to allow the development of a seven-unit residential subdivision. The existing single-family residence located on the project site would be demolished. The proposed project would include two buildings on two separate lots: - Building A: 4 attached townhomes, - Building B: 3 attached townhomes. The proposed new development would Include variances from the zoning standards for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum setback requirements, and landscaping requirements. Identify the project's significant or potentially significant effects and briefly describe any proposed mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid that effect. See attachment A. Revised September 2011 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 + RESPONSES TO COMMENTS + continued If applicable, describe any of the project's areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. None. Provide a list of the responsible or trustee agencies for the project. Norie 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 + RESPONSES TO COMMENTS + ATTACHMENT F: CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS : 10.0:1 CLIP ". W410 =-] 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 15 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 September 19, 2017 Planning Department RESPONSES TO COMMENTS + ATTACHMENT G: AB-52 TRIBAL CONSULTATION LETTER TO SOBOBA BAND 01, LUISENO INDIANS Joseph Ontiveros Cultural Resource Director Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Re: AB-52 Consultation with the Soboda Band of Luiseno Indians for a seven-unit townhome development on an existing 27,739- square foot lot. Dear Mr. Ontiveros, The City of West Covina is conducting its AB 52 consultation process for the seven-unit townhome project. Please consider this letter and preliminary project information as the initiation of the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically Public Resources Code 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52). Please respond within 30 days of receiving this letter, pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1(d), if you would like to consult on this project. Project Title: Seven-unit townhome development Project Location: The project site is located at 1920W. Pacific Lane, north of the 10 Freeway. Project Description: The project consists of an application for a tentative tract map, precise plan, and variance to allow for the subdivision of two lots which together equal 27,129 square feet. The project site has a current General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Medium which allows a density of between 9 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently zoned Multi- Family Residential-20 (MF-20), which allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would include the demolition and removal of an existing single-family residence, consisting of 944 sq. ft. Any comments or concerns you may have about this project are important to the City of West Covina and will be considered in moving forward with this project. If you have any questions or concerns with the project, please contact me at ron.garcia westcovina.org or by phone at (626) 939-8422. 1444W. Garvey Avenue South, Room 2080West Covina, CA 91790*Phone (626) 939-8422•Fax (626) 939-8667 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 16 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 ‘771 I Fawcan: Pacific • IN Pacific / T 4.1 a • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • September 19, 2017 Page 2 Please be advised that the Soboda Band of Luiseno Indians has 30 days upon receipt of this letter to provide input regarding this project. Sincerely, Ron Garcia Senior Planner Attachment: Project Location Map 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 17 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 + RESPONSES TO COMMENTS •:* ATTACHMENT H: PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTER Comment Letter No. A-1 STATEADECALlEORN Frit-mind G Brown Jr Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Environmental and Cultural Department 1650 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone (916) 373-3710 Fax (916) 373-5471 January 18, 2018 Ron Garcia, Senior Planner City of West Covina 1444 West Garvey Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 Sent via e-mail: ron.garcia@wesicovina.org Re: SCHrt 2018011004, 7-Unit Residential Subdivision (0316-F) Project, City of West Covina: Los Angeles County, California Dear Mr. Garcia: The Native American Heritage Commission (NANG) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project referenced above. The review included the Introduction and Project Description, the Evaluation of Envimnmental Impacts, section 4.5, Cultural Resources and 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Appendix D, Phase I Cultural Resources Report prepared by UltraSystems for the City of West Covina. We have the following concerns: 1. Mitigation for inadvertent finds of Archaeological Resources is missing or incomplete. The Cultural Resources Report states that the "potential for subsurface deposits... is moderate. Standard mitigation for inadvertent finds should he included in the document, 2. The Most Likely Descendant timeline in the Cultural Resources Report is incorrect. While the appropriate codes are included in the Impact Analysis section 4.5 (d), Public Resources Code 5097.98 specifies that an MLD has 48 hours after being allowed access to the site to make recommendations for disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. This should be specified as mitigation in the MND document due to the error in Appendix D. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA)I, specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment? If there in substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared.3 In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE). CEQA was amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52. (AB 52). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 created a separate category for "tribal cultural resources', that now includes 'a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.' Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.7 Your project may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code 65352.3, if it also involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space. Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. Additionally, if your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 105 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966' may also apply. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws. Agencies should be aware that AB 52 does not preclude agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes lhat are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: htte://nahc.cagoviresourcestforms/. Additional information regarding AB 52 can be found online Pub. Resources Code § 21000 el seq. 2 Pub Resources Code § 21004.1; Cal. Code Rugs., 6)14, § 15064.5 (b); CEQA Guidelines Sector 15006.5(b) a Pub. Resources Code § 21000(d); Cal, Code Rots,, til. 14, § 15064 subd.(3)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (a)(1) 'Government Code 053s2.3 Pub Resources Code § 21074 °Pub. Resources Code § 21084.2 7 Pub Resources Code § 21084.3 (a) 0 154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C F.R § 00001 seq. 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 18 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 A-1 A-2 • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS •:* at htip://nahc.ca.00viwp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation CalEPAPDF.pdf, entitled "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices". The NAHC recommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. A brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments is also attached. Please contact me at gayle.totton©nahc.ca.gov or call (916) 373-3714 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Totton, B.S., M.A., Ph.D ssticiate Governmental Project Analyst Attachment cc: State Clearinghouse 2 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 19 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • Pertinent Statutory information: Under AB 62: AB 62 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.9 and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental Impact report. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code 65352.4 (SB 18).13 The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss thorn, are mandatory topics of consultation: a. Alternatives to the project. b. Recommended mitigation measures. c. Significant effects." 1. The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary. b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. i2 With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included In the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code sections 6254 (r) and 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, In willing, to the disclosure of some or all of the Information to the public.13 if a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a. Whether the preposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource.'" Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, If a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or b. A party, acting In good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached:I' Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for Inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable."' if mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not Included In the environmental document or If there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3 An environmental impact report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2. b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage In the consultation process. c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the bibe in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days." • ° Pub. Resources Code § 21050.3.1, subds. (d) and (e) " Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (b) " Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3_2 (a) "Pub, Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a) "Pub. Resources Code § 21002.3 (c)(1) "Pub. Resources Code § 21052.3(b) " Pub. Resources Code § 21000.3.2 (b) "Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (a) "Pub Resources Gods § 21092.3 (a) "Puts. Resources Code § 21092.3 (d) 3 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 20 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS •:* This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental document. Under SB 18: Government Code § 65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of "preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described § 5097.9 and § 6091.993 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Government Code § 65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for consultation with Native American tribes on the open-space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of protecting places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code. • SB 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's 'Tribal Consultation Guidelines,' which can be found online at: https://www.00rca.qoviclocs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf • Tribal Consultation: Ifs local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe .19 • There Is no Statutory Time Limit on Tribal Consultation under the law. • Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research,2° the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific Identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction.21 • Conclusion Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: o The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or o Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigatton.22 NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments: • Contact the NAHC for: o A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE. o A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures. • The request form can be found at httn:finahc.ca.00viresources/forms/. • Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (hflo://oho.oarks.casioviThaoe id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine: o If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. o If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. o If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. o Ifs survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. o The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. o The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center. Examples of Mitigation Measures That May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources: o Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to: • Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context. • Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. 1' (Gov. Code § 85352.3 (a)(2)). " pursuant to Gov. Code section 85040.2, (Gov. Code § 85352.3 (b)). "(Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18). 4 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 21 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 •:'• RESPONSES TO COMMENTS o Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: • Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. • Protecting the traditional use of the resource. • Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. o Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. o Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement Is voluntarily conveyed.23 o Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatrlated.24 The lack of aurface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. o Lead agencies should Include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources.26 In areas of Identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. o J_ead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program glans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. o Lead agencies should Include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Public Resources Code section 5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs„ tit. 14, section 15054.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. 2' (CM cos fl 515.5 (c)). 2" (Pub. Resources Code § 5097.051). per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 16964,5(0 (CEQA Guldelbes section 15064.5(1)). 6007/7-Unit Residential Subdivision Page 22 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2018 9 gY0 I BC14. Seat. Mi)11 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE: February 13, 2018 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PRECISE PLAN NO. 15-07 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73652 VARIANCE NO. 15-18 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Steve Eide, Drafting and Design, Ltd. LOCATION: 1920 West Pacific Lane I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION The applicant is proposing to consolidate two contiguous residential lots to construct a total of 7 condominiums. These two parcels total 27,129 square feet. The parcel fronting on West Pacific Lane is developed with a single-family dwelling, which will be demolished as part of the project. The parcel fronting on West Pacific Avenue is vacant. The subject property is located east of a small shopping center that is at the intersection of West Pacific Lane and West Pacific Avenue. 2C0 gme 9 SOD .0 gall 8 W Pacific Ln W Pacific Lo I © Subject Property San Diego St 9-e 11 E31M Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision and the construction of seven multi-family townhomes. Man Files\TRACT MAP\2015 173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC 2.13.18\11ml Staff Report.doc cumNT OEVVIMmuNT LEGAL NOTICE CEQA REVIEW PERIOD PP No. 15-07, UM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13, 2018 - Page 2 II. BACKGROUND The project consist of two parcels, one is occupied with a single-family dwelling and one is vacant. GENERAL P1 ..N H.AsTwzosisTr: "Neighborhood Medium" and "Medium Density Multiple-Family" (MF - 20) (The zoning has been in place for more than 35 years) North: Single-family residential - zoned "Single- Family" (R-1) South: West Pacific Avenue and multiple-family residential - zoned "Medium Density Multiple-Family" (MF - 20) East: Single Family residential and condominiums - zoned "Single-Family" (R-1) and "Medium Density Multiple-Family" (MF — 20) West: Commercial - zoned "Neighborhood Commercial" Single Family home located at 1920 West Pacific Lane and a vacant parcel (APN 8459-026-003) Legal notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, posted at City Hall, the Library, and Police Department, and was mailed to 90 owners and occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the subject site. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (1S/MND) public review period began on January 5, 2018 and ended on February 5, 2018. The IS/MND was distributed to responsible agencies and reviewing agencies. The IS/MND was posted on the City's website to facilitate the review by the public. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP\2015 173652 1920 W. Pacific Lanc\PCIFinal Staff Report.doc PP No. 15-07, TIM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13, 2018 - Page 3 III. SUMMARY OF DATA STANDARD EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED/ ALLOWED Site Area 27,129 sf (0.62 acres) 27,129 sf (0.62 acres) 1.0 Acre (43,560 square feet) (Minimum) Density Two Lots 11.3 Units Per Acre 20 Units Per Acre Setbacks: Front Side (east side-condos) 1st & 2nd Story Side (east side-house) 1st Story 2' Story Side (west side) 1st & 2" Story Rear N/A 15 ft. — 23 ft. 9 feet 2 inches 40 feet 40 feet 13 feet 2 inches and 9 feet 6 inches 15 feet to 75 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet 20 feet Maximum Ground Coverage — 51.7 percent 55 percent Building Height — 27 feet 8 inches 35 Feet Parking Guest Parking 14 Covered Parking Spaces 6 Parking Spaces 2 Covered Parking Spaces per Unit 1 Parking Space for every 4 Units Unit Sizes (Excluding Garage) -- 1,525 SF 1,582 SF 1,646 SF 1,100 Minimum ZACase Files\TRACT MA1312015\73652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PCIFinal Staff Report.doc PP No, 15-07, TIM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13,2018 - Page 4 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting the approval of a multi-family residential development comprised of seven (7) condominiums. The project site consists of two (2) contiguous parcels. The northern parcel (1920 West Pacific Lane) is developed with one single-family home built in 1947. The southern parcel (APN 8459-026-003) fronts on West Pacific Avenue and is vacant. The project requires the granting of the following entitlements: )=- Precise Plan to allow the development of the buildings. Tentative Tract Map to consolidate two (2) contiguous parcels to build seven (7) residential condominium units. Variance for site size; lot width; rear and side yard setbacks; and the landscaped planter for the area adjacent to the single-family dwellings on the eastern portion of the site. Precise Plan The proposed project requires the approval of a precise plan to allow the proposed building architecture and site layout. Access to the site would be provided via a driveway off West Pacific Lane. The main drive aisle would continue through the site, providing access to the dwelling units along the route. The 0.62-acre site is relatively flat. The site contains one mature mulberry tree that is located directly behind the existing house. The tree will be removed as part of the development. This tree does not meet the definition of "significant" per Section 26- 289 of the WCMC. Therefore, a Tree Removal Permit is not required. Architecture The project proposes a Spanish architectural design that also incorporates Arts and Crafts architectural elements. The elevation incorporates wall projections, arched recessed doors, wood shutters, wood garage doors, and red clay tile roofs to provide visual interest. The exterior walls will have a smooth stucco finish and will be painted a variety of earth tone colors including "Oak Harbor", "Wild West" and "Floating Feather". The combination of materials and architectural variation helps reduce the scale and massing of the proposed structures. The HOA will be responsible for maintaining the exteriors of the buildings, including the garage doors and roofs. Three-bedroom units and three different floor plans are proposed as indicated in the table below. ZACase Piles\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC\Final Staff Report.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13, 2018 - Page 5 Plan No. No. of Units Description of Floor Plan Floor Area per Unit Plan A 2 units 3 bedrooms, 2 V2 bathrooms 1,525 sf plus 441 sf attached two-car garage Plan B 2 units 3 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms 1,582 sf plus 441 sf attached two-car garage Plan C 3 units 3 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms 1,646 sf plus 441 sf attached two-car garage In addition, the project, as designed, would comply with California Government Code §12900 et seq and the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.). The law requires that a minimum of I unit be ADA accessible. The applicant is proposing 1 ADA accessible unit within the project. Development Layout Since the submittal of entitlements in 2015, the applicant worked with staff on several revisions including site design, building placement, and reducing the number of units. Based on staff working with the applicant the dwellings are proposed as two-story attached units that will be in two separate buildings. Building "A" fronting West Pacific Lane will contain four (4) units and Building "B" fronting West Pacific Avenue will contain three units. The unit fronting West Pacific Lane will be oriented to face the street. The units along West Pacific Avenue will be accessed either from a front door facing West Pacific Avenue or through the garages at the rear of the units. By orienting the units to face the street, the project provides a better relationship with the street, provides visibility from the units to the street, and is compatible with the single-family houses in the surrounding area. Additionally, Building "A" has been sited on the westerly portion of the lot providing a significant buffer to the existing residential house to the east. Each unit will have a garage with two parking spaces. In addition, a total of six (6) guest parking spaces will be provided on the site. Lat_g_Iseapkagi2 1Amenities The project incorporates planting areas along the setbacks and perimeter of the project site. A Condition of Approval requires City approval of a landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC\Final Staff Report.doc PP No. 15-07, TFM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13, 2018 - Page 6 The Municipal Code requires that a minimum of 200 square feet of recreation-leisure space be provided for each unit (7 x 200 = 1,400 square feet). In addition, the code requires that the recreation-leisure space have a minimum dimension of 50 feet. The recreation/leisure area totals 2,464 square feet. This area is provided on the south side of the development adjacent to Pacific Avenue. Each unit will have a private yard. These yards range in size from 310 square feet to 780 square feet. The private yards total 2,890 square feet. The chart below provides information on the unit sizes and private yard sizes. Unit Number Habitable Space Private Yard Unit 1 1,525 sf 310 sf Unit 2 1,582 sf 415 sf Unit 3 1,582 sf 415 sf Unit 4 1,525 sf 310 sf Unit 5 1,646 sf 780 sf Unit 6 1,646 sf 330 sf Unit 7 (ADA Unit) 1,646 sf 330 sf Parking and Circulation A total of twenty (20) parking spaces will be provided — each unit will have a two- car garage and there will be six (6) guest parking spaces. The WCMC Section 26-506 requires two (2) parking spaces per unit and one (1) parking space for every four (4) dwelling units for multi-family residential condominium projects. The guest parking spaces must be located within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the units and dispersed throughout the development. Based on the requirements of the Municipal Code, the project is required to provide a minimum of two covered parking spaces per unit and a total of two (2) guest parking spaces. The project as proposed meets the parking requirements of the WCMC. A Condition of Approval included in the tentative tract map requires that the CC&Rs state that the parking or storage of recreational vehicles [RVs, trailers, boats, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), etc.] is prohibited. Tentative Tract Map The tentative tract map would consolidate two (2) contiguous parcels. The tract map would allow a total of seven (7) condominium units. Therefore, one parcel will be created with air space rights. The project will be managed by a Homeowner's Association (HOA) that will be responsible for maintaining the entire project, except for the interior of the units. Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will be created to regulate the HOA. ZACase Files\TRACT MA1'12015173652 1920W. Pacific Latte\P C\Final Staff Report.doc PP No. 15-07, TIM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13,2018 - Page 7 The proposed project density will be 11.3 units per acre. The site's General Plan Land Use designation of "Neighborhood Medium" allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre. Variance The site is zoned Multiple Family (MF) and the applicant is proposing to develop under that zoning. The applicant is requesting to deviate from several required development standards. The following chart summarizes the requested variances. STANDARD REQUIRED/ ALLOWED PROPOSED DEVIATION Site Size One acre (43,560 square feet) 0.62 acre (27,129 square feet) 16,431 square feet Lot Width 150 feet 100 feet 50 feet ' Setback — Interior (West Side) 10 feet 8 feet 8 inches 1 foot 4 inches Setback - Interior (East Side) 10 feet 9 feet 2 inches 10 inches Rear Yard Setback Adjacent to Pacific Avenue 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet 6-foot landscape setback adjacent to single-family residence (East Side — first 160 feet of lot) 6 feet 3 feet 3 feet The requirements for minimum site size, lot width, and setbacks in the MF-20 zone date from the 1970s. At that time, parcels of available land were much larger than they are currently. The City is now built out, so the available development opportunities are for infill development on relatively small parcels. Also of note is that the sections of the Code that govern Multiple-Family development have not been comprehensively evaluated since at least 1977. The table above shows the variances that are requested and the degree to which the proposal deviates from each requirement. As shown in the table, the deviations requested represent a minor deviation from required standards. In addition, these deviations do not include the entire setback areas. Between 2001 and 2012, four multiple-family residential projects have been approved. All of these involved variances from the MF-20 zone standards. The variances were granted for setbacks, maximum height, maximum ground coverage, recreational space dimensions, building separation, and lot width (Attachment 6). Moreover, the applicant has expressed to staff that they are willing to revise the submitted plans to eliminate two of the requested variances. The two variances that can be eliminated are the eastside side setback and the six (6) foot landscape setback. ZACase Files\TRACT MA1'12015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PCIFinal Staff Report,dac PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13,2018 - Page 8 The applicant is proposing to eliminate the requested side setback variance by relocating Building "B" to the west. This would increase the eastern setback (adjacent to residential) to 10 feet and reduce the west setback to 8 feet, 8 inches. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to increase the landscape area adjacent to the single-family house to 6 feet. To accomplish that, the drive aisle would be reduced to 22 feet and the back-up space reduced to 25 feet. The modification of the landscape planter was coordinated with the Fire Department for approval. Conditions have been added to require these changes. With those modifications, the following variances are proposed. STANDARD REQUIRED/ ALLOWED PROPOSED DEVIATION Site Size One acre (43,560 square feet) 0.62 acre (27,129 square feet) 16,431 square feet Lot Width 150 feet 100 feet 50 feet Setback — Interior (West Side) 10 feet 8 feet 8 inches 1 foot 4 inches Rear Yard Setback Adjacent to Pacific Avenue 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet V. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The project site is designated as "Neighborhood Medium" in the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies and Actions: P2.1 Maintain and enhance the City's current tax base. P2.6 Create a diversity of housing options. P3.3 New growth will complete, enhance, and reinforce the form and character of the unique West Covina neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. Housing Element Goals: Goal 1 Maintain and enhance the quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods in West Covina. Goal 2 Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate all economic segments of the City. Goal 5 Identify adequate sites to achieve housing variety. ZACase Files\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC\Final Staff Report.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13, 2018 - Page 9 The proposed Precise Plan is consistent with the General Plan. VI. REQUIRED FINDINGS Findings are required to allow the Planning Commission to approve the Precise Plan; Tentative Tract Map; and Variance. Precise Plan a. The proposed development plans and the uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. The project site is designated as "Neighborhood Medium" in the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan Policies and Actions: P2.1 Maintain and enhance the City's current tax base. P2.6 Create a diversity of housing options. Housing Element Goals: Goal 1 Maintain and enhance the quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods in West Covina. Goal 2 Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate all economic segments of the City. Goal 5 Identify adequate sites to achieve housing variety. The proposed Precise Plan is consistent with the General Plan. The property is not located in a Specific Plan. b. The proposed development is consistent with adopted development standards for the zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the WCMC. The project consists of a proposal to construct seven condominiums with a total of 20 parking spaces. With approval of the requested Variances, the proposal complies with the requirements of the Multiple Family Zone (M-20). Applicable development standards in the Zoning Code include but are not limited to building colors, materials, off-street parking requirements, building coverage and allowable density. c. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare and would not unreasonable interfere with the use or enjoyment of property near the subject property. ZACase Files\TRAC1' MAP12015 173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC\Final Staff Report.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13,2018 - Page 10 The project consists of residential infill development in a residential area of the City. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare and would not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property near the subject property. d. The site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the development being proposed, including vehicle access and circulation, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. The proposed residential project is adjacent to residential development on the north, east, and south. The project will include adequate off-street parking and landscaping and open space areas for residents. The proposed project will have vehicular access from West Pacific Lane. The subject project is an infill development and is therefore located within an urbanized area where utility connections are readily available. The proposed project is 11.3 units per acre in a zone that allows up to 20 units per acre. The site is 0.62 acres and, with granting of the Variance for lot size, will be physically suitable for the proposed project and adequate to accommodate the size and shape of the buildings and parking. With the granting of the Variance for lot width and setbacks, the project will meet all applicable development standards for the Medium Density Multiple Family (MF-20) zone. e. The architecture, site layout, location, shape, bulk and physical characteristics of the proposed development are compatible with the existing and future land uses, will not interfere with orderly development in the vicinity. The project proposes a Spanish architectural design that also incorporates Arts and Crafts architectural elements. The elevation incorporates wall projections, arched recessed doors, wood shutters, wood garage doors, and red clay tile roofs to provide visual interest. The exterior walls will have a smooth stucco finish and will be painted a variety of earth tone colors. The combination of materials and architectural variation helps reduce the scale and massing of the proposed structures. Tentative Tract Map a. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The approval of the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the City of West Covina General Plan. The proposed 7-unit development will be constructed to meet the development standards of the zone and the California Building Code standards. Z:Tase FileATRACT MA1'12015173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PCIFinal Staff Report.doc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 arid Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13, 2018 - Page 11 b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The tentative tract map provides for a development that is compatible with the "Neighborhood Medium" land use designation for the subject site in the General Plan, and the provisions for design and improvements comply with the implementation policies and objectives of the General Plan. c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density. The proposed project is a residential infill project within an urbanized area. The site is 0.62 acres and located within the "Neighborhood Medium" General Plan land use designation that allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The project consists of two two- story multi-family buildings, with Building A containing 4 units and Building B containing 3 units. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed. The project is a residential infill development within an urbanized area where the infrastructure to support the project already exists. The site will be developed in accordance with the grading and construction requirements of the West Covina Municipal Code and the City Engineer. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitat. The project is a residential infill development within an urbanized area where the infrastructure to support the project already exists. Most of the wildlife present on site are common within developed areas and would be expected to leave the area during active construction, then likely return. A few individual animals such as gophers and common species of lizards may be lost, but they are very common in the region and the loss of the small number expected to occur on site would not substantially affect the local or regional populations of those species. The site contains one mature mulberry tree that is located directly behind the existing house. This tree does not meet the definition of "significant" per Section 26-289 of the WCMC. Therefore, a Tree Removal Permit is not required to remove the tree. Z:lease Files1TRACT MAP12015 173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC\Final Staff Report.cloc PP No. 15-07, TTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13, 2018- Page 12 f That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed project will have access to a public sanitary sewer system for the removal and disposal of wastewater, and to other necessary utility services. The site will be developed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Dena' tment, the Municipal Code, the California Building Code and other applicable requirements. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision design and type of improvements proposed as part of the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with easements. There are no easements on the subject property. Variances Required findings for approval of the Variances are as follows: a. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances not applicable generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant is proposing the following four variances. STANDARD REQUIRED/ ALLOWED PROPOSED DEVIATION Site Size One acre (43,560 square feet) 0.62 acre (27,129 square feet) 16,431 square feet Lot Width 150 feet 100 feet 50 feet Setback — Interior (West Side) 10 feet 8 feet 8 inches 1 foot 4 inches Rear Yard Setback Adjacent to Pacific Avenue 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet The subject property has been zoned Multiple-Family Residential since the 1970s. The property is bordered by a commercial property to the west, a condominium residential development and single-family house to the east. The subject property is rectangular with the exception of an angle along the southerly (rear) property line adjacent to Pacific Avenue. The subject property includes two parcels, one that is vacant and the other with a 944-square foot house constructed in 1947. There are exceptional circumstances in that the property is located between a condominium Z:\Case Filcs\TRACT MAP12015173652 1920 W. Pacific Larte\PC\Final Staff Repott.doc PP No. 15-07, TIM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13, 2018 Page 13 development and commercial development that are unlikely to be redeveloped in the near future, thereby requiring a variance to allow for the lot to be developed with deviations for lot size, lot width, and for side yard setback. There are exceptional circumstances along the rear property line in that the building setback ranges from 15 feet on the west to 75 feet to the east due to the angle of the property line. b. That such Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. The subject property includes a vacant parcel and a small single-family house. The property has a zoning designation of Multiple-Family Residential. In order to provide the property right to develop the property, given its configuration, the variance for lot size, and lot width are necessary. In addition a variance for side setback (adjacent to a commercial property) and rear yard setback on street frontage at an angle are necessary. Therefore, not granting the Variances for the subject project would prevent the owner from having the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. C. That granting such Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located. The proposed project is a residential infill development of 7 condominiums located between residential and commercial uses. The project is designed to provide a significant separation of the proposed units and the existing house to the east. Therefore, the project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. d. That granting such Variance shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans. The proposed project with 7 units (11.3 units per acre) is consistent with the site's General Plan designation of "Neighborhood Medium" (up to 20 dwelling units per acre). ZACase FiIcATRACT MA1112015\73652 1920 W. Pacific Latte\PCIFinal Staff Report.doc PP No. 15-07, TM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13,2018 - Page 14 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The initial study prepared for the project disclosed that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project's design and as conditions of approval to reduce impacts on the environment to a less than significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (MND) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. The MND was circulated for public review and comment for 30 days, starting on January 5, 2018 and ending on February 5, 2018. The MND is provided herein as Attachment 6. Comments were received from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 18, 2018. A response to comments was prepared as is provided as Attachment 5. Traffic A traffic study prepared by Transpo Group in November, 2017 was submitted for the project to assess potential traffic impacts. In order to evaluate the potential impacts to the local street system, sixteen intersections were analyzed. The intersections studied were: 1. West Pacific Avenue/West Pacific Lane — Cameron Avenue 2. West Pacific Avenue — West Covina Parkway/Garvey Avenue — I-10 Westbound Ramps The findings of the traffic study indicate that the proposed multi-family residential development would generate approximately 31 daily trips 3 a.m. peak hour trips and 2 p.m. peak hour trips. The project would not add more than 0.02 to the volume to capacity ratio during any peak hour and would not be considered an impact. Therefore, no impacts are expected with the project under Cumulative with-project conditions. Air Quality According to the Air Quality Study prepared by Ultrasystems, the construction and operation emissions are below significant regional thresholds. The cumulative short-term, construction-related emissions and long-term, operational emissions from the project will not contribute considerably to any potential cumulative air quality impact because short-term project and operational emissions will not exceed any SCAQMD daily threshold. Z:\Case Files\TRACT MAP \201.5\73652 1920 W. Pacific Lanc\PC\Final Staff Report.doc erson, AICP Je P aiming Director PP No. 15-07, 'FTM No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13, 2018 - Page 15 VIII. CONCLUSION The project site has been zoned Multi-Family Residential for several decades. The site is also in compliance with the General Plan designation and zoning density. The applicant is proposing a total of 7 condominium units. The site fronts West Pacific Lane to the north and West Pacific Avenue to the south. The subject property is located east of a small commercial property that is at the intersection of West Pacific Lane and West Pacific Avenue. The project will also replace a single-family dwelling, which will be demolished as part of the development. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial properties in the area (especially those south of Pacific Lane) and will result in additional housing opportunities. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project, as the proposed building layout and use are appropriate for the site. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; approving Precise Plan No. 15-07, Tentative Tract Map No. 73652, and Variance No. 15-18. PREPARED BY: PREPARED BY: Ron Garcia Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Paula Kelly Contract Planner Attachments: Attachment No. 1 —Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution for Approval Attachment No. 2 — Draft Precise Plan Resolution for Approval Attachment No. 3 — Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution Attachment No. 4— Draft Variance Resolution for Approval Attachment No. 5 —Responses to Comments on IS/MND Attachment No. 6— Projects Approved Variance Request Chart Attachment No. 7 — Letter of Concern, Dated January 31, 2018 Mase Files\TRACT MAPN2015 173652 1920W. Pacific Lane\PC\Final Staff Report.doc PP No. 15-07, TTNI No. 73652 and Variance No. 15-18 1920 West Pacific Lane February 13,2018 - Page 16 Attachment No. 8 — Letter of Concern, Dated February 5, 2018 Attachment No. 9 — Petition in opposition to proposed project, Dated February 5, 2018 Attachment No. 10 —Compact Disc of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Available for review by the public at the Library, Police Department, Planning Department, City's Website — Planning Department) Attachment No. 11 —Development Plans (Available for review by the public at the Library, Police Department and Planning Department) Z:Tase Files\TRACT MA1'12015173652 1920 W. Pacific Lane\PC\Fixial Staff Report.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2— February 13, 2018 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3, PRECISE PLAN NO. 15-07 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73652 VARIANCE NO. 15-18 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: Steve Fide, Drafting and Design, Ltd. LOCATION: 1920 West Pacific Lane REQUEST: A proposal to consolidate two contiguous residential lots to construct a total of seven (7) condominiums. The two parcels total 27,129 square feet. The parcel on West Pacific Lane is currently developed with a single-family dwelling which will be demolished as part of the project. The proposed new project includes variance from Zoning standards for a minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum setback requirements, and landscaping requirements. Senior Planner Ron Garcia presented the staff report. During Mr. Garcia's presentation he explained to the Commission what is proposed and what entitlements are necessary for the construction of the proposed condominiums. He also spoke about the requested variances, the subdivision, and the zoning of the lots. He told the Commission that the property on Pacific Avenue had been zoned Multiple Family Residential for at least 30 years. In addition, he told the Commission that an initial study and a traffic study had been completed by UltraSystems. He also told the Commission that mitigation measures had been provided by the consultant and were included in the resolution of approval. Mr. Garcia said three letters of concern had been received by staff and one letter would be read into the record at the request of the writer. Commissioner Redholtz asked about the revisions made to the original plan submitted in 2015. Mr. Garcia spoke about the revisions• and the reduction in the number of units proposed. Commissioner Heng requested clarification on the number of units that could be built under the Zoning Code. Chairman Holtz opened the public hearing. PROPONENTS: Clem Ziroli, property owner, Steve Bide, applicant, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Ziroli told the Commission that he would like to provide housing for families that is affordable. He also answered questions from the Commission regarding his efforts to inform the residents of his proposal. Mr. Eide, applicant, answered questions by the Commission regarding the design of the project and the number of variances necessary to construct the condominiums. He also told the Commission that the number of variances could ZAPLANCOM1MINUTES12018 MINUTES12.13.18 minutes,doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 — February 13, 2018 be reduced and answered questions by the Commission regarding the density of the project and the design alternatives considered. OPPONENTS: A letter of opposition from Fred Sykes was read into the record by Chairman Holtz. Staff also mentioned that letters of opposition had been received from Brian Jobst, and Robert Torres. Salvador Guadalupe Martinez, Javion Blanca Martinez, Gretchen M. Hillman, Dae Han, Dale and Bobbie Peterkin, Phil Moreno, Richard R. Rodriguez, Cheryl Rodriguez, Yolanda Arevato, Lola Veronese, Jessica Camon, Richard Rodriguez, Yen Benton, Dolores Lucero, Joshua Hale, Peggy Hale, and Robert Torres all spoke in opposition to the project. The opponents addressed the Commission regarding their concern with excessive traffic in the area, concerns with air pollution, dust and noise during construction, the architecture of the proposed buildings, the density of the multiple-family development, the potential for additional vehicles parked in the street, potential loss of property value, lack of notification to the residents, their desire to preserve the neighborhood as it had always existed, the number of variances requested, the character and aesthetics of the proposed condominiums, overdevelopment of the city and that the necessary findings have not been met. REBUTTAL: Mr. Ziroli and Mr. Eide said they understand the concerns of the residents, but pointed out that there are other high-density residential developments in the area. Mr. Eide also added that the variances are necessary because of the configuration of the lot and are unavoidable if this property is to be developed. Chairman Holtz closed the public hearing. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the comments by the opponents. Chairman Holtz asked if the representative for the consultant who reviewed the project for traffic and environmental impact was present. Betsy Lindsey, representing UltraSystems Environmental, answered questions by the Commission regarding the traffic study and how it was conducted as well as questions regarding potential environmental impacts, short-term impacts during construction, air quality, noise and ambient noise. Ms. Lindsey said that there were mitigation measures included in their recommendation and that pollution issues are already regulated. In addition, she said that the project followed environmental regulations and would not have a significant impact on the environment or on the traffic because of the number of units. Miguel Hernandez, representing the Engineering Division of Public Works, also commented about the Z.APLANCOM \M1NUTES\201 8 MINUTES12 .13.1 8 minutes.doc Jff Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 — February 13, 2018 traffic on Pacific Avenue, Mr. Hernandez told the Commission that traffic in the area had been impacted due to the on-going Cal Trans project on the I-10 Freeway. Mr. Hernandez also told the Commission that Pacific Avenue is an arterial street. Commissioner Redholtz asked questions regarding lot size and density of the proposed property and the notification radius. Mr. Anderson also told the Commission that, consistent with the Brown Act, properties within a 300-foot radius had been mailed a public hearing notice and the property had been posted with the public hearing information. Commissioner Redholtz said he understood the residents' concerns and expressed concern with the number of variances requested. He said he would not support the project as presented. Commissioner Castellanos concurred with Commissioner Redholtz regarding the residents' concerns and said he would support continuing this matter so that the applicant could redesign the project. Commissioner Jimenez said there would be variances necessary no matter what was proposed because of the configuration of the lot. Commissioner Heng concurred with continuing the project to allow the applicant time to meet with staff and redesign the project. She also suggested that more on-site parking be provided. Chairman Holtz commented that the traffic has always been difficult in the area. He concurred with the remainder of the Commission that this matter be continued to allow for the redesign of the project. Mr. Ziroli and Mr. Eide said they would be willing to redesign the project. Mr. Anderson said a new public hearing notice would be mailed out to the residents when the public hearing is scheduled. Motion by Holtz, seconded by Castellanos, to continue the public hearing and request the applicant address the following issues: 1) Architectural compatibility with the neighborhood, (including style and building materials and articulation of the roof and walls); (2) reduce variance requests wherever possible; 3) increase on-site parking where possible. The motion was to continue to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to redesign the project. Motion carried 5-0. {ware f t b auty h I within an oniating two t ry ffi building. No=e4etiev MaAsig0841r=0=pr-OpOSed-1-04-1te-E ZAPLANCOM\MINUTES12018 MINUTES12.13.18 minutes.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 9 Projects Approved by the Planning Commission or City Council (Not all Projects Have Been Constructed) Approved Multi- Family Development Setbacks (rear) Maximum Height within 100 feet of residential Maximum ground coverage Recreational space size Recreational space dimension Building separation Building length. Lot width sefriei„vi11as4 Goldrich and Chest (Constructed) V V Workman McIntyre Condos (Not Constructed) V I V Sunset McIntyre Town Homes (Not Constructed) V V V V 4101 Nogales Condos (Not Constructed) V V I V Senior V11 • The Multiple-Family section of the code has not been comprehensively evaluated since at least 1977. • Senior Villas I-II have been stricken in that the code allows senior housing development to vary from code standards. ATTACHMENT NO. 10 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hello Mr. Ron Garcia, Han, Dae 1< <dhan18@calstatela.edu > Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:56 PM Ron Garcia dkhautosports@live.com 1920 Demolition and Condominium Construction Follow up Flagged My name is Dae Han. I am the resident at 1914 W. Pacific Ln., West Covina, CA 91790. The property right next to the planned construction of 7 Condominiums. My family has lived at this address since 1996 and since then I have taken over the house with my family. I would like to bring to your attention some concerns in regards to the proposed project, mainly related to health concerns. 1) Air Pollution caused by demolition which will last approximately 1 month. The house to be demolished was built in the 1950's during that time asbestos and lead were used frequently. Histoplasmosis and silicosis is also a real concern during demolition of older homes. Asbestos can cause non-small cell and small cell carcinoma of the lung as well as malignant mesothelioma. Lead has been well documented to effect learning ability, behavioral problems, lower !Qs, and health problems, especially in children. Histoplasmosis can cause long term tuberculosis like symptoms, especially in children. Silicosis is an irreversible lung condition caused by crystalline silica. According to the (EPA 2018), "Fugitive dust is a serious concern for people who are especially sensitive or vulnerable to the effects of dust. Fugitive dust may also contain harmful amounts of lead. Lead in dust is the most common way people are exposed to lead." All of these hazards and effects of demolition are all well documented, references can be given upon request. There are also myriad of fungus, mold and other organic debris that will be released from the demolition. I have a 2 year old and at the scheduled time of demolition/construction I will have a 2 month old. I will be living in my home with wife, scared to open any windows for a month during demolition and scared to allow my children to play in the backyard because according to the EPA there is no effective way to control the poisonous debris from demolition, hosing down the structure to be demolished has its limits. What measures will be taken to protect the current residents by the developers? They have a moral duty to protect the people who surround the construction site and offer a solution to shield us from the real dangers of demolition. The effects of the chemicals listed above do not manifest immediately and the repercussions of the exposure to these poisonous chemicals can manifest years later with permanent effects. After the month long exposure to all of the above chemicals inorganic and organic, we will then be exposed to the debris from construction. Formaldehyde is also a real concern, that also causes lung damage, that may not manifest immediately. I will have a 2 month old and a 2 year-old that will be home during the day, how will noise be controlled, they will need to nap, need quiet time and rest time. How will the developers control the constant noise of construction? Are the developers willing to relocate the families that will be affected most and to shield our homes and yards to protect against the demolition dust/construction dust? 2) The city's zoning code requires a 6 ft buffer zone, the developer is requesting a 3 foot buffer zone on my western property line. I have condos to the south of me and the purposed plan would have 2 story condos to the west of me. I would literally be boxed in. There are plans for a 6 ft high wall to be placed on the properties eastern border. This diminishes my view and gives the effect of "trapped" backyard. I feel as though I would have no privacy since condos are 2 stories and their potential residents could look down into my backyard invading my privacy. I have real concerns for my families privacy. I have a right to a have a backyard that is not completed surrounded by multilevel condos. I do not understand how a 7 condo unit fits in with our neighborhood. We all have single standing homes with Large backyards or front yards. I understand and can relate to a property owner wanting to improve his/her home, as I have poured in more than $80,000 to improve my property. The developer in this case is basically wanting to change the landscape of our community. From single family homes to a 7 unit condo, which will permanently and drastically change the whole texture of our community. I would be agreeable to construction if the developers made living arrangements and protected our homes during construction, but I would not be agreeable to a 7 condo unit. Why not a 2 single family detached home, so that it fits in with our community. So my main concerns are safety and privacy of my family. My secondary concerns are in regards to the texture of our community and how a 7 unit condo will affect that. I will be attending the meeting on February 13 at 7PM. I would also like to speak to you in person in regards to the issues I have before Feb 5, 2018. Is this possible? Please contact at your earliest convenience at 626-244-5514. Thank you for your time and consideration, Dae Han. ATTACHMENT NO. 11 City of West Covina Department of Planning Attn: Ron Garcia, Senior Planner 1444 West Garvey Avenue South West Covina, Ca 91790 Dear Ron Garcia- Senior Planner t• FEB 65 2018 PLANNING DEPT, Notice of Public Hearing RE: PRECISE PLAN NO. 15-07, Tentative Tract Map 73652 Variance No 15 -18 ADDRESS 1920 W PACIFIC LANE, WEST COVINA, CA 91790 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Objection to Development of Condominiums (7 units) Proposal as described above. We wish to object to this proposal on the following grounds: Developer wants to construct seven (7) condominiums on a lot that does not meet the minimum requirements for multi-family and will need several variances to proceed. (The variances needed are not even close to the minimum). The property that will be demolished has always been a well kept single family home on a large park like lot, open space on a residential neighborhood. The proposed development by reason of its size, depth, width, height and massing would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of the property immediately adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearing impact. Our community is residential. We are not opposed to new development, our concern is that it will not blend in, preserve or enhance our community. In reviewing West Covina Part 1 Vision Guiding principles in Our Well Planned Community states: direct new growth to downtown, while protecting the stable residential area. Under West Covina Central Vision states: The central vision states: Preserve and enhance the stable residential areas. D. Policies and Actions; A3.1 Incorporate standards in the development code to preserve the existing form and character of stable residential areas and prevent encroachment of incompatible land uses and Intensity, P3.3 New growth will complete, enhance, and reinforce the form and character of the unique West Covina neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. E. Housing West Covina General Plan Use Plan sets forth a 20-year vision to preserve the character and quality of existing neighborhoods. Shifting development pressure away from stable single-family neighborhoods. We believe that the proposed development is a direct breach of the West Covina general plan and policies. The propose dwelling would significantly alter the neighborhood and does not respect local context and would lead to gross over-development of the site Code of Ordinances, General Provisions Chapter 26 zoning Division3 — Planned community and residential Development Set 26-426- purpose of zone.-The purpose of multiple-family zones is to classify and set standards for the orderly development of multiple-family residential properties in a manner that will provide a desirable living environment compatible with surrounding properties, and assurin_gprotection of Property values. It is Intended that these zones be used to add to the variety of housing types and densities Sec 26-719 — Purpose (b) Planned Residential Development: (I) Encourage a more desirable living environment (2) Encourage a more efficient, desirable and aesthetic use of land through utilization of modern innovations in residential developments. (6) Insure compatibility with established residential areas. Sec.26-734 - Development standards for planned community development zone. Density. All densities shall confirm to the approved community master plan The design, layout and appearance of the project development is not compatible with surrounding area and by cramming in seven condominiums on a residential lot that is under the minimum 43560 square feet, next to single residential homes with large lots and large spacing between would not enhance but would impact the surrounding property values. Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 4.12 Noise Analysis - (a) would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies 4.12.5 — Impact - Report shows less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated The estimated noise exposures at all the addresses in the study are projected noise range from 77.9 to 92.2 - according to West Covina General Plan, Our healthy and Safe Community — Page 103,Table 6.4 City of West Covina Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix. The levels are clearly unacceptable. New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Policies and actions P6.23 —Ensure that new development is not exposed to excessive noise. P6.24- Ensure that new development does not expose surrounding land uses to excessive noise. This development is projected to take over one year and there is concern on the noise exposures this project will have on this community. The family directly to the east is a stay at home mother with a 2 year old and a baby due in February 2018. There are families with young children all around this community. It is bad enough the noise for a year but the proposed levels are too high. Section 4.20 Land Use and Planning (a) would the project physically divide an established community. Study shows no impact states land to the north Is residential, south is IMF- 20(apartments) land to the east zoned R-1, which has one single family home and MF-20 which is comprised of multi-family housing. Land to the west is zoned neighborhood commercial. This study is misleading: Apartments to the south, Multi-family to the east, and Commercial to the west are all on a primary main road —Pacific Avenue. They are not on Pacific Lane, which is a small residential 2 lane road that is around 40 feet wide. The proposed is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses and will not divide an established community. How does an overdeveloped condo complex in a single residential community be compatible and not divide an established residential community? Pacific Lane is single-family residential. Around the block is commercial and multi-family. According to West Covina General Plan (our well planning community- page 53) where development of housing alongside commercial uses is specifically encouraged. The general plan identified the following Sample A. Puente Ave. The blocks on either side of Puente Street, between Yaleton Avenue and Sunset have an unusual mix of uses that include churches, fire station, liquor store, auto repair facility, and multi-family residences. The area around this block is predominantly single- family residential. Executive Summary of Traffic Impact Analysis What existing public streets will serve the project and where is access proposed? Pacific Lane would provide direct access to the project site via a project driveway generally aligning with La Sena Avenue. What Transportation impacts are anticipated, if any? The project would not create any significant impacts at the study area intersection. What measures are proposed to reduce or control traffic impacts? No project impacts are expected with the project; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. We have a problem with the statements that there will be no impact with the construction of this project on Pacific Lane. This is a heavily traveled two lane residential road; not a primary four lane main road. School buses run on Pacific Lane in the mornings and several times In the afternoons. Construction crews coming and going on Pacific Lane could jeopardize the safety of the children and residents. There are no cross walks, signs, lights or crossing guards and the children have to cross the streets on their own after the bus leaves. Sincerely, LI-1")(I °\ 1 M-z Richard and Cheryl Ro rigu The proposal as it is, will detriment the quality and amenity value of the area, as outlined in the points above. We ask you to please not approve any project unless in falls within the minimum variances and improves an area. We are asking for a project that fits in the community and does not take over a year to construct. (This project is scheduled to take 12-14 months). This is a long time for such a small lot on a small busy residential street. Please do not allow a project that will change our community from residential to apartments living. This would impact our community and the value of our homes. We would be grateful if the commission would take our objections into consideration when deciding this application. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with a representative of the planning department and the developer at our home to illustrate our objections and concerns. 209 La Sena Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 Email: c.rodriguez4@vahoo.com 626-337-5361 ATTACHMENT NO. 12 Wed 02/07/2018 2:20 PM Ron, Sorry for the delay. Please feel free to pass on the below correspondence to the Planning Commission for their consideration. I wasn't able to create PDFs of the below Google Maps Street Views, so please produce some if you are able. Thank you Robert Hello Clem, I had the opportunity to meet with several neighbors near your proposed development on Pacific Lane and below is a bullet point list reflecting various concerns that were raised: • There was general opposition to the lot size variance allowing the development of seven units on the two existing parcels. The general sentiment was that the proposal was inappropriate for the area and results in a density that is not in line with the character of the residential neighborhood. Many residents had serious concerns with the dramatic increase from one single-family detached residence to seven attached town-homes. Thus, many residents are not supportive of the project as proposed. • Other concerns that were voiced: o Fewer homes should be proposed to allow the project to better fit in with the adjacent neighborhood o Homes should be detached single-family homes instead of attached town-homes. o The entrance/exit to the project should be on Pacific Ave, not Pacific Lane. o More on-site parking should be provided o The proposed homes should be set-back further away from Pacific Lane o How will trash pick-up work? One dumpster on-site or individual cans? • These are my individual concerns: o In agreement with an above concern, I would like to see the proposal consist of detached single-family homes. This would likely result in a reduction of at least two proposed units to allow for a building separation of at least 10 feet. I am supportive of this idea given that it will be more in-line with the other single-family homes in the immediate vicinity and result in a more desirable product for prospective homeowners. One of my primary concerns is that the constructed homes are appealing and conducive to long-term owner occupancy. o In agreement with an above concern, the proposed buildings should be setback further from Pacific Lane. The setback should be in-line with adjacent single-family homes to the east in order to further match the character of the community, which based on Google Maps is approximately 30 feet. This additional setback will also allow for additional landscaping to improve aesthetics and possibly provide a public benefit with a small paseo or courtyard. A recent single-family detached development in the City of Durate is a great example of this approach. It can be viewed here. Also, given that this project involves multiple variances, I believe such a public benefit is warranted. I feel the currently proposed setback of 15 feet is far too low and will not match the character of the community. A 15 foot setback will result in poor aesthetics and look out of character with neighborhood. A project previously approved in our City with such setbacks can be seen here and its close proximity to the road right-of-way is not at all visually appealing. o In regard to the proposed layout, it would nice to have a few alternative designs to consider. One alternative I propose to study is the construction of two detached single- family homes facing Pacific Lane, each having their own driveway. Then propose either detached or attached townhomes that would only be accessible from Pacific Ave. Again, this may result in less units but would better match the character of the community. Another layout option could involve construction of two attached town-homes facing Pacific Ln with a shared courtyard in front. This could give the impression of one large home, be in line with the residential character of the neighborhood, and provide some community benefit. o Pertaining to proposed units to be constructed adjacent to the neighboring commercial center, I believe an architectural element should be added on top of the proposed 6 foot masonry wall in order to provide improved safety and privacy to the future homeowners and also prevent future homeowners from constructing unsightly makeshift privacy screens themselves. Possibly attaching a two-foot iron railing with metal screen to allow for vines to cling and provide additional privacy. o Pertaining to the architectural details, the homes would look better with more variation in complimentary colors between each unit. Similar to the Duarte sample I provided above. Also, it would be nice to see detailsivisualz of what the entire frontage along Pacific Ln will look like, which would include the driveway, curb and sidewalk, landscaping, and building. o What street improvements along Pacific Lane, besides sidewalk, curb, and gutter are being proposed? Any parkway landscaping? Will there be an ADA ramp to align with the corner across the street? I believe ADA requirements may require that. Will an additional street light be installed to improve the roadway visibility? o I have concerns that this type of design, composed of condos on one side of a long property with a shared driveway, on such a small parcel will be the first of it's kind in our immediate area. There are no other similar sized parcels that have been developed in this fashion that I am aware of and I believe there is good reason. This type of layout is not visually pleasing for small parcels and seems to be cramming in units in a small space. This is the reason I believe a minimum lot size of one acre was established for multi-family. Anything less than 1 acre results in a multi-family development that looks cramped and aesthetically unpleasing. The neighboring city of Baldwin Park is littered with these types of development and I believe it's contributed to the blighted looking nature of many of its residential communities. Those are all the concerns that come to mind at this time. I realize these issues are detailed and may be difficult to respond to prior to the public hearing next week, but I think they are relevant and should be formerly addressed. Typically, from my experience, these types of concerns are expressed at a community meetings prior to finalizing design plans in order to attempt to incorporate community input into the development. Unfortunately, this was not possible in this case and these concerns are being provided now. Ideally the best course of action would be to continue the upcoming public hearing in order to provide additional time for discussion and potential design modifications, but if that is not possible, these concerns can be discussed at the public hearing. If you have any questions regarding any of the above commentary feel free to contact me I have also co'd Jeff Anderson and Ron Garcia of the Planning Department for their information. Jeff and Ron, If you would like to provide any insight on any of the above concerns or recommendations prior to the Public Hearing feel free to respond to all. Regards, Robert Torres, West Covina Resident 2 Gnocie,, no areel ew 00.2011 11103 Ilavkl 9 Googie woc. tee,m4-..14.-rorh, Detached Townhomes with 15 Foot Setback and Landscaping Maynard Dr 4,Eilrafr • A-, Detached Town homes with 30 Foot Setback and Courtyard From: Cheryl Rodriguez <c.rodriguez4@yahoo.com > To: Phillip Moreno <buenom@yerizon.net >; ROBERT TORRES <roberthtorres@yahoo.com> Subject: Condo Project Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2018 1:05 pm I was reading the e-mail and was asked to find out about the proposed lots, how long have they been zoned multi, etc. Can you tell me where I would find this info? From what we were told by the property owners (2 brothers). They had tried to sell the property several times and it would fall through because the back lot was zoned commercial. The developer who bought it was aware of it and said he would deal with city hall. On the city Request for Proposal 0316-F dated 4/1/16 under Scope of Service: The project site is located at 1920 Pacific Lane, north of the 10 freeway. The project consists of an application for a tentative track map, general plan amendment, precise plan, and the variance to allow for the subdivision of two lots which together equal 27,129 square feet. The project site has a current General Plan land use designation of Service and Neighborhood Commercial (SNC); the proposal requires the approval of a General Plan amendment to change the designation to Residential Medium (RM) which allows a density of between 8.1 to 15. dwelling units per acre. The site is currently zoned Multi-family Residential-20 (MF20) which allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposal includes the subdivision of two lots. The project scope involves the following - 2. Discretionary approval of General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, tentative tract map and a precise plan for a Multi-family development. I did go and talk to Ron Garcia, city planner and said the property owners had always said the front was single family and the back was commercial. Ron said it had been zoned multi-family for years and there is just a lot of misinformation floating around. I talked to Peggy Hale at 1904 Pacific Lane, next to the condos. She said before the condo project went up in believe 1980 that all three houses were asked to sell their homes and they all refused. She said they were all single family residential and she does not know how the houses on her street were changed to Multi-family except hers. She said the land before was all agricultural. Thank you so much for trying to save our community Ron Garcia From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: ROBERT TORRES <roberthtorres@yahoo.com > Sunday, February 11, 2018 12:58 AM Ron Garcia Jeff Anderson 1920W. Pacific Lb- 7-Unit Condominium Development Staff Report- 920 W. Pacific Ln.PDF; GP Policies 2.12.6_3.3 & HE Goals 1_2_5.pdf; Attachment 6.pdf Follow up Flagged Hello Ron, Regarding the February 13 Planning Commission meeting, I reviewed the staff report pertaining to the Public Hearing for the proposed condominium development at 1920 W. Pacific Di and have the following comments: • On Pg. 8 of the staff report (attached), under GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY, the policies and goals listed (attached) do not substantiate consistency with the General Plan for the following reasons: o General Plan Policy 2.1, Maintain and Enhance the City's Current Tax Base, • This policy specifically lists methods to maintain and enhance our current tax base, such as "catalytic neighborhood improvements, improved municipal services and amenities and enhancement of the West Covina brand, AS OPPOSED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT." The intent of this policy is to maintain and enhance our existing neighborhoods and does not apply to new/infill development. o General Plan Policy 2.6, Create a Diversity of Housing Options This policy specifically refers to "urban-style.. multi-family homes that are in close proximity to transit, retail, food and dining and entertainment choices." It goes on to list "Actions" specifically referring to "... MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN" and "exploring opportunities for affordable senior housing." The intent of this policy is to be complimentary to our broader policy of directing dense growth to our Downtown in an urban-style and is not for the purposes of justifying such growth in our established residential neighborhoods. o General Plan Policy 3.3, New Growth will Complete, Enhance, and Reinforce the Form and Character of the Unique West Covina Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors This policy is directed at preserving the "the form and character of the unique West Covina neighborhoods." When evaluating the character of our neighborhood, there is no development similar to the subject proposal in density, layout, lot width, or lot size, thus, the form and character of our neighborhood is not being preserved. o Housing Element Goal 1, Maintain and Enhance the Quality of Existing Housing and Residential Neighborhoods in West Covina • This goal is directed at "continued maintenance and'preservation of existing housing stock" and "code- enforcement, neighborhood, and home improvement programs,.. .to maintain the condition of existing housing units." It's clear that this goal is not intended for new/infill development. o Housing Element Goal 2, Provide a Variety of Housing Types to Accommodate all Economic Segments of the City • This goal is correctly referenced on its face, however, it is inadequate in validating General Plan consistency of the subject project given that the proposed development is in direct contrast with General Plan Policy 3.4 which instructs to "DIRECT NEW GROWTH TO DOWNTOWN AND CORRIDORS." This contradiction invalidates any claim of this Goal confirming General Plan consistency provided that the "housing type" provided is improperly located with respect to growth, per General Plan Policy 3.4. o Housing Element Goal 5, Identify Adequate Sites to Achieve Housing Variety This goal does not validate General Plan consistency due to the simple fact that the project is proposed on an "Inadequate" site. This is distinctly demonstrated by the need for a variance to deviate from the minimum lot size requirement of one acre and the minimum lot width of 150 feet. The site is too narrow and too small to align with the stated goal. o Therefore, the above policies and goals do not substantiate the proposed project's consistency with the General Plan • On Pg. 9 &10 of the staff report, under REQUIRED FINDINGS, the findings necessary to approve the subject Precise Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Variances are not met for the following reasons: o The following Precise Plan findings are not met due to the same previously stated comments regarding GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: "a", the proposed development plans and the uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan "b", the proposed development is consistent with adopted development standards of the zone and complies with all applicable provisions of the WCMC "d", the site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the development being proposed, including vehicle access and circulation, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. "e", the architecture, site layout, location, shape, bulk, and physical characteristics of the proposed development are compatible with the existing and future land uses, will not intelfere with orderly development in the vicinity. o The following Tentative Tract Map findings are not be met due to the same previously stated comments given regarding GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: "a", that proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans • "b", that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans • "c", the site is physically suitable for the type of development • "d", the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development o The following Variance findings are not met for the following reasons: • "a", there are exceptional or extraordinaiy circumstances not applicable generally to other property or class of use in the vicinity and zone • The primary claim made in the staff report to make this finding states that "there are exceptional circumstances in that the property is located between a condominium and commercial development that are unlikely to be redeveloped in the near future,..." This claim does validate the variance as stated since the location of the subject property between two properties that are 2 unlikely to be developed is "applicable generally to other property or class of use in the vicinity and zone." The parcel immediately to east of the project site is also zoned multi-family and falls under the same circumstances with respect to development. Additionally, there are numerous other properties throughout West Covina that are limited with respect to development as a result of neighboring properties that are"unlikely to be redeveloped in the near future." Therefore, the circumstances of the subject development are neither "exceptional or extraordinary" and ARE "applicable to other property or class of use in the vicinity and zone." • "b", that such variance is necessaly for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question The primary claim made in the staff report to make this finding states that "not granting the variance for the subject project would prevent the owner from having the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone." This claim does not validate the variance as stated simply because it is not in agreement with Attachment 6 (attached) of the staff report. The table provided in Attachment 6 lists three projects that have been afforded similar variances comparable to those being requested for this development. However, the provided table plainly shows that none of the listed projects were granted a variance with respect to minimum lot size and therefore have not been granted, nor "possess this substantial property right." Therefore, the granting of the minimum lot size variance ''... is NOT necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY in the same vicinity or zone." No other property in the vicinity and zone has been granted a similar variance and does not possesses a property right denied to the property owner. "d", the granting of such variance will be consistent with the adopted general plan and any applicable specific plan • This variance cannot be met due to the same previously stated comments given regarding GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. o Therefore, the above Variances are not substantiated due to the inability for the required findings to be met SUMMARY Although the subject development has been recommended for approval, it is evident that the justification for General Plan consistency and Variance findings are unsubstantiated. Of most importance in all of the above commentary, is the granting of a minimum lot width and lot size variance, which will set precedence for all future multi-family development and dramatically alter the residential neighborhoods of West Covina. Currently, a minimum lot size of one acre and lot width of 150 feet is required for a multi-family subdivision of 20 units. These requirements help protect West Covina's single-family residential communities from over-development and encourage adequately sized ranch style single-family construction. I understand that West Covina is a built-out city that requires a higher availability of housing to accommodate future growth, however, it was overwhelmingly expressed by many residents during the General Plan update that such growth would be directed Downtown and not disturb established residential communities. For these reasons, I oppose this development as proposed and request that it either be denied or redesigned to be in line with the current zoning regulations and character of the adjacent single-family residential community. Please share my comments with the Planning Commission. Thank you for your work on this project thus far. Although I disagree with the current recommendation, I appreciate the efforts of both you and Jeff. Regards, Robert Tones, West Covina Resident ATTACHMENTS: 3 / • Staff Report • General Plan Policies 2.1, 2.6, & 3.3 and Housing Element Goals 1, 2, & 5 • Attachment 6 Ron Garcia From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Brian A Jobst <jobstb@earthlink.net > Sunday, February 11,2018 6:45 AM Jeff Anderson; Ron Garcia Submittal for Public Hearing in Opposition to Variances assoc. with 1920 West Pacific Lane Opposition Submittal 1920W Pacific Lane.pdf Foflow up Flagged Dear Messrs. Anderson and Garcia: Please find attached our statement of opposition associated with 1920 West Pacific Lane. We are opposed to the four variances that have been proposed for this fill-in development, which will be the subject of the public hearing this coming Tuesday. The seven proposed attached condominiums/townhomes are entirely inconsistent with the existing, surrounding stable residential neighborhood. The fill-in development is also inconsistent with West Covina's own General Plan, which was just enacted in late 2016. City Staff and the Planning Commission are respectfully reminded the California Supreme Court ruled decades ago that a General Plan is the "constitution for all future development". In that ruling ((Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 531, 540)) that Court stated a General Plan is the blueprint for development on which the residents can rely and that all other land use documents are subordinate to the General Plan (e.g., zoning ordinances, tentative maps, development agreements). Our intention is to physically attend this public hearing. However, since we will be out of town and are returning on Tuesday, we may not be able to do so. Please ensure that this email and it's attachment are read into the record at the public hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Brian Jobst jobstb,earthlink.net 626-430-7506 1 February 11,2018 We, Brian Jobst and Heidi Freeman, 29-year residents of West Covina, are submitting the following comments to the Planning Commission. These comments are for the Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 for "Precise Plan No. 15-07, 1920 West Pacific Lane". We are submitting these comments in writing since we may not be able to physically attend the hearing on the 131h . We have carefully reviewed available information associated with the proposed construction of seven condos/townhomes on two residential lots. Our review included the entire Planning Department Staff Report and its numerous attachments (Agenda Item No. 3 February 13, 2018). We strongly oppose this many homes on two lots. The proposed housing density would, without question change the nature and character of this neighborhood. It will degrade the quality and character of this neighborhood, particularly for its current residents. Detached homes presently define this stable residential neighborhood and that should be maintained. My wife and I have visited, on many occasions, fill-in developments like the one that is being proposed. First hand experience tells us the proposed parking for this development is inadequate. Particularly striking in the developer's proposed plans is the small set back. Such setbacks are aesthetically unappealing. They look cheap and present a first impression of low quality housing designed to maximize developer profit. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny the four requested variances. Subsequently the developer should work to create a plan that is substantially more consistent with nature and character of the existing neighborhood. Sincerely, Brian Jobst and Heidi Freeman jobstb@earthlink.net 626-430-7506 Jeff Anderson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: fsykes@linkline.com Tuesday, February 13, 2018 4:59 PM Jeff Anderson; Lydia de Zara Rosalia Butler Regarding: Planning Commission Meeting for Tuesday, February 13, Agenda Item #3 2018 at 7 PM, Planning Commission, Jeff Anderson - Director of Planning Department and City Staff and City Staff, The Planning Commission Meeting for Tuesday, February 13, 2018 Regarding Agenda Item #3 I have a conflict in my meeting schedule tonight and in the event that I am not able to appear on time for the "Public Testimony" against this project please read into the record my below attached statement: The current Home Buyers and Property Owners brought into a mostly single family home community and it is not in their best interest to allow variances in the zoning that do not match the long established community in the design, density and quality of life amenities! Any development that does not conform to the harmony of the community and increase the property values in the vicinity of these two single family residential lots should not be approved! Thank you, Fredrick Sykes —40 year resident of West Covina and Former Mayor for this City. (626) 806-4272 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 13 January ,2018 City of West Covina Department of Planning Attn: Ron Garcia, Senior Planner 1444 West Garvey Ave South West Covina, CA 91790 Ron Garcia —Senior Planner Mom FEVO5 2010 PLANNING DEPT. Notice of Public Hearing for Precise Plan 15-07, tentative tract map # 73652, variance no 15-18 — 1920 Pacific Lane, West Covina, CA 91790 The concerned residential community wants detached single-family homes, not condominiums We, the residents who live by 1920 Pacific Lane, West Covina, CA 91790 request that you not approve the variance zone changes for this project. To demolish a well-kept family home and increase to seven (7) condominiums is too dramatic and will drastically change the character of the community. Designs should match the look of surrounding houses, the large front yards and large spaces between the homes. We do not see this project creating a more desirable living environment, which is a key component to West Covina's central vision (preserve and enhance the stable residential areas). Is there really a need for more condominiums since there are plenty on Pacific Avenue (main entrance) that are always for sale or rent? The condominiums that are already up in the vicinity have already caused street parking problems and have been the catalyst to many arguments. There is parking within the condominiums; however, many of the current owners/renters have more than two cars and they end up parking on the neighboring residential streets. Because of this, the east end of Pacific Lane and Orange Ave to Garvey Avenue has become congested with parked cars and has created an apartment living feel. On Tuesdays, street sweeping day, it only gets worse with parking only allowed on La Sena Ave. We do not need more street parking; we need City Council to protect our quality of life. According to the current submitted project development plans, it states there is another condominium complex and commercial buildings in the adjacent area. Please note that the main entrances for the condominium complex and also the commercial buildings are facing Pacific Avenue which is a four lane main street; there are no single family residences In that area, only apartments (Mauna Loa Garden Apartments) across the street. The back of the condominiums and commercial buildings are on Pacific Lane and is separated from the residential community by brick wails, landscape and trees. Pacific Lane is a vital two lane residential road that connects the north side of West Covina to the lower part of the city. Every morning and afternoon the small lane is very busy with work commuters, school buses (two school bus stops are located directed on Pacific Lane), and school children on foot. Construction coming and going on Pacific Lane during the day could end up being a safety hazard for the school children and negatively impact the community's quality of life for years to come. We do not want Condominiums. Our community would have no problem with single family homes that fit it with the other homes. If, after all our concerns, this proposed project is still approved, please look at reducing the number of condominiums so the area does not look overdeveloped. Please consider our community and change the entrance to Pacific Avenue (the same main entrance as the other Tract Map/2015/73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane/PC/NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 6,-(/A31- ( condominium and commercial buildings) with the back of the condominiums on Pacific Lane and the construction crews to come and go on Pacific Avenue. Can this project be done in less than a year? Will there be noise and dust control barriers put around the construction area? Please keep in mind the project development as it is, will impact our residential community, the value of our homes (No one, looking for a single family home wants to live or move close to condominiums'/apartments) and with construction coming and going on Pacific Lane (a small 2 lane residential road) could be a safety hazard for our school children and community. Sincerely, THE CONCERNED RESIDENT COMMUNITY THAT RESIDES NEAR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1920 PACIFIC LANE, WEST COVINA, CA. ) 01,-tt2Akov aAiLL) cR;to -3 J 3 J`k obe-09 (0\c5 _S .)(1 /)/ /A / 2 JOS E 22 1\ ) sLNA WEsT (ovum- rA (1 170 go) c??7,(7z=32. Tract Map/2015/73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane/PC/NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING \ \ 1 \ C--4r----cie.,)e., x d 21-es\n e \ i \ k \\ )opez les1;,e1 1 Jo' — o' (...:m78 ...,,--,--A m (4- I) GiL-"- NU eLopi'? t Akv g-6,3 ci ff„, unTio 0 RootYloti_e eR56 N. IA, Sera na.rrAr-05 ie/-56)//e4Maiq.oly vies -1 co u,rio (-6( o)061( //1/ e 4, sa L L 1/J 5i c;34 (21-. q M. LA Seilok Wes-v Coy k(N(/\ C DcACA- \LAS-6e mo) it , Cori ZSq W. LA `;-er\o Ave \I.). co/Ino botvicia lioD ahoy. Corn •A-06v (1/ r0,_( g ,I 7-- y 7-5f 2 S-61N Ln Ave ie-f eov Pauuti ociluxuei, i C--e/W Gonzalo U(pw-vc,_ -r - ()eon Ocril 230 M i/i4 -14\0e si W:vig ovizou 5po 0 uttinobown Tract Map/2015/73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane/PC/NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Jwc\-cCi iw 2q 1\.1 LA \\Al CA411 c tt ei)2-0_,26,1‘.4 S\ -1A`VO cc-Jsi 1/4 t`,J,4%. A5 ‘, I) 5 ier Z. 2 4a_ 5,-//4. /ft, C ,‘z_6 a.1 G o ca ,9 LA CeNik eiaio Co ciecs iPetfe i-t6 oJo.Aik 0 OR c-, z_ 2_0 q L. A- .c.6.7-ki )4J2L-7-_-___ 3,1,51-36 / (.)„t N4 Lc s.s A.\) (1141 k oh\ tke,GARR.Efinc---0-r Ey C \) r \ C61 e41 Pi c‘ a-3(7 LcL utiEdf-ce3 11-?1/6-v 2, itt 14 Sept& U1/4.5 1 vt ^ha() Co Tract Map/2015/73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane/PC/NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Lt.) Ractoc ,(Avk.c L.(2) co c-0--7ci 2- 7o6 26 NI, 4 H q pacT4'-i-c ovp e)c 1tv20x) 14-e_Adk- U-9 ebv iv /4 (-.6VJ \dvA\N. Pc4:7\-Cc_ ,I2 4 ca 9 nc) tO'01 -2,1--15Lpo' 141 L1 Ne,(F-tc. 1_44 Cp-viwv, cA onol 6 LN S4 (Woo\ 11 6-4 PAciEtt- t-tiv L çcT - c ov iy0-40k1 (/) i n CZ 0 CC( P—e 0 "() c ,),c L,L) c'T C 0 v .6 I cf 9 0 jesclut C Yrcoo /0 vvvoit-Ps Pry e \N ay\ V\ c(Pc n 0 u _IR G-10 itc7 - 1\40 Adoir i et_ •q .IMO‘P I-1 \A)c 'CLI ) CPt iN(ct O IO GAPIti 6\ (?6 \I LV\ V\)4 If.).rtcL Co-voNA (Ark 4\ nv vve) ts&2- Tract Map/2015/73652 1920 W. Pacific Lane/PC/NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING c)a_ce- AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE: June 26. 2018 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-12 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 18-10 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S MODIFICATION NO. 17-29 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Juan Jimenez for Tierra Mia Coffee LOCATION: 2301 S. Azusa Ave. (Woodside Plaza) I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through coffee shop use at an existing drive-through facility and an administrative use permit for outdoor seating. Additionally, the applicant is requesting the approval of a Planning Director's Modification for exterior modifications to the façade of an existing commercial building located at the north-west corner of the "Woodside Plaza" commercial center. Staff is recommending approval of the drive-through coffee shop. ZACase Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC\Tierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master) doex CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018 - Page 2 IL BACKGROUND The subject property currently has a 2,010-square foot drive-through facility that was built in 1982 in the northwest corner of Woodside Plaza adjacent to "The Heights" commercial center. The American fast food restaurant chain known as Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) formerly operated on the property. The restaurant had a drive-through use in conjunction with the fast-food restaurant. KFC's business license has been inactive since August 2015. No businesses have operated on the site since that time. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a conditional use peirnit to allow a drive-through coffee shop use at an existing drive-through facility and an administrative use permit for twenty-four (24) outdoor seats. Additionally, the applicant is requesting the approval of a Planning Director's Modification for exterior modifications to the facade of the existing restaurant building located at the northwest corner of "Woodside Plaza" commercial center. The subject property is located in a "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1) Zone. The existing restaurant building is surrounded by Single Family Residential and Open Space to the north and west of the site and commercial development directly to the east and south of the site. DESCRIPTION "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1); Zoning "Commercial" (C); General Plan North: "Single-Family Residential" (R-1) South: "Service Cornmercial"(S-C); McDonalds East: "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1); Seafood City Super Market West: "Single-Family Residential" PCD-1) Vacant drive-through restaurant structure located on Woodside Plaza Commercial Center; Zoned: "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1) Legal notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, posted at City Hall, the library, and Police Department, and was mailed to 125 owners and occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the subject site. Z:\Case Files\ CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Timm Mia)1PCITierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).docx CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Municipal Code allows drive-through uses with the approval of a conditional use permit. The former drive-through use, Kentucky Fried Chicken, has been inactive for more than six months. Under the Municipal Code, if the said use is inactive for more than six months the entitlement becomes null and an applicant must request an approval for a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through use. Tierra Mia Coffee currently operates thirteen retail locations in California including eleven in Southern California and two in Northern California. Pico Rivera is the closest establishment with a drive-through (See Website at http://www.tierramiacoffee.com ). The Pico Rivera coffee shop has been in operation since March 2012 and was the first to propose a drive-through facility. Much like the 13 in operation, the proposed West Covina location will be privately owned and serve a variety of Latin-inspired coffee beverages, teas, and pastries. The applicant has indicated that the coffee shop will be open 7 days a week. Hours will be for both the drive-through and coffee shop Sunday to Thursday from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (the following day) and Friday to Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. The proposed drive-through facility will consist of one (1) drive-through window on the north elevation of the building. To access the drive-through on site, there are a total of three drive approaches within Woodside Plaza including South Azusa Avenue (two driveway approaches) and Amar Road (one driveway approach). Drive-through Queuing Analysis The facility where the proposed drive-through use (Tierra Mia) will be operating is an existing vacant drive-through facility. The previous tenant, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC,) vacated in August of 2015. The city has no record of any noted obstruction to traffic in the public right of way while KFC was in operation. The drive-through aisle can accommodate stacking of up to 8 vehicles at a time without interfering with on-site circulation. A drive-through queuing analysis provided by V&A Engineering (Attachment 5), indicated that queueing data was conducted and collected at various Tierra Mia Coffee locations in Southern California to gain a better understanding of the business operation and how it may impact the drive-through queueing at the proposed West Covina location. The following Tierra Mia Coffee locations were surveyed: • 11004 Atlantic Avenue, Lynwood, California 90262 • 9220 Slauson Avenue, Pico Rivera, California 90660 • 425 East Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California, 90806 The maximum number of vehicles queued at any one time is 8 to occur at the proposed West Covina location on Saturday evening based on similar trends at other Tierra Mia Coffee locations. During the weekdays, Saturday before 7:30 p.m. and ZACase Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC\Tierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).docx CUP 17-12, ATJP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018- Page 4 Sunday, the maximum average number of vehicles queuing expected at the West Covina location would range between 3 and 5 cars. The proposed drive-through entrance is not close to a major arterial and is located inside the property boundary. From the end of the drive-through to Azusa Avenue accommodates 8 vehicles before interfering with Azusa Avenue. Therefore, approximately 16 vehicles could queue in the drive-through before interfering with traffic on Azusa Avenue. It is also possible for vehicles to queue to the south into the parking lot of the shopping center. The drive aisle access to the site is restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out which greatly reduces accidents and the potential for queueing overflow problems. (Attachment No. 4). Noise Impact Analysis In an effort to manage noise impact analysis in the surrounding land uses, the distance from the edge of the proposed drive-through order menu was measured in conjunction to the nearest property line and structure. The applicant has proposed an order menu board on the north-west corner of the drive-through. Moreover, an upward slope open space area and single family residences abuts the existing drive- through to the north and west of the site. To the north, the edge of the said drive- through order menu is located 168 feet from the nearest residential property line and 178 feet from the nearest residential structure. To the west, the edge of the drive- through order menu is located 182 feet from the nearest residential property line and 216 feet from the nearest residential structure. In addition, these houses are located 50 to 70 feet higher than the subject property. Furthermore, efforts to manage noise impact to abutting land uses to the east and south of the proposed Tierra Mia development were examined. Abutting land use to the east of subject site includes an arterial street, South Azusa Avenue, and commercial developments. Development directly east to subject site, will remain unaffected by any potential noise impact. Abutting land use to the south of subject site includes other Woodside Plaza establishments and Service Commercial (S-C) land use. Development directly to the south will remain unaffected by any potential noise impacts emulating from the proposed Tierra Mia facility. The Municipal Code establishes performance standards for the Planning Commission to determine if there is adequate separation between residences and a drive-through. The Code states that one or more of the following standards should be provided. 1. A minimum distance of fifty (50) feet between the property lines of any residential zone or residential development or other sensitive receptor and the outer perimeter of the drive-through lane(s), outdoor play area, and outdoor seating area shall be maintained. 2. A minimum ten-foot wide landscaped buffer and/or minimum six-foot high noise wall along the property line shall he provided. Said landscape buffer ZACase Files\CUP12017 117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)IPOTierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).docx CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018 - Page 5 shall be landscaped with specimen plant materials and trees appropriate in size and type to create a solid plant screen, subject to the approval of the planning director. 3. Topographic conditions and natural or constructed barriers (e.g. commercial development, streets and highways, etc.), or combination thereof, existing or proposed. Staff believes that all standards are met by the proposal. The minimum distance of (50) fifty feet between the property lines of any residential zone or residential development is met. The closest residential structure is located 216 feet to the west and a distance of 178 to the north. Additionally, there is an existing six (6) foot fence along the property line with mature trees, buffering the drive-through facility and the residential neighborhoods to the north and west of proposed development. In addition, the Code specifies methods to ensure that noise levels do not increase to the detriment of neighboring residential uses. There are eight listed methods to achieve that goal; the Code states that one or more of the methods must be used: 1. All deliveries and exterior building and landscaping maintenance and cleaning activities may be limited as necessary to achieve compatibility with adjacent sensitive land uses. 2. Hours of operation may be limited as necessary to achieve compatibility with adjacent sensitive land uses. 1 The applicant shall provide a noise study prepared by an acoustical engineer indicating that the proposed operation will not increase ambient noise levels by five (5) dba as measured at all property lines abutting residential development and other sensitive receptors. 4. The applicant shall provide the plans and specifications for any potential noise sources (e.g. the speaker system, trash compactor, delivery trucks, etc.). 5. The speaker box shall be oriented away from adjacent residences and other sensitive receptors. 6. A three-foot high wall, hedge, or berm along the outer perimeter of the parking area(s) and drive-through lane(s), except for areas of ingress and egress, shall be provided. The design of this wall, hedge, or berm shall be consistent with the city's safety policies, goals, and objectives. 7. A minimum ten-foot wide landscaped buffer and/or minimum six-foot high noise wall along the property line. Said landscape buffer shall be landscaped with specimen plant materials and trees appropriate in size and type to create a solid plant screen, subject to the approval of the planning director. ZACase Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC\Tierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).docx CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018 - Page 6 8. Topographic conditions, natural or constructed barriers (e.g. commercial development, streets and highways, etc.), or combination thereof, existing or proposed. Staff believes that four of eight strategies ensuring noise levels do not increase to the detriment of neighboring residential uses are met through the following: • The proposed speaker box on site will be oriented away from adjacent residences. (No. 5). • A 168-foot landscape buffer is located between the orientation of the speaker box and the closest residential property line located to the west of the subject site (Nos. 6, 7, 8). The Tierra Mia Coffee shop is an allowed use in the Planned Community Development (PCD-1) Zone and therefore does not require any approval by the Planning Commission for hours of operation. However, a drive-through use requires the approval of a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission has the ability to place conditions on the drive-through hours of operation if the Commissioners have concerns with noise and late-night impacts to neighboring residents. The Municipal Code includes standards for drive-through facilities that generally deal with noise impacts to nearby residential development. The proposed drive- through complies with all requirements of the Code. Administrative Use Permit The applicant is requesting an administrative use permit to allow for outdoor seating within the landscaped area directly adjacent to the entrance of the building. Under the Municipal Code, one parking space is required for every five seats when the area is not covered by a permanent structure. The approval for Tierra Mia's outdoor seating consists of a maximum of 24 outdoor seats. Therefore, total of 5 additional parking spaces are required for outdoor seating. Woodside Plaza commercial center currently provides a total of 320 parking spaces. With the proposed outdoor seating and parking required for the center, a total of 278 parking spaces are required. Therefore a total of 42 surplus parking spaces are available. The applicant is proposing a decorative wrought iron enclosure with a low landscape hedge surrounding the outdoor seating area. Outdoor umbrellas will be provided for additional shading to further enhance the pedestrian outdoor seating experience. ZACase Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC1Tierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).docx CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018 Page 7 Façade Improvement The applicant is proposing exterior facade renovations to facilitate the conversion of the building to a drive-through coffee shop. Façade renovations include new paint, new floor to ceiling windows, decorative horizontal wood panel accents, decorative Spanish style surface tile accents, and goose neck decorative lamps. The proposed exterior renovations provide a unique and aesthetic design. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is a Categorical Exemption Class 1 (Section 15301: Existing Facilities) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) since the project involves only the rehabilitation of an existing structure and existing facilities. V. REQUIRED FINDINGS Findings necessary for the approval of a conditional use permit for drive-through restaurant in a "Regional Commercial" (R-C) zone are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood or community. The proposed drive through use is consistent with the "Commercial" General Plan designation and Zoning designation of a Planned Community Development" (PCD-1.) A "Commercial" zone classifies and sets standards for a regional business center that facilities a variety of services, eating and entertainment facilities, and specialty shops. The site is improved with a 2,010 square foot restaurant and drive-through facility that is proposed to be occupied by Tierra Mia Coffee. The existing building that was constructed in 1982. The subject property is surrounded by "Single Family Residential" (R- 1) uses to the north and west, "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1,) and the Heights, to the east and "Service Commercial" (S-C) to the south. The intent is to create a meeting place for the community and serve customers a high quality product within an atmosphere that is upscale and inviting. Tierra Mia Coffee will provide a service that will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and the community by allowing a drive- through café. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. ZACase Files1CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PCITierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).doex CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26,2018 - Page 8 The proposed drive-through use will occupy an existing facility that was last occupied in 2015 and was built in 1982. The applicant proposes business hours limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday to Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday to Saturday for both drive-through facility and lobby. The site is directly adjacent to the north and west of residential land uses but will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the residing residential uses. The landscape and slope north and west of the site, acts as a barrier between the proposed use and the residential neighborhood that is present. Moreover, the proposed Tierra Mia drive-through facility will not be be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the commercial uses, specifically the "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1) to the east and "Service Commercial" (S-C) land use to the south. Furthermore, there are a total of three vehicle drive approaches that allow access to the shopping center. The drive approaches to the standalone drive-through facility (Tierra Mia) can be accessed from South Azusa Avenue (two driveway approaches) and Amar Road (one driveway approach.) These driveway approaches allow access to and from a six lane principle arterial South Azusa Avenue and Amar Road. The main roadway access to the site is restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out which greatly reduces conflict points and queuing overflow problems. The drive-through use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the surrounding properties. C. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as, all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and any other features necessary to adjust such use with the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible therewith. The site for the proposed drive-through use occupies a 2,010 foot building in with a proposed outdoor seating area of 24 seats. Interior tenant improvements of the existing restaurant for Tierra Mia Coffee shop are being proposed. The site is proposed to be modified by the applicant. The scope of work includes construction of new interior walls for configuration of a kitchen, dining and restroom areas to be included in the total interior area of 2,010 of usable space. Patrons of the drive-through will enter to the east of the building to access the drive-through and exit to the drive approach leading to South Azusa Avenue. There will be one drive-through window located on the north elevation of the building. The site was occupied by a drive-through use that previously operated through 2015. The proposed drive-through use is similar in function and use to the previous occupant. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the drive-through use. d. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed uses and the street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee that such generation will not be channeled through residential areas on local residential streets. Z:1Case Files1CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PCVfietra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).docx CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018- Page 9 The proposed drive-through use is north of Amar Road and west of South Azusa Avenue, two six lane principle arterials. The site contains three drive approaches including two drive approaches from South Azusa Avenue and one driveway approach from Amar Road. Additionally, the main roadway access to the site is restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out which greatly reduces conflict points and queuing overflow problems. The site abuts streets that are adequate to carry the traffic that will be generated by the proposed drive-through use. e. That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. Granting the conditional use permit for the proposed Tiena Mia drive- through use would allow the opportunity for the surrounding community to have access to an upscale coffee specialty restaurant. The proposed drive-through use would not compromise the character of the surrounding neighborhood nor be detrimental to the surrounding land uses. Allowing the proposed use is consistent with the improvements on the site and with the goals and objectives of the current General Plan. The current General Plan states that the City shall arrange land uses with regard to the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the residents of the city. Findings necessary for the approval of an administrative use permit for outdoor dining are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or community. The proposed outdoor seating at this particular site would provide a service and dining possibilities to nearby residents, as well as customers and employees of other nearby businesses, which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or community. The proposed use is in context of the "Planned Community Development" (PCD-l) Zone and is consistent with the surrounding uses. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed plan for outdoor seating will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. ZACase Fi1es\CUP12017117 -12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)IPC\Tierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).docx CUT' 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018 Page 10 c. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as, all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and any other features necessary to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible thereto. The site for the proposed outdoor seating is adequate in size and is shaped to accommodate the use. The subject property is located on a 5-acre parcel. The approval for Tierra Mia's outdoor seating consists of a maximum of 24 outdoor seats for the development. With the proposed outdoor seating and parking required for the center, a total of 28 parking spaces are required. Therefore, a total of 39 surplus parking spaces will be provided. The applicant is proposing a decorative iron rod enclosure confining the outdoor seating. Low standing hedges will surround the decorative iron rod enclosure confining the outdoor seating to provide further soft, comfortable accents. Outdoor umbrellas will be provided for additional shading to further enhance the pedestrian outdoor seating experience. d. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed uses and the street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee that such generation will not be channeled through residential areas on local residential streets. The subject property abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry the traffic generated by the proposed use. The project site is located west of a principle arterial, South Azusa Avenue (six-lane street), and to the south of another principle arterial, Amar Road (six-lane street). The drive approaches to the drive-through facility (Tierra Mia) can be accessed from South Azusa Avenue (two drive approaches) and Amar Road (one drive approach.) The main roadway access to the site is restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out which greatly reduces conflict points and queuing overflow problems. The drive-through use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the surrounding properties. Tierra Mia Coffee Shop abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed use. e. That the granting of such administrative use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. The granting of the administrative use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. The proposed use of a drive-through restaurant and the site design allowing for 24 outdoor seats is consistent with the General Plan of the City. Z:\Case Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)113C1Tierm Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).docx CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018 Page 11 VI. CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use permit to allow a drive- through use in an existing restaurant building with a drive-through and an administrative use permit for outdoor seating. Additionally, the applicant is requesting the approval of a Planning Director's Modification for architectural modifications to the façade of an existing commercial building located at the northwest corner of the "Woodside Plaza." The existing restaurant building was previously occupied by a similar use (Kentucky Fried Chicken) and has been inactive since 2015. Through the conditional use permit, findings were made to determine that the proposed drive-through use would be suitable for the existing site and neighborhood. The findings conclude that the proposed drive through use is consistent with the "Commercial" land use designation in the General Plan, zoning code standards and would not be detrimental to the health and safety of the adjacent land uses and residents. The findings conclude that the existing property is compatible with commercial uses in the vicinity and will result in providing additional dining opportunities in the area. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions approving Conditional Use Permit No. 17-12 and Administrative Use Permit No. 18-10 as well as approve Planning Director's Modification No. 17-29 subject to the following conditions: a. Comply with Study Plan "A" (site plan), dated June 26, 2018. b. Comply with all applicable sections of the West Covina Municipal Code. c. Comply with all requirements of the "Planned Community Development" Zone (PCD-1.) d. The proposal includes painting the existing exterior as indicated on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Paint colors shall be indicated on the construction plans. e. That prior to final building permit approval, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan for the new planter areas shall be submitted. Plans shall include type, size and quantity of landscape materials and irrigation equipment. All vegetation areas shall be automatically irrigated and a detailed watering program and water budget shall be provided. All new and existing planter areas shall include a 3-inch covering of bark mulch. f. All outdoor trash areas shall be screened on all sides from public view by a minimum 5'6" high decorative block wall with a gate constructed of durable ZACase Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC\Tierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).docx CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018 - Page 12 materials and an architectural cover. Provide construction details prior to issuance of a building permit. g. All mechanical equipment not shown on the approved Study Plan shall be screened from all views in a manner that is architecturally compatible with the buildings on which they are mounted. Plans and elevations indicating the type of equipment and method of concealment shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits pursuant to Municipal Code Section 26-568. h. Any new pole mounted parking lot lighting shall be accurately indicated on the site plan and shall be located within landscaped or hardscaped area. Pole locations shall be accurately staked prior to installation by the Engineer. If any changes to the light standards or light levels are proposed, a parking lot lighting plan showing electrolier types and locations, average illumination levels, points of illumination and photometric data in conformance with the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and as requested shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. j. During construction, the delivery of materials and equipment, outdoor operations of equipment, and construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. k. All construction equipment, stationary or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. 1. All construction equipment shall be stored on the project site during the construction phase to eliminate daily heavy-duty truck trips on vicinity roadways. m. The operation of the facility shall comply with the West Covina Noise Ordinance. n. That any proposed change to the approved site plan, floor plan, or elevations be reviewed by the Planning, Building, and Fire Departments, and that the written authorization of the Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation. o. Any new gutters and downspouts shall not project from the vertical surface of the building pursuant to section 26-568 (a) (3). p. The location of new electrical transformers, vaults, antennas, mechanical, and all other equipment not indicated on the approved plans must be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permit. Provide construction details prior to the issuance of a building permit. ZACase Files1CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC\Tierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master)Alocx CUP 17-12, AUP 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26, 2018 Page 13 q. All new on-site utility service lines shall be placed underground. r. This permit is valid for twelve months from the date of approval. If the work is not completed within this period the approval will expire. s. This approval does not include the approval of signs; a separate sign permit shall be obtained. All signs shall be required to comply with the City of West Covina Sign Code. t. The back area of the building shall be clear of trash and debris. u. Building Division Conditions: All Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning Commission shall appear as notes on the plans submitted for building plan check and permits. 2. Building design shall comply with the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) 3. Separate application(s), plan check(s), and permit(s) is/are required for: a. Tenant Improvements b. Signs c. Fire sprinkler/Alarm systems (see Fire Department Prevention Bureau for requirements) d. Plumbing e. Mechanical f. Electrical 4. Complete structural plans with calculations will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 5. Compliance to California T-24 Energy regulations will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. 6. Compliance with the State of California Accessibility regulations is required, including: a. Building entrances shall be provided with an accessible path of travel connecting the building entrances from the public sidewalk, accessible parking, and other buildings or essential facilities located on the site. b. Accessible parking: ZACase Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC1Tierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).doex CUP 17-12, AU? 18-10, PD MOD 17-29 2301 S. Azusa Ave. June 26,2018 - Page 14 i. Shall be located at each main entrance. Where multiple major entrances occur, accessible parking shall be equally distributed among the entrances. ii. Shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep and be provided with a loading and unloading passenger access aisle of 8 feet wide for Van space and 5 feet wide for regular accessible spaces. iii. An accessible entrance and path of travel to each tenant space. v. Engineering Department Conditions: 1. Trash enclosed must have solid cover. 2. Provide safe path or travel from Azusa Avenue. PREPARED BY: Eit,: Jaz, Erick Marroquin Planning Intern REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Jefpliderson, AICP Planning Director Attachments: Attachment 1 — Draft Conditional Use Permit No. 17-12 Resolution of Approval Attachment 2— Draft Administrative Use Permit No. 18-10 Resolution of Approval Attachment 3 — Business Operations Plan Attachment 4— Drive Through Queuing Analysis Attachment 5 — Plans (Available for review by the public at the West Covina Library, West Covina Police Department, and West Covina Planning Department) ZACase Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC\Tierra Mia Draft STAFF REPORT (Master).doex ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-12 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Juan Jimenez for Tierra Mia Coffee Company LOCATION: 2301 S. Azusa Ave. WHEREAS, there was filed with this City a verified application on the forms prescribed by the City requesting approval of a conditional use permit under the provisions of Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, to permit the following use: The project consists of a request for the operation of a drive-through coffee shop within in an existing 2,010-square foot drive-through restaurant building On that certain property described as follows: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8743-023-028, in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, consistent and with this request, the applicant has also requested an Administrative Use Permit to allow outdoor seating in conjunction with a restaurant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upon giving the required notice did, on the 26 th day of June 2018, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a drive- through coffee shop within an existing 2,010-square foot drive-through restaurant building. Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-12 June 26, 2018- Page 2 2. The applicant is requesting an administrative use permit to allow for outdoor seating at 2301 S. Azusa Avenue (South Hills Plaza). The property is located within the "Planned Community Development" (P CD-1) Zone. 3. This administrative use permit application is submitted in conjunction with a request for approval of Planning Director's Modification No. 17-29 to approve the design and allow the exterior remodel of the 2,010-square foot building. 4. Findings necessary for approval of a conditional use permit are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or community. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. c. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as, all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and any other features necessary to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible thereto. d. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed uses and the street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee that such generation will not be channeled through residential areas on local residential streets. e. That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. 5. Pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is considered to be Categorically Exempt (Class 1, Existing Facilities) in that the project involves only the rehabilitation of an existing structure and existing facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina as follows: 1. On the basis of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for approval of a conditional use permit: a. The proposed drive through use is consistent with the "Commercial" General Plan designation and Zoning designation of a Planned Community Development" (PCD-1.) A "Commercial" zone classifies and sets standards for a regional business center that facilities a variety of services, eating and entertainment facilities, and specialty shops. Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No, 17-12 June 26,2018 - Page 3 The site is improved with a 2,010 square foot restaurant and drive-through facility that is proposed to be occupied by Tierra Mia Coffee. The existing building that was constructed in 1982. The subject property is surrounded by "Single Family Residential" (R-1) uses to the north and west, "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1,) and the Heights, to the east and "Service Commercial" (S-C) to the south. The intent is to create a meeting place for the community and serve customers a high quality product within an atmosphere that is upscale and inviting. Tierra Mia Coffee will provide a service that will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and the community by allowing a drive-through café. b. The proposed drive-through use will occupy an existing facility that was last occupied in 2015 and was built in 1982. The applicant proposes business hours limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday to Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday to Saturday for both drive-through facility and lobby. The site is directly adjacent to the north and west of residential land uses but will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the residing residential uses. The landscape and slope north and west of the site, acts as a barrier between the proposed use and the residential neighborhood that is present. Moreover, the proposed Tierra Mia drive-through facility will not be be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the commercial uses, specifically the "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1) to the east and "Service Commercial" (S-C) land use to the south. Furthermore, there are a total of three vehicle drive approaches that allow access to the shopping center. The drive approaches to the standalone drive-through facility (Tierra Mia) can be accessed from South Azusa Avenue (two driveway approaches) and Amar Road (one driveway approach.) These driveway approaches allow access to and from a six lane principle arterial South Azusa Avenue and Amar Road. The main roadway access to the site is restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out which greatly reduces conflict points and queuing overflow problems. The drive-through use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the surrounding properties. c. The site for the proposed drive-through use occupies a 2,010 foot building in with a proposed outdoor seating area of 24 seats. Interior tenant improvements of the existing restaurant for Tierra Mia Coffee shop are being proposed. The site is proposed to be modified by the applicant. The scope of work includes construction of new interior walls for configuration of a kitchen, dining and restroom areas to be included in the total interior area of 2,010 of usable space. Patrons of the drive-through will enter to the east of the building to access the drive-through and exit to the drive approach leading to South Azusa Avenue. There will be one drive-through window located on the north elevation of the building. The site was occupied by a drive-through use that previously operated through 2015. The proposed drive-through use is similar in function and use to the previous occupant. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the drive-through use. d. The proposed drive-through use is north of Amar Road and west of South Azusa Avenue, two six lane principle arterials. The site contains three drive approaches including two drive approaches from South Azusa Avenue and one driveway approach Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-12 June 26, 2018 - Page 4 from Amar Road. Additionally, the main roadway access to the site is restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out which greatly reduces conflict points and queuing overflow problems. The site abuts streets that are adequate to carry the traffic that will be generated by the proposed drive-through use. e. Granting the conditional use permit for the proposed Tierra Mia drive-through use would allow the opportunity for the surrounding community to have access to an upscale coffee specialty restaurant. The proposed drive-through use would not compromise the character of the surrounding neighborhood nor be detrimental to the surrounding land uses. Allowing the proposed use is consistent with the improvements on the site and with the goals and objectives of the current General Plan. The current General Plan states that the City shall arrange land uses with regard to the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the residents of the city. 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Conditional Use Permit No. 17-12 is approved subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code, provided that the physical development of the herein described property shall conform to said plan and the conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly indicated, shall be fully performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the Planning Director, before the use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and the violation of any of which shall be grounds for revocation of said application by the Planning Commission or City Council. 3. That the variance shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the Planning Director, his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this application as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with the processing of this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690. 4. Costs and expenses of enforcement activities, including, but not limited to attorneys' fees, caused by applicant violation of any condition imposed by this approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be paid by applicant. 5. That the approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: a. Comply with the plans approved by the Planning Commission on June 26th, 2018. b. Comply with all requirements of the "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1); Zone and all other applicable standards of the West Covina Municipal Code. c. Commercial deliveries shall not be permitted between the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-12 June 26, 2018- Page 5 d. The drive-through is approved to operate Sunday to Thursday between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (the following day) and Friday to Saturday between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., 7 days a week. e. Queueing shall not interfere with traffic on Azusa Avenue. The applicant will employ personnel to direct or redirect vehicles to queue away from Azusa Avenue and into the shopping center property. f. The site shall be maintained clear and free of trash and debris. Trash receptacles shall be located to the satisfaction of the Planning Director's review and approval. g. In the event that noise issues negatively impact neighboring properties or businesses the Planning Commission shall review the conditional use permit for the use and may, at its discretion, modify or impose new conditions or suspend or revoke the conditional use permit pursuant to Section 26-253 of the West Covina Municipal Code. h. In the event that availability of traffic/circulation is negatively impacted, the Planning Commission shall review the conditional use permit for the use and may, at its discretion, modify or impose new conditions or suspend or revoke the conditional use permit pursuant to Section 26-253 of the West Covina Municipal Code. i. The conditional use permit may be revoked, amended or suspended by the Planning Commission under the provisions of Section 26-253 of the West Covina Municipal Code for appropriate cause. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the working drawings submitted to the Building Division for review. k. The approved use shall be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance (Chapter 15) and Drive-Through Restaurant standards in Chapter 26. I. This conditional use permit approval shall become null and void if building permit is not obtained within one (1) year of the date of this approval. m. The applicant shall sign an affidavit accepting all conditions of this approval. n. That any proposed change to the approved site plan, floor plan or elevations be reviewed by the Planning, Building, Fire and Police Depai tuients and the Redevelopment Agency and that the written authorization of the Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation. 0. Licenses and permits as required by the West Covina Municipal Code shall be obtained prior to the start of the operation of the use for appropriate cause. Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 17-12 June 26, 2018- Page 6 P. The approved use shall not create a public nuisance as defined under Section 15-200 of the West Covina Municipal Code. q. The applicant shall comply with all applicable health and safety codes. r. The operation of the facility shall comply with the West Covina Noise Ordinance. I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 26 th day of June, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: June 26, 2018 EXPIRATION DATE: June 26, 2019 if not used. Jose Jimenez, Chairman Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, AICP, Secretary Planning Commission ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 18-10 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 18-10 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Juan Jimenez for Tierra Mia Coffee Company LOCATION: 2301 S. Azusa Ave. (Woodside Plaza) WHEREAS, there was filed with this City a verified application on forms prescribed by the City, a request for an administrative use permit to allow for outdoor seating on that certain property generally described as: Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8743-023-028, as shown on the latest rolls of the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor; and WHEREAS, consistent with this request, the applicant has also requested a conditional use permit for the operation of a drive-through use in conjunction with the establishment of a coffee shop; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 26th day of June, 2018 conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The applicant is requesting an administrative use permit to allow for outdoor seating at 2301 S. Azusa Avenue (South Hills Plaza). The property is located within the "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1) Zone. 2. This administrative use permit application is submitted in conjunction with a request for approval of Planning Director's Modification No. 17-29 to approve the design and allow the exterior remodel of the 2,010-square foot building. 3. The applicant is also requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a drive-through window in conjunction with the establishment of a drive- through coffee shop. Z:ICase Files\CUP1201711 7-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)IPC\Tierra Mia Draft AUP Resolution.doex Planning Commission Resolution No. Administrative Use Permit No. 18-10 June 26, 2018 - Page 2 4. Appropriate findings for approval of an administrative use permit for outdoor seating are as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or community. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. c. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as, all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and any other features necessary to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible thereto. d. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed uses and the street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee that such generation will not be channeled through residential areas on local residential streets. e. That the granting of such administrative use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. 5. The project is a Categorical Exemption Class 1 (Section 15301: Existing Facilities) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) since the project involves only the rehabilitation of an existing structure and existing facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: 1. On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the Administrative Use Permit No. 18-10 for outdoor seating: a. The proposed outdoor seating at this particular site would provide a service and dining possibilities to nearby residents, as well as customers and employees of other nearby businesses, which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or community. The proposed use is in context of the "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1) Zone and is consistent with the surrounding uses. Z:\Case Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PCITierra Mia Draft AUP Resolution.docx Planning Commission Resolution No. Administrative Use Permit No. 18-10 June 26, 2018 - Page 3 b. The proposed plan for outdoor seating will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. c. The site for the proposed outdoor seating is adequate in size and is shaped to accommodate the use. The subject property is located on a 5-acre parcel. The approval for Tierra Mia's outdoor seating consists of a maximum of 24 outdoor seats for the development. With the proposed outdoor seating and parking required for the center, a total of 28 parking spaces are required. Therefore, a total of 39 surplus parking spaces will be provided. The applicant is proposing a decorative iron rod enclosure confining the outdoor seating. Low standing hedges will surround the decorative iron rod enclosure confining the outdoor seating to provide further soft, comfortable accents. Outdoor umbrellas will be provided for additional shading to further enhance the pedestrian outdoor seating experience. d. The subject property abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry the traffic generated by the proposed use. The project site is located west of a principle arterial, South Azusa Avenue (six-lane street), and to the south of another principle arterial, Amar Road (six-lane street). The drive approaches to the drive-through facility (Tierra Mia) can be accessed from South Azusa Avenue (two drive approaches) and Amar Road (one drive approach.) The main roadway access to the site is restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out which greatly reduces conflict points and queuing overflow problems. The drive-through use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of the surrounding properties. Tierra Mia Coffee Shop abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed use. e. The granting of the administrative use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. The proposed use of a drive-through restaurant and the site design allowing for 24 outdoor seats is consistent with the General Plan of the City. 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Administrative Use Permit No. 18-10 is approved subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code, provided that the physical development of the herein described property shall conform to said plan and the conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly indicated, shall be fully performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the Planning Director, before the use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and the violation of any of which shall be grounds for revocation of said administrative use permit by the Planning Commission or City Council. Z:\Case Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC Vrien .a Mia Draft AUP Resolution.docx Planning Commission Resolution No. Administrative Use Permit No. 18-10 June 26, 2018- Page 4 3. That the administrative use permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the Planning Director, his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this precise plan as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with the processing of this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690. 4. The costs and expenses of any enforcement activities, including, but not limited to attorneys' fees, caused by the applicant's violation of any condition imposed by this approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be paid by the applicant. 5. That the approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: a) Comply with plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2018. b) Comply with all requirements of the "Planned Community Development" (PCD-1) Zone and all other applicable standards of the West Covina Municipal Code, particularly Chapter 26, Article X. c) Any proposed change to the approved study plans or operational plan must first be reviewed by the Planning, Building, Fire, Police, and shall require the written authorization of the Planning Director prior to implementation. d) A total of 24 outdoor seats will be allowed. e) Obtain all required Fire Department, Engineering Division, and Building Division permits. ZACase Files\CUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)\PC\Tierra Mia Draft AUP Resolution.doex Planning Commission Resolution No. Administrative Use Permit No. 18-10 June 26, 2018 Page 5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina at a regular meeting held on the 26 th day of June, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATE: June 26, 2018 EXPIRATION DATE: June 26, 2019 (if not used) Jose Jimenez Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, MCP, Secretary Planning Commission ZACase Files ICUP12017117-12 2301 S. Azusa Ave (Tierra Mia)1PC\Tierra Mia Draft AUP Resolution.doex ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Juan Jimenez Tierra Mia Coffee Company CELL 310 463 2377 Vice President of Retail Development 653 S. Spring Street EMAIL himenez@tmcoffee corn Los Angeles, CA 90014 www.tiorramiacoffee.com Sent Via Email: RGarcia@westcovina.org June 18, 2018 Ron Garcia Senior Planner City of West Covina / Planning Division 1444 West Garvey Ave. West Covina, CA 91790 RE: Hours of Operation -Tierra Mia Coffee Company 2301 S. Azusa Ave., West Covina CA 91792 Dear Ron: In response to your question concerning business hours, the hours of operation for the lobby and the drive-thru lane window will be as follows: • Sunday-Thursday 6:00AM-12:00AM • Friday-Saturday 6:00AM-1:00AM The aforementioned hours of operation mirror the hours of operation of our existing locations with drive- thru lanes. Please do not hesitate to call or email with any questions. Sincerely, Tierra Mia Coffee Company JuaniJirne-nez VP of Retail Development (310) 463-2377 cell About Us 44piLRA 4 'f47 4s, It7 eOFFVa(P For further information please contact: Juan Jimenez Vice President of Retail Development Tel: (310) 463-2377 Email: ilimenez@tmcoffee.conn www.tierramiacoffee.com Tierra Mia Coffee's mission is to provide the highest quality Latin- inspired coffee, beverages, and pastries in a setting that is comfortable, contemporary, and highly reflective of Latin American culture. Tierra Mia Coffee opened its first store in the city of South Gate in March 2008. The company now operates 12 upscale cafés in Southern California and Northern California, with more currently under construction. In addition, the company operates its own coffee roastery and bakery. Tierra Mia Coffee currently employs over 250 individuals as managers, baristas and coffee roasters. The company's goal is to become one of the leading artisanal coffee companies in the United States. It plans to accomplish this by focusing on procuring the absolute highest quality coffee, and offering a retail experience with artisan preparation of coffee that is executed at the highest levels. Lynwood store Lynwood store ',7-1717:40:71777.77: 7:411i Montebello store It ynejor cafi tierrn f);.1a. Montebello store Our Approach Since opening its doors in 2008, Tierra Mia Coffee has grown to 11 locations and established itself as a premier café destination. Tierra Mia Coffee has created a buzz and excitement for its coffee offering through its focus on the following: An Upscale, Unique Latin Café Experience Tierra Mia Coffee has offered its local community an upscale environment that previously did not exist. The company's stores feature high quality finishes including rich woods, leather furniture, and granite counters to create an environment that is contemporary, warm, welcoming, and unique. Furthermore, the friendly staff and festive atmosphere help ensure a rewarding experience every visit. A Superior Culinary Menu Offering Tierra Mia Coffee approaches coffee from a strict culinary standpoint, and views quality as the core of its offering. Tierra Mia Coffee sources its coffee beans directly from farmers and roasts them daily at its roasting facility. Tierra Mia Coffee's expertly trained baristas "hand-craft" all of its coffee beverages, applying highly rigorous standards to result in the best tasting drinks. The company's goal is to offer the absolute finest quality coffee in California and the country. In addition to its core focus on culinary quality, Tierra Mia Coffee's menu integrates inventive and original Latin-inspired signature drinks. The company's most popular drinks include the Mocha Mexicano, Horchata Latte, Coco Loco Latte, Cubano con Leche, Blended Horchata Frappe and Mojito Mint Tea Lemonade. Daily, the company also offers 3-4 black brewed coffees from premier farms in Latin America and around the world. Tierra Mia Coffee's brewed coffee selection is akin to a wine bar or micro-brewery, where a customer selects from a variety of profiles available, and where country origins and coffee plant varietals are celebrated and appreciated. Media Recognition "World class espressos and lovingly brewed coffees." Pulitzer Prize Food Critic Jonathan Gold, LA Weekly "Tierra Mia Coffee continued its sweep of the West Coast with the arrival of its 7th café and first Northern California location. The café specializes in espresso driven twists on classic Latin beverages." San Francisco Magazine "Tierra Mia Coffee's owner hopes to open more shops by surpassing Starbucks on quality and offering Latin-inspired drinks." Cyndia Zwahlen, Los Angeles Times "Tierra Mia Coffee offers a high quality product with Latin flavor." Yolanda Arenales, La Opinion "Tierra Mia Coffee is going to bring fierce competition to industry giant Starbucks and industry giant Coffee Bean." Julio Cesar Ortiz, Univision Channel 34 From 10 BEST COFFEE SHOPS IN LOS ANGELES: "A coffee lover surely would not regret hopping on the freeway on a weekend to try Tierra Mia's third wave take on the Cuban° con Leche and Mexican Mocha." Tien Nguyen, LA WEEKLY Downtown LA • Echo Pork • Highland Park • Long Beach • Son Francisco • Oakland South Gate • Huntington Park • Pico Rivera • Montebello • Lynwood • Santa Fe Springs www.tierramiacoffee.corn Greater Los Angeles Area Stores Bay Area Stores Alameda IslAnd • 4- Alm-ntda 3188 Mission Street • San Francisco, CA 94110 2001 Broadway • Oakland, CA 90612 0.5tA After: Long Beach store Before: Pico Rivera store After: Pico Rivera store Before: Long Beach store Current Store Locations 1202 N. Alvarado Street • Los Angeles, CA 90026 653 S. Spring Street • Los Angeles, CA 90014 4914 Firestone Boulevard • South Gate, CA 90280 6706 Pacific Boulevard • Huntington Park, CA 90255 11700 Telegraph Road • Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 9220 Slauson Avenue • Pico Rivera, CA 90660 11004 Atlantic Ave • Lynwood, CA 90262 5528 Monte Vista Street • Los Angeles, CA 90042 425 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach CA 90813 1416 W Beverly Blvd, Montebello CA 90640 Coming Soon: West Covina, La Habra Downtown LA • Echo Park • Highland Park • Long Beach • San Francisco • Oakland South Gate • Huntington Park • Pico Rivera • Montebello • Lynwood • Santa Fe Springs www.tierramiacoffee.com ATTACHMENT NO. 4 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Juan Jimenez Vice President of Retail Development TIERRA MIA COFFEE COMPANY From: V&A, Inc Date: March 19, 2018 Subject: Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary INTRODUCTION The proposed Tierra Mia Coffee (Project) would be located at 2301 South Azusa Avenue in the City of West Covina, California. The Project would include 2010, square-feet of drive thru Café. A total of 21 parking stalls would be provided on the Project site. The proposed site is currently unoccupied. This technical memorandum will present the summary of drive-thru queuing at various other Tierra Mia Coffee locations in Southern California to gain a better understanding of the business operation and how that might affect the drive-thru queuing at the proposed West Covina location. ABOUT THE PROJECT The proposed Project is located at the northwest corner parcel of Azusa Avenue and Amar Road and is one of the six buildings within the entire parcel. Figure 1 shows the general location of the Project. The 2,010 square-feet drive thru Tierra Mia Coffee site would provide one driveway access along Azusa Avenue which would be restricted to right turn in and right turn out only. The nearest signalized intersection of Azusa Avenue and Manila Way is about 390 feet from the Project. At this location patrons would have full access to visit the Project, however, the access would include an internal circulation through the parking lot before getting to the Project. The proposed Project site plan is illustrated on Figure 2. Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20,2018 Page I 1 Figure 1: Project Location Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page I 2 TIERRI MIA COFFEE 2301 5. JiZUSA AVE., WEST COV A, CA 91792 CENTER UNE' DERVE-IHRU VA (E) DRIVE THRU WINDOW (E) ACCESSIBLE PARKING (E) PARKING (E) ENTRY WAY NEW STOP SON STENCILED ON 1HE FLOOR (E) LANDSCAPE o PAR (E) ORA Thi GRNEWAY (E) AISSIBLE PATH OF TRAWL FROM PARKING ccrpircm) (E) [WRING CENTER UNE 1OF NEW IIENU IMMO \(E) 'LANDSCAPE . NEW. STIR. SIC o siDEou` AzustavE. NORTH Figure 2: Project Site Plan The Project would provide a drive-thru queue that would accommodate about eight (8) cars. Per request from City of West Covina, the drive-thru queuing data was collected at various Tierra Mia Coffee locations in Southern California to gain a better understanding of the business operation and how that might affect the drive-thru queuing at the proposed West Covina location. The details of the data collection and analysis procedures are discussed in the following paragraphs of this technical memorandum. Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page I 3 DATA COLLECTION As part of this Project, City of West Covina has requested the proposed project to provide drive-thru queue data at various Tierra Mia Coffee locations. V&A collected data at the following Tierra Mia Coffee locations in Southern California: • 11004 Atlantic Avenue, Lynwood, California 90262 • 9220 Slauson Avenue, Pico Rivera, California 90660 • 425 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California 90806 The data was collected during the weekdays and weekends, Table 1 provides the summary of data collection by time and date at various Tierra Mia Coffee locations. °cation Day/Date Time 11004 Atlantic Avenue, Lynwood, California 90262 Store Hours: 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM (Sunday through Thursday) 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM (Friday and Saturday) Monday 2/26/2018 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM Wednesday 2/14/2018 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM Saturday 2/17/2018 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM Sunday 2/18/2018 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 9220 Slauson Avenue, Pico Rivera, California 90660 Store Hours: 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM (Sunday through Thursday) 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM (Friday and Saturday) Tuesday 2/13/2018 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Thursday 2/15/2018 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Saturday 2/17/2018 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Sunday 2/18/2018 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 425 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California 90806 Store Hours: 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM (All Days) Tuesday 2/13/2018 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Friday 2/16/2018 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Saturday 2/17/2018 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM 1190 AM to 2:00 PM 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Sunday 2/18/2018 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Table 1: Detailed Data Collection Location Information Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page I 4 For each of those Tierra Mia Coffee locations, V&A collected the queueing information at the drive-thru locations. V&A collected the data using the cameras mounted at strategic locations to capture the actual queues. This method of data collection results in greater accuracy and reliability of the collected data. The data collection included the summary of maximum queue in terms of number of cars broken down by every 15 minutes for the entire duration. Figures 3, 4 and 5 shows the locations of various Tierra Mia Coffee locations where data was collected. Figure 3: Tierra Mia Coffee Location at Lynwood, California Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20,2018 Page I 5 Figure 4: Tierra Mia Coffee Location at Pico Rivera, California EAU 425 E Pacific Coast Hwy, Long Beach, CA Pacific Coast Hwy — Figure 5: Tierra Mia Coffee Location at Long Beach, California Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page I 6 AIM FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Queuing is a major concern at any drive-thru service. Depending on the service rate and vehicle arrival rate, the vehicular queues would sometimes spill and extend beyond the capacity of any drive-thru locations. It is very important to know and understand the length of the queues at drive-thru locations. Typically, at the drive-thru locations, the maximum number of cars in the queue depicts the worst case scenario. Since the arrival rate and service rate fluctuates for any given time periods it is generally a practice to review the maximum queues broken down by every 15 minutes. Based on the data collected, V&A has summarized the maximum queues that occurred at each of the Tierra Mia Coffee locations on various days and time periods. The data is broken down by every 15 minutes. The detailed findings for each of the locations is summarized and discussed in the following paragraphs. Tierra Mia Coffee at Lynwood, California This location can accommodate a maximum of about 8 cars as the drive-thru without spilling over to the street. For this location, the data was collected on Monday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. Table 2 summarizes the maximum queue data for Monday and Wednesday for the entire study periods. Per Table 2, the maximum queue was at or exceeding capacity for the following time periods: • 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM—Monday • 8:45 AM to 9:00 AM — Wednesday • 7:45 PM to 10:00 PM — Wednesday During the times where the queue reached capacity, Tierra Mia Coffee staff would come out to take the drive-thru orders for faster processing. Table 3 summarizes the maximum queue data for Saturday for the entire study period. Per Table 3, the maximum queue was at or exceeding capacity for the following time periods on a Saturday: • 6:15 PM to 6:30 PM • 7:15 PM to 10:00 PM Table 4 summarizes the maximum queue data for Sunday for the entire study period. Per Table 4, the maximum queue was at or exceeding capacity for the following time periods on a Sunday: • 6:00 PM to 7:15 PM • 7:30 PM to 8:00 PM Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page I 7 Maximum Observed Queue (Cars) Monday Wednesday 7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 3 2 7:15 AM to 7:30 AM 3 2 7:30 AM to 7:45 AM 3 2 7:45 AM to 8:00 AM 2 6 8:00 AM to 8:15 AM 3 5 8:15 AM to 8:30 AM 3 6 8:30 AM to 8:45 AM 4 7 8:45 AM to 9:00 AM 4 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 2 1 11:15 AM to 11:30 AM 3 3 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 3 4 11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 1 2 12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 3 2 12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 3 4 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 3 4 12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 3 1 1:00 PM to 1:15 PM 4 2 1:15 PM to 1:30 PM 6 2 1:30 PM to 1:45 PM 4 5 1:45 PM to 2:00 PM 4 2 6:00 PM to 6:15 PM 6 5 6:15 PM to 6:30 PM 2 4 6:30 PM to 6:45 PM 6 3 6:45 PM to 7:00 PM 6 6 7:00 PM to 7:15 PM 5 6 7:15 PM to 7:30 PM 9 7 7:30 PM to 7:45 PM 5 7:45 PM to 8:00 PM 7 9 8:00 PM to 8:15 PM 9 8 8:15 PM to 8:30 PM 10 11 8:30 PM to 8:45 PM 10 10 8:45 PM to 9:00 PM 10 10 9:00 PM to 9:15 PM 9 10 9:15 PM to 9:30 PM 10 9 9:30 PM to 9:45 PM 11 9 9:45 PM to 10:00 PM 9 9 Table 2: Drive-Thru Queue Summary — Monday and Wednesday Tierra Mia Coffee, Lynwood, CA Tierra Mia Coffee —Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20,2018 Page I 8 'Time Maximum Observed Queue (Cars) Saturday 8:00 AM to 8:15 AM 3 8:15 AM to 8:30 AM 4 8:30 AM to 8:45 AM 3 8:45 AM to 9:00 AM 5 9:00 AM to 9:15 AM 2 9:15 AM to 9:30 AM 5 9:30 AM to 9:45 AM 3 9:45 AM to 10:00 AM 4 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 3 11:15 AM to 11:30 AM 4 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 6 11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 6 12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 3 12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 4 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 7 12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 5 1:00 PM to 1:15 PM 5 1:15 PM to 1:30 PM 6 1:30 PM to 1:45 PM 4 1:45 PM to 2:00 PM 5 6:00 PM to 6:15 PM 6:15 PM to 6:30 PM 8 6:30 PM to 6:45 PM 6:45 PM to 7:00 PM 4 7:00 PM to 7:15 PM 7:15 PM to 7:30 PM 8 11 12 9 10 12 9 10 10 10 10 7:30 PM to 7:45 PM 7:45 PM to 8:00 PM 8:00 PM to 8:15 PM 8:15 PM to 8:30 PM 8:30 PM to 8:45 PM 8:45 PM to 9:00 PM 9:00 PM to 9:15 PM 9:15 PM to 9:30 PM 9:30 PM to 9:45 PM 9:45 PM to 10:00 PM Table 3: Drive-Thru Queue Summary — Saturday Tierra Mia Coffee, Lynwood, CA Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page I 9 1111.111,—ne Maximum Observed Queue (Cars) Sunday 9:00 AM to 9:15 AM 5 9:15 AM to 9:30 AM 5 9:30 AM to 9:45 AM 2 9:45 AM to 10:00 AM 6 10:00 AM to 10:15 AM 3 10:15 AM to 10:30 AM 5 10:30 AM to 10:45 AM 4 10:45 AM to 11:00 AM 3 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 5 11:15 AM to 11:30 AM 5 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 6 11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 6 12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 4 12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 6 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 4 12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 6:00 PM to 6:15 PM 11 9 10 9 9 6:15 PM to 6:30 PM 6:30 PM to 6:45 PM 6:45 PM to 7:00 PM 7:00 PM to 7:15 PM 7:15 PM to 7:30 PM 7:30 PM to 7:45 PM 11 11 7:45 PM to 8:00 PM Table 4: Drive-Thru Oueue Summary – Sunday Tierra Mia Coffee, Lynwood, CA Tierra Mia Coffee at Pico Rivera, California This location can accommodate a maximum of about 8 cars as the drive-thru without spilling over to the big shopping center parking lot. For this location, the data was collected on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday. Table 5 summarizes the maximum queue data for Tuesday and Thursday for the entire study periods. Per Table 5, there was no situation on either of the days where drive-thru queue exceeded the capacity causing any spillover problem. Also, at this location, during the times where the platoon of vehicles started to arrive, Tierra Mia Coffee staff would come out to take the drive-thru orders for faster processing and vehicles were serviced quicker. Tierra Mia Coffee – Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page 110 e/1 Table 6 summarizes the maximum queue data for Saturday for the entire study period. Per Table 6, the maximum queue was at or exceeding capacity for the following time periods on a Saturday: • 8:45 PM to 10:00 PM Table 7 summarizes the maximum queue data for Sunday for the entire study period. Per Table 7, the maximum queue was at or exceeding capacity for the following time periods on a Sunday: • 12:45 PM to 1:00 PM • 5:45 PM to 6:00 PM Time Maximum Observed Queue (Cars) Tuesday Thursday 7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 3 3 7:15 AM to 7:30 AM 4 2 7:30 AM to 7:45 AM 4 2 7:45 AM to 8:00 AM 4 3 8:00 AM to 8:15 AM 2 3 8:15 AM to 8:30 AM 4 3 8:30 AM to 8:45 AM 3 5 8:45 AM to 9:00 AM 5 2 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 3 5 11:15 AMto 11:30 AM 4 4 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 1 2 11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 2 3 12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 0 2 12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 2 3 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 1 3 12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 3 2 1:00 PM to 1:15 PM 3 2 1:15 PM to 1:30 PM 4 1 1:30 PM to 1:45 PM 4 2 1:45 PM to 2:00 PM 4 2 8:00 PM to 8:15 PM 5 3 8:15 PM to 8:30 PM 3 3 8:30 PM to 8:45 PM 4 4 8:45 PM to 9:00 PM 4 4 9:00 PM to 9:15 PM 7 4 9:15 PM to 9:30 PM 4 6 9:30 PM to 9:45 PM 5 4 9:45 PM to 10:00 PM 5 2 Table 5: Drive-Thru Queue Summary — Tuesday and Thursday Tierra Mia Coffee, Pico Rivera, CA Tierra Mia Coffee —Driye-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page I 11 Time Maximum Observed Queue (Cars) Saturday 8:00 AM to 8:15 AM 2 8:15 AM to 8:30 AM 2 8:30 AM to 8:45 AM 2 8:45 AM to 9:00 AM 2 9:00 AM to 9:15 AM 4 9:15 AM to 9:30 AM 5 9:30 AM to 9:45 AM 6 9:45 AM to 10:00 AM 4 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 4 11:15 AM to 1130 AM 4 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 3 1145 AM to 12:00 PM 2 12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 4 12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 6 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 4 1245 PM to 1:00 PM 3 1:00 PM to 1:15 PM 7 1:15 PM to 1:30 PM 7 1:30 PM to 1:45 PM 4 1:45 PM to 100 PM 4 8:00 PM to 8:15 PM 6 8:15 PM to 8:30 PM 7 8:30 PM to 8:45 PM 8:45 PM to 9:00 PM 8 10 9 8 8 9:00 PM to 9:15 PM 9:15 PM to 9:30 PM 9:30 PM to 9:45 PM 9:45 PM to 10:00 PM Table 6: Drive-Thru Oueue Summary — Saturday Tierra Mia Coffee, Pico Rivera, CA Tierra Mia Coffee —Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20,2018 Page 112 Time Maximum Observed Queue (Cars) Sunday 9:00 AM to 9:15 AM 9:15 AM to 9:30 AM 4 9:30 AM to 9:45 AM 3 9A5 AM to 10:00 AM 3 10:00 AM to 10:15 AM 3 10:15 AM to 10:30 AM 6 10:30 AM to 10:45 AM 6 10:45 AM to 11:00 AM 4 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 7 _ 11. . 15 AM to 1130 AM 4 I 1 :30 AM to 11:45 AM 3 11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 6 12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 3 12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 5 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 8 4:00 PM to 4:15 PM 4:15 PM to 4:30 PM 5 4:30 PM to 4:45 PM 7 4:45 PM to 5:00 PM 7 5:00 PM to 5:15 PM 6 5:15 PM to 5:30 PM 4 5:30 PM to 5:45 PM 5:45 PM to 6:00 PM Table 7: Drive-Thru Oueue Summary — Sunday Tierra Mia Coffee, Pico Rivera, CA Tierra Min Coffee at Long Beach, Cahfornia This location can accommodate a maximum of about 8 cars as the drive-thru without spilling over to the outside boundary of drive-tlum footprint within the property. For this location, the data was collected on Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Table 8 summarizes the maximum queue data for Tuesday and Friday for the entire study periods. Per Table 8, there was no situation on either of the days where drive-thru queue exceeded the capacity causing any spillover problem. Table 9 summarizes the maximum queue data for Saturday for the entire study period. Per Table 9, the maximum queue was at or exceeding capacity for the following time periods on a Saturday: • 9:00 PM to 9:45 PM Tierra Mia Coffee —Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page 113 A L Table 10 summarizes the maximum queue data for Sunday for the entire study period. Per Table 10, there was no situation on Sunday where drive-thru queue exceeded the capacity causing any spillover problem. NMI; Time Maximum Observed Queue (Cars) Tuesday Friday 7:00 AM to 7:15 AM 2 3 7:15 AM to 7:30 AM 2 2 7:30 AM to 7:45 AM 3 3 7:45 AM to 8:00 AM 2 3 8:00 AM to 8:15 AM 6 4 8:15 AM to 8:30 AM 5 4 8:30 AM to 8:45 AM 6 5 8:45 AM to 9:00 AM 3 3 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 3 4 11:15 AMto 11:30 AM 2 3 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 5 3 11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 3 4 12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 4 5 12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 5 4 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 2 4 12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 4 4 1:00 PM to 1:15 PM 4 4 1:15 PM to 1:30 PM 4 5 1:30 PM to 1:45 PM 5 3 1:45 PM to 2:00 PM 3 3 8:00 PM to 8:15 PM 4 4 8:15 PM to 8:30 PM 5 3 8:30 PM to 8:45 PM 4 3 8:45 PM to 9:00 PM 4 3 9:00 PM to 9:15 PM 5 5 9:15 PM to 9:30 PM 4 5 9:30 PM to 9:45 PM 3 4 9:45 PM to 10:00 PM 4 4 Table 8: Drive-Thru Queue Summary — Tuesday and Friday Tierra Mia Coffee, Long Beach, CA Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page 114 Time Maximum Observed Queue (Cars) Saturday 8:00 AM to 8:15 A/VI 4 8:15 AM to 8:30 AM 4 830 AM to 8:45 AM 4 8:45 AM to 9:00 AM 4 9:00 AM to 9:15 AM 3 9:15 AM to 9:30 AM 4 9:30 AM to 9:45 AM 5 9:45 AM to 10:00 AM 3 11:00 AMto 11:15 AM 3 11:15 AM to 11:30 AM 3 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 4 11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 4 12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 5 12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 3 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 3 12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 4 1:00 PM to 1:15 PM 4 1:15 PM to 1:30 PM 3 1:30 PM to 1:45 PM 4 1:45 PM to 2:00 PM 3 8:00 PM to 8:15 PM 5 8:15 PM to 8:30 PM 4 8:30 PM to 8:45 PM 5 8:45 PM to 9:00 PM 9:00 PM to 9:15 PM 9 10 9 9:15 PM to 9:30 PM 9:30 PM to 9:45 PM 9:45 PM to 10:00 PM Table 9: Drive-Thru Queue Summary — Saturday Tierra Mia Coffee, Long Beach, CA Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page 115 — Time Maximum Observed Queue (Cars) Sunday 9:00 AM to 9:15 AM 5 9:15 AM to 9:30 AM 5 9:30 AM to 9:45 AM 4 9:45 AM to 10:00 AM 4 10:00 AM to 10:15 AM 6 10:15 AM to 10:30 AM 4 10:30 AM to 10:45 AM 3 10:45 AM to 11:00 AM 4 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 4 11:15 AM to 11:30 AM 5 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 3 11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 3 12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 4 12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 5 12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 4 12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 3 4:00 PM to 4:15 PM 5 4:15 PM to 4:30 PM 5 4:30 PM to 4:45 PM 6 4:45 PM to 5:00 PM 4 5:00 PM to 5:15 PM 4 5:15 PM to 5:30 PM 5 5:30 PM to 5:45 PM 6 5:45 PM to 6:00 PM 5 Table 10: Drive-Thru Queue Summary – Sunday Tierra Mia Coffee, Long Beach, CA ANTICIPATED QUEUING AT WEST COVINA LOCATION Based on the observations made at other Tierra Mia Coffee locations, the only similar pattern where the demand was high was on a Saturday across all the stores after 7:30 PM. It is anticipated that the proposed location would also have a similar peak on a Saturday with a maximum of about 8 cars queuing along the drive-thru. The drive-thru is forecasted to be at capacity (at about 8 cars) only during Saturday after 7:30 PM based on the similar trends. Taking into consideration the overall demographics, demand and operations at other Tierra Mia Coffee locations, during the weekdays, Saturday before 7:30 PM and Sunday, the maximum average queue expected at the West Covina drive-thru location would range between 3 and 5 cars. Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page 116 CONCLUSIONS Based on the drive-thru queueing data at various Tierra Mia Coffee locations, the following provides a summary and conclusion: • Tierra Mia Coffee locations have been operating successfully with customer demands continuing to expand and hugely popular within the Hispanic community. • The existing locations are within areas with higher Hispanic population. • The existing locations see a surge of demand during the evening peak periods with drive-thru lanes operating at or above capacity. • With an increase in vehicular demand, Tierra Mia Coffee staff are ready to assist the patrons to process the drive-thru lanes at an even faster rate which was clearly evident during the data collection efforts. • Based on the observations, the drive-thru queueing did not have any adverse to overall traffic circulation in and around the subject properties. • The proposed location at West Covina has a similar percentage of Hispanic population compared to Long Beach location but a lot fewer households. • The proposed drive-thru would accommodate about 8 cars in the queue which is similar to the other locations surveyed. • The maximum queue reaching a capacity of 8 cars is anticipated to occur at the proposed West Covina location only on Saturdays Nights based on the similar trends at other Tierra Mia Coffee locations. • During the weekdays, Saturday before 7:30 PM and Sunday, the maximum average queue expected at the West Covina drive-thru location would range between 3 and 5 cars. • The proposed drive-thru entrance is not close to a major arterial and is located way inside the property boundary. • The main roadway access to the site is restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out which greatly reduces conflict points and queuing overflow problems. • If the proposed drive-thru entrance were ever to reach capacity, the Tierra Mia Coffee staff would be assisting the patrons for a faster service rate and thereby having less impacts to the queuing issues. • If the proposed drive-thru entrance were ever to reach capacity, the spill over of traffic would occur within the property and never spill over to the street due the site plan configuration. Tierra Mia Coffee — Drive-thru Queueing Summary March 20, 2018 Page 117 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE June 26, 2018 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 17-02 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide I. SUMMARY The proposal is to amend the Downtown Plan and Code portion of the West Covina Municipal Code. II. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted the Downtown Plan in conjunction with the General Plan on December 20, 2016. The Downtown Plan is a form-based code which regulates development in the Downtown (formerly central business district) area. The Downtown Plan was created during the General Plan update and multiple study sessions were held with the Planning Commission and City Council to review the standards. At the time of adoption, there was an expectation that modifications might be necessary after the first year to address any issues that were not foreseen when the Downtown Plan was reviewed and adopted. The Downtown Plan was adopted as Article XV in Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code. Since the adoption of the Downtown Plan, staff has utilized the Downtown Plan in responding to questions at the counter and on the phone as well as for review of two development applications. Staff has made notations of issues as they were discovered. Staff has worked with two applicants on projects including a hospital and a multi-family housing project. In both cases, questions about the standards were forthcoming from the applicants. On November 28, 2017, the Planning Commission initiated Code Amendment No. 17-02 to consider changes to the Downtown Plan. Noticing for the code amendment public hearing was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on June 14, 2018. City Council requested noticing of property and business owners within the Downtown Plan area. Notices were therefore mailed to 562 property and business owners on June 14,2018. P:Case Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan\PC I Staff Report.doc Code Amendment No, 17-02 Downtown Plan June 26, 2018 - Page 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The Planning Commission held study sessions on January 23 and February 27, 2018. At the study sessions, staff presented issues with the Downtown Plan that had been noted since its adoption and provided options to the Commission. Based on the study sessions the following changes have been prepared to the Downtown Code. 1. Nonconforming expiration time of 2 years. Change the expiration term from 2 years to 1 year as drive-through uses are an allowed use in the Downtown Plan. Other areas of the City are 6 months. 2. Outdoor Dining approval process. The Downtown Plan currently is inconsistent requiring an Administrative Review in one section and a Minor Modification in another. Amend the Downtown Code to require the approval of an Administrative Review as the process is less costly and faster to process. 3. Hospital building height allowance. The Downtown Plan limits the height of buildings to 40 feet (3 stories) in the General Urban designation, which includes most of the periphery areas. The revision would the allow height for hospitals to 58 feet and up to 3 stories to encourage the development of hospital facilities. 4. Building height within 100 feet of single family properties. Currently the Downtown Plan limits heights to 35 feet within 100 feet of single family properties. The proposal would change the allowed height when adjacent to single-family houses to 25 feet within 50 of a single-family property and 35 feet within 100 feet of a single-family property. 5. Zoning designations and allowed building types. The Downtown Plan is inconsistent in the Building Types allowed in the Urban Center and General Urban Zones. The list of Building Types has been revised to include all building types on the lists provided in the Downtown Plan to provide greater flexibility. 6. Downtown Plan parking requirement application. The Downtown Plan includes a parking requirement for 0.65 of cumulative parking standards from the Municipal Code for non-residential uses. The Code would be modified to allow the 0.65 parking requirement only to new development that complies with the Downtown standards. For existing buildings and uses, the parking requirement would continue to be calculated by the Municipal Code. 7. Minor modification permits. The Planning Director's Modification process has been eliminated from the Municipal Code and replaced with Minor Modification and Minor Site Plan Review. The Downtown Code includes The Minor Site Plan Review process but Minor Modification will be added. 8. Standards for Special Exceptions. A Special Exceptions process is included to allow deviations from standards for projects that provide special amenities, design details or PACase Files\CODE AMEND12017 117-02 Downtown Plan\PC\Staff Report.doe Code Amendment No. 17-02 Downtown Plan June 26, 2018 - Page 3 aesthetic benefits to the community. Notification requirements were not included in the Downtown Code. The revised Code would require notification the same as a Precise Plan (newspaper publication and 300-foot mailing radius). 9. Add standards for Blade Signs. The current signs standards in the Municipal Code have been developed to address suburban development. In urban development, freestanding signs become less likely and sign sizes are generally smaller as they are mostly viewed from proximity, at a pedestrian scale, and at slow vehicle speeds. Given that the Downtown area has two existing blade signs (the theater and commercial building to the north) it was determined that blade signs should be allowed in the Downtown Code. The proposed Code would allow Blade signs that can extend 8 feet from the building wall, project 1.2 times the building height (to a maximum of 10 feet, and can use up to one- half of the allowable sign area on the primary frontage. 10. Parking requirements for properties on the east side of Glendora Avenue. The parking for Glendora Shops has generally been provided in the City-owned parking lot with limited parking on the properties adjacent to the alley to the east. The lots along that corridor are minimal and do not allow for parking structures due to size and depth. The lots range from 2,760 to 18,000 square feet. Because the lots are too small to provide required parking and because the properties were developed utilizing the City-owned parking lot it would be unlikely that the lots could supply the required parking in the case of new development. As part of the Glendora Redesign project, the consultant (Kreuzer Consulting Group) completed a parking study for Glendora Avenue on August 1, 2016. The study indicates that there is a total of 997 parking spaces available along Glendora Avenue (street, alley, City-owned parking structure and surface lot). Actual parking counts were taken on a Thursday midday and evening (7/7/16), Saturday night (7/9/16) and Sunday afternoon (7/10/16). Based on those counts, the parking spaces were currently utilized between 25% and 36% of available capacity. The draft Code Amendment would allow all commercial uses (including retail and restaurant) to occupy tenant spaces in the Glendora Shops area with no increase in parking requirements. It would allow for medical uses of 2,500 square feet or smaller to occupy tenant spaces, but medical uses over 2,500 square feet would require a conditional use permit. While there is adequate parking to meet demand currently, successful uses could increase the parking demand, so it will be important for the City to monitor parking in the area and adjust parking requirements or supply accordingly. 11. List of Permitted Uses. The list of permitted uses was discussed at study sessions by the Planning Commission and City Council when the Downtown Plan was adopted. At the City Council hearing to adopt the General Plan and Downtown Plan, the list of permitted uses was modified to allow drive-through uses. After the second study session of the Planning Commission on February 28, 2017, staff has been preparing the draft code amendment. During that preparation, staff noted two P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan\PCIStaffReport.doe Code Amendment No, 17-02 Downtown Plan June 26,2018 - Page 4 additional issues that should be addressed in the Downtown Code. Ordinarily we would include discussion on these types of issues in a study session. However, given the desire to complete this amendment, it was decided to go ahead with the hearing. The Commission could continue the hearing to allow for further discussion if you choose. The following recommended changes in the draft ordinance were not discussed in the study sessions. 12. Perimeter Wall and Fence Height. The Downtown Plan does have standards for site walls and does allow solid walls of 3 to 8 feet for screening unsightly areas like trash and mechanical equipment. The Code does not include any standards for the height of perimeter walls and fences. The MF (Multi-Family) and Nonresidential sections of the Municipal Code require a 6-foot wall abutting single-family zones. Staff is recommending that the Downtown Plan include a standard that requires a 6 to 8-foot wall along the perimeter of a property that abuts a single-family development. This would allow some discretion for neighboring property owners, the developer and the City on the height of walls near single-family residential neighborhoods. 13. Gutters and Downspouts. The Municipal Code includes a standard that states the following for Nonresidential zones. Gutters and downspouts are not to project from the vertical surface of a building. This standard requires that rooftop drainage be designed to be internal in commercial and industrial buildings within the City. This standard requires a higher quality architecture. This standard has been in effect for decades in the City with little or no difficulties expressed by developers. There is no such standard in the MF zones, so that that standard has not been applied to multifamily buildings. Based on staff research, it is not the norm to for that requirement to be placed on multifamily buildings. Staff is recommending the following addition to the Downtown Code. Gutters and downspouts are not to project from the vertical surface of a building. A mixed-use residential or residential building may propose exterior gutters and downspouts if they are architecturally consistent and incorporated with the architectural style of the development. Exterior gutters and downspouts shall be reviewed by the Town Design Advisor and approved by the Planning Commission as part of the precise plan. These amendments have been dratted into an amended Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan is different than most Zoning sections as it is under separate cover. In addition, it is a graphic document that uses photos and images to provide the vision and guide development. The entire Downtown Plan document will be revised at the conclusion of the code amendment process. PACase Files\CODE AMEND12017 117-02 Downtown Plan\PC\Staff Report.doc Code Amendment No. 17-02 Downtown Plan June 26, 2018 - Page 5 IV. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment has been drafted and the code text is attached to the resolution for your review (Attachment No. 1). If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment, the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider adopting the proposed amendments. V. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed code amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 17-02 to the City Council. JeVAVderson, AICP Planning Director Attachments: Attachment No. 1 — Code Amendment Resolution Attachment No. 2 — Planning Commission Minutes, February 27, 2018 Attachment No. 3 — Planning Commission Staff Report, Study Session, February 27, 2018 Attachment No. 4— Planning Commission Study Session Table, February 27, 2018 Attachment No. 5 — Planning Commission Minutes, January 23, 2018 Attachment No. 6— Planning Commission Staff Report, Study Session, January 23, 2018 Attachment No. 7 — Planning Commission Study Session Table, January 23, 2018 Attachment No. 8 — Index of Changes to the Downtown Plan and Code PACase Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan\PC\Staff Rep ort.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AND CODE Section 1. Findings. The Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The Downtown Plan was adopted on December 20, 2016 as the first form-based code utilized in the City of West Covina. The Downtown Plan is Article XV of the West Covina Municipal Code. B. The Downtown Plan was adopted to encourage urban development and provide clear direction to the development community. C. Based on utilization of the Downtown Plan since December of 2016, there are standards that should be evaluated for consistency and ease of use by the general public. D. On the 28 th day of November 2017, the Planning Commission initiated a code amendment related to revisions to the Downtown Plan; and E. The Planning Commission held study sessions on the 23ni day of January 2018 and on the 27th day of February 2018; and F. The Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 26 th day of June 2018, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and Section 2. Resolution. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, and thereafter adopt the ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A. PACase Files1CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan \PC\Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Zone Change No, 17-02 June 26, 2018 I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 26 th day of June 2018, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DATE: June 26, 2018 Jose Jimenez, Chaiifflan Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, Secretary Planning Director P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan\PC\Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Zone Change No. 17-02 June 26, 2018 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AND CODE SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A. The Downtown Plan was adopted on December 20, 2016 as the first form-based code utilized in the City of West Covina. The Downtown Plan is Article XV of the West Covina Municipal Code. B. The Downtown Plan was adopted to encourage urban development and provide clear direction to the development community. C. Based on utilization of the Downtown Plan since December 2016, there are standards that should be evaluated for consistency and ease of use by the general public. D. On the 28th day of November 2017, the Planning Commission initiated a code amendment related to revisions to the Downtown Plan; and E. The Planning Commission held study sessions on the 23r d day of January 2018 and on the 27th day of February 2018; and F. The Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 26 th day of June 2018, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendments. The City Council hereby amends the following sections of Chapter 26 of the municipal code as follows: P:\Case Filcs\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan1PC1Resolution.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Zone Change No. 17-02 June 26, 2018 Article XV — DOWNTOWN PLAN P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND1201 7117-02 Downtown Plan\PCIResolution,doc 1.2C.3 Nonconforming Uses A nonconforming use, including any uses incidental thereto, may not continue, if ceased for a period longer than one year. 1.2C.4 Nonconforming as to Parking All uses that are nonconforming as to the off-street parking requirements of this plan shall comply with the following: a Repair of buildings: Where the off-street parking provided for a use does not meet the requirements of this plan, repair of any buildings on the site occupied by that use may be carried out, provided that, no structural alterations may be carried out unless the building official determines those structural alterations to be necessary for the protection of the public health and safety. If structural alterations are carried out which are not determined by the building official to be necessary for the protection of the public health or safety, all off-street parking requirements of this plan must be met by any and all uses occupying, or otherwise using, any buildings on the subject site. Additions to building: Where the off-street parking provided for a use does not meet the requirements of this Downtown Code, additions to buildings on the site occupied by that use may be carried out only if all requirements of this Downtown Code are met by any and all uses occupying, or otherwise using, any buildings on the subject site Vacancy: In addition to the above provisions regarding discontinuance of nonconforming uses and change of a nonconforming use to a conforming use, where any non-residential use does not meet the off-street parking requirements of this plan, and the building which the non-residential use occupies becomes and remains vacant for an uninterrupted period of 1 year, the building may not be reoccupied, nor may any new land use be initiated anywhere on the site, unless all requirements of Downtown Code are met. 1.2C3 Abatement of Nonconforming Uses Where no buildings are occupied or otherwise used in connection with a nonconforming use, that use shall be terminated within one year from the date it became nonconforming, provided that for any use that becomes nonconforming as a result of a zone change, the specified one-year period of time for the termination of the nonconforming use shall be computed from the effective date of the zone change. Part 4, Section 1: Purpose and Applicability 41 Section 2 Zones and Regulating Plan 2.1 Zoning Districts and Overlays 2.1A Purpose and Establishment of Zoning Districts and Overlays This section esta blishesthezoningd istrictsand overtaysto mplementthe Downtown Plan forproperty and rights-of-way within the Downtown Code boundaries. Property and rights-of-way subject to the Downtown Code shall be divided into the following zones and overlays, which shall be applied to all property as shown on Figure 4.2.2. 2.1B Zoning Districts and Overlays The following zoning districts and overlays are established and applied to property within the boundaries of the Downtown Code. Refer to Table 4.2.1 for the intent and descriptions of the zoning districts and section 2.2A2 for descriptions of the overlays: • T-5 Urban Center Zone • T4 General Urban Zone • T4 Urban Neighborhood Zone • Civic Zone • Shopfront Overlay 2.2 Regulating Plan 2.2A Purpose and Establishment of Regulating Plan This section establishes the regulating plan, Figure 4.2,2, as the map that identifies and implements the various intentions and principles of the Downtown Plan. Figure 4.2.2 defines the zoning districts, overlays and standards for site development, design and land use through the following: 1 Zoning Districts. Each zoning district is allocated standards in the following areas: a. Building Placement b. Allowed Building Types c. Allowed Frontage Types d. Building Height and Size e. Allowed encroachments into required yards f. Parking Placement and Site Access g. Required Parking h. Allowed Land Uses i. Allowed Signage Types j. Allowed Street Types 2 Shopfront Frontage Overlay. This overlay is intended to accommodate ground-floor activity along streets, such that, from the perspective of a pedestrian, the streetscape is active and pedestrian-oriented. Commercial, retail, and residential uses are encouraged in this zone. All buildings in this overlay zone must meet the minimum floor-to-ceiling height requirements of Section 4.2. (See page 51). Building frontage must comply with the Shopfront Frontage requirements of Section 6.2.F (See Page 72). 3 Regulating Plan Diagram. Each zoning district and overlay established by the Downtown Code is identified on Figure 4.2.2 to show the boundaries of each zoning district and overlay as well as the parcels within each boundary. Figure 4.2.2 is established as the zoning atlas for all property within the Downtown Code boundaries. Part 4, Section 2: Zones 8c Regulating Plan 43 Legend MI Civic Zone Parks and Open Space T-t1 General Urban Zone T-4 Urban Neighborhood Zone 1111 1-5 Urban Center Zone Shopfront Overlay Figure 4.2.2: Regulating Plan 44 West Covina Downtown Plan & Code 01 0.2 III II 0.4 Miles I Part 4, Section 2: Zones & Regulating Plan 45 T5-UC Retail Stores and shops engaged in the sale of goods and merchandise .A1668.ttifi4ile(tee art, XII, div, 15) Alcohol off-sate, instructional tasting I:11:00011.10998R:(acces IOY) Postal Servi I .1r, Me I CUP CUP Restaurants (preparn and sell. food and beverages) :• • • Accessory use with solo musician . . . • . Karaoke (accessory) OUtdobt :eatIngarea Residua nt with alcohol :IRestaurant with dancing , restaurant with live entertainment, craft brewery iincludIng.retail sales), craft winery (including retail sales), wine bars 1.100 retail 4§1Cs), craft brewery or wie0), and Wine bar with Live entertain merit Bar • Solo musician Personal Services A140.1."0004*lerMaCtlines Mktip).otto".::pra:trases.:af 4 ..ittAnci01:10StiMiqv CUP CUP CUP AR AR CUP a :OS ‘.17ir.gs s:a 3.1 Land Use Standards 3.1A Permitted Land Uses This section of the Downtown Code establishes the permitted land uses in each zone and the corresponding permit requirements. A parcel or building subject to the Downtown Code shall be occupied with only the land uses allowed by Table 4.3.1. Definitions of allowed land uses are pro- vided in Section 13.0. If a land use is not defined in this section the Director may determine that the use is not permitted, or determine the appropriate definition and determine the proposed use to be permitted provided the Director makes the following findings in writing: 1 The land use will not impair the orderly implementation of the West Covina General Plan and Downtown Vision in Part 2. 2 The land use is consistent with the purpose of the applicable zoning district. 3 The characteristics and activities associated with the proposed land use are similar to one or more of the listed land uses in Table 4.3.1, and will not produce greater impacts than the land uses listed for the zoning district. 4 The land use will be compatible with the other land uses allowed in the zoning district. 5 The (and use is not listed as allowed in another zoning district. Table 4.3. 1: Permitted Land Uses Part 4, Section 3: Land Use Standards 47 AUP AU P X CUP X IF. CUP 1E; Barber and beauty shops with accessory permanent make-up use and/or accessory massage Barbe beauty and jewelry eborik with accessory body piercing use Massage Parlor (Primary Use) (see art. X1E, div. 17) Jetteeing (see art: XII, A) with. acteSsoty permanent Makeup .)11()/(jr body piercing use tutoring facility Medical Services „„. Medical Services (2,500 J: M0401$0Pilic.:OZ:0119ie tlit001:2;00'4ifh I losp itat :-Meritat:InStittititia .and sable-01.0MS, Veterinary hospital -Office Professional Inclnding professional Offices, corminerriallart .anddki0i, counseling services scientific and reSearch organizations rrp.se.-irch arid de oprnOtit;media.:p:OstprodEkiction, arid news services, . • Commercial radio or tel JiiLtl (dboii Incubator (ollice use). Incubator (business startup ir;r1iirlin,7,1-.11-rhr BOOk/Flitonoat services : : : Automated teller machines (walk-up) or Lire premises of a financial oiiPjrior . lo:dging.S.etVices General Services Adult care facility, day rare center instit:COMotphlWOroplc nature Mortuary c000)401006.1% Transportation, nftootuttD re Wireless telecommunication facilities —building and/or roof-mounted facili- ties (see art. XII, div. 16) Monopoles and alternative antenna support structures see art XII, div, 16) Auto Related Parking facility, public or private Auto Service Statibn Civic (Recreation, Educatiini, Public Assembly, Artisan) Art Lounges or Theaters with On Sale Alcohol Athletic club/gymnasium (section 26-685.20), religious facility, public utility stations, wells and similar facilities, recreational Centers (private), schools and colleges, professional, business & trade School. ' Billiard parlor and pool hall alley, convention hall, game arcade, theater (not open air), trade fThov.r, pxnibit building, indoor iecreation fir lily (see art Xli div 15) Schools (dancing, martial arts, music, art and similar art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. - Residential Conversions from J.[ ,,Hr[I , t,, senior ( rt zoo Hoi Skilled nursing faciUtyand assisted Ii Vin•facllity Home occupation : LiVehAlCirk:(seel3oliding.Standards, 40001,5.2D) UC Urban center Zone P Permitted use CUP Conditional use Permit GU General urban Zone AR Administrative Review X Use not allowed UN Urban Neighborhood Zone AUP Administrative Use Permit ABP Adult-oriented Business Permit 48 West Covina Downtown Man & Code 14) Donation drop boxes (attended), Small collection facilities, Reverse vending machines (See art, XII, div..14) Recycling centers. Reverse vending machine(s) located withan or under the - Others DiliveOrilugh:servim:associated:Witit retail, restaurant:And ha it permitted On lots loith frontage on Glendora Avenue) Adult-oriented businesses Trailers, (temporary only) in conjunction:Wth a ,ChOok, hospitalln.ifci, or :'!90.411".:07:140ririg100,90,1::9.0.0,(0tp:er.Tftled witt.1%0.070.F.0.1.::±Ans) Farmers markets, certified 1:::(41:KlObrtomrininity:Rventi: UC Urban Center Zone Permitted use CUP Conditional Use Permit GD General Urban zone AR Administrative Review X Use not allowed UN Urban Neighborhood Zone AUP Administrative Use Permit ABP Adult-oriented Business Permit Part 4, Section 3: Land Use Standards 49 Development standards are aimed at generating the individual buildings on a block that collectively with other buildings will shape the form of the public realm. The standards shape and situate buildings based on their physical char- acteristics and compatibility with the context. The successful fit of a new project into an existing context depends on how it relates to neighboring buildings to its side and rear in terms of setbacks, height, massing, scale, and arrangement of shared and private open spaces. For each zone identified on the regulating plan, setback, height, lot size, and parking requirement associated with permitted building and frontage types are called out. These standards come together to define the distinctive character and intensity of a particular zone. Architectural features such as porches, stoops, bay windows, balconies and cornices are allowed to project into the setback area. In downtown area, balconies, cornices, awnings, stands selling magazines, fruits, vegetables, or flowers may project into the public right-of-way, subject to encroachment permit. Such encroachments animate street life. Encroachments should not affect pedestrian movement and maintenance of utilities. The basis of the standards is the synoptic survey and community vision to create a specific place. 50 West Covina Downtown Plan & Code ' Flex building 2/30 25/100 5/70 400/150 court 3/40 150/160 5/40 400/150 Hybrid•Court 3/40 1513/160 5/70: 400/150 Liner 1/24 100/Loci 5/70 200/150 Live work 1/24 75/89 3/40 1501150 AlLowe Building Types 111111111=11111=== Stories/ft. ot W/D Stories/ft. Lot W/D Eave min. 2ft. clear of curb min. 3 ft. from PL min. 3 ft. from PL Arcade, gallery, I min. 2 ft. clear of awning I curb Balcony 4 ft. max. Bay window 4 ft. max. on upper floors only. not allowed min. 5 ft. from PL 8ft. clear min. 5 ft. from PL 4.1 T-5 Urban Center Zone 4.1A Purpose The T-5 Urban Center Zone permits regional-serving retail, office, entertainment, and hospitality uses. Uses include large, commercial activities that serve the entire region and are typically located along a major highway. The standards in this zone are intended to promote a walkable, diverse, and well-connected area. 4.1B Building Placement Building setback from PL Setback Frontage Zone Side/Rear IMEIEEMENINI i Primary street de street Side yard (inticcif',1 iv Rear yard With alley no alley 5 When adjacent to Single-Family Residential properties. a 15-foot side and rear setback is required. 0 10 10 15 4.1C Allowed Building Types, Height, and Lot Size W Building lot width along primary frontage; D Building lot depth perpendicular to primary frontage. Hotels may be allowed at up to 3 stories taller than maximum number of stories. 111 Allowed Building Placement m Frontage Zone IN Allowed Parking Placement (at-grade) Min. Height 10 ft. Studio or 1 bedroom 2+ bedroom 1.5 space per unit 2 spaces per unit ii Encroachments: Buildings, architectural features, and signs may encroach into the required setbacks and right-of-way subject to the following requirements: 4.1E Frontage Types & Encroachment i Allowed Frontages • Forecourt • Shopfront Gallery Arcade Ground Floor Upper Stories Min. Height 12 ft. 4.1D Parking i Required Parking a Residential uses b Non-residential uses 0,65 of cumulative parking requirements per WCMC for projects which comply with the DTPC standards. ii Parking Placement: On-site above-ground parking and access shall be located in compliance with the following requirements: Setback a Primary street min.20 ft. b Side Street rnin. 5 ft. c Side property Oft. d Rear property/ 0 ft./min. 5 ft. rear alley Part 4, Section 4: Development Standards by Zone 51 Encroachment Front Side S Rear Eave min. 2ft. clear of curb min. 3 ft. from PL Arcade, gallery, min. 2 ft. clear of awning curb Balcony 4 ft. max. Bay window 4 ft. max, on upper floors only. min. 5 ft. from PL METE Side not allowed min. 5 ft. from PL min. 3 ft. from PL min. 8ft. clear Allowed Building Types 111111=111•1 Stories/ft. Lot W/D Maximum Stories/ft. Lot W/D Side/Rear Min. (ft.) 10 5 Ground Floor Min. Height 12 ft. 4.2 1-4 General Urban Zone 4.2A Purpose i Allowed Building Placement „ Frontage Zone Allowed Parking Placement (at-grade) 4.2E Frontage Types & Encroachment i Allowed Frontages • Forecourt • Gallery • Shopfront • Arcade • Stoop ii Encroachments: Buildings, architectural features, and signs may encroach into the required setbacks and right-of-way subject to the following requirements: The T-4 General Urban Zone permits community serving retail, office, entertainment, and hospitality uses. Uses include a mix of residential and commercial activities and is typically located along major streets. The standards in this zone are intended to promote a walkable, diverse, and well- connected area. 4.2B Building Placement Building setback from PL Frontage Zone i Primary street Side street iii Side y d (interior) iv Rear yard with alley no alley When adjacent to Single-Family Residential properties. a 15-foot side and rear setback is required. 4.2C Allowed Building Types, Height, and Lot Size Flex Wilding 2/30 amo. court 2/30 150.60 3/40 200/250 H,9:004:01 3/40 3/40 Liner 1/24 75/100 3/40 400/150 1/24 125145!! 3/40 12444 Live-work 1/24 75/80 3/40 150/150 W Building lot width along primary frontage; B Building lot depth perpendicular to primary frontage. Hotels may be allowed at up to 3 stories taller than maximum number of stories. Hospitals may have a maximum height of 58 feet (3 stories). Building height limited to 25 ft. when within 50 ft., and 35 ft. when within 100 ft„ of a property zoned or developed as single-family residential. Upper Stories Min. Height 10 ft. 52 West Covina Downtown Plan & Code 4.2 T-4 General Urban Zone 4.2D Parking i Required Parking a Residential uses Studio or 1 bedroom 2-1- bedroom 1.5 space per unit 2 spaces per unit b Non-residential uses 0.65 of cumulative parking requirements per WCMC for projects which comply with the DTPC standards. ii Parking Placement: On-site above-ground parking and access shall be located in compliance with the following requirements: Setback a Primary street rnin.30 ft. b Side Street min. 15 ft. c Side property 5 ft. d Rear property/ min. 5 ft. rear alley iii Shopfront Overlay (defined on Pages 43 and 45): The following parking standards shall apply only to those properties located on the east side of the Glendora Avenue Shopfront Overlay Zone. Standard parking requirements as defined in Section 4.2D.i.a shall apply to all other properties. a Generally, no parking is required for retail, restaurants, personal services, medical services of 2,500 s.f. or less, office professional and bank/financial services located on the east side of the Shopfront Overlay. b Uses requiring the approval of an administrative or conditional use permit must address parking requirements through that process. Part 4, Section 4: Development Standards by Zone 53 Allowed Building Placement ;;,16 Frontage Zone Allowed Parking Placement (at-grade) Building setback from PL Side/Rear Setback i Primary street ' Side ttreet iii Side yard t Iur Iv fiOhe yard with alley no alley 4.3C Allowed Building Types, Height, and Lot Size 15 15 20 20 lit171=11 Stories! ft. ot W/D Lot W/D I I I III MEI II II I Stores/ft Allowed Building Types Ground Floor ' Min. Height 12 ft. • Forecourt • Porch Stoop ii Encroachments: Buildings, architectural features, and signs may encroach into the required setbacks and right-of-way subject to the following requirements: Rear min. 5 ft. from PL min. 3 ft. from PL Side not allowed min. 5 ft. from PL min.3 ft. from PL min. aft. clear Encroachment Horizontal Front Side St. Arcade, gallery, min. 2 ft. clear of awning curb Balcony 4 ft. max. Bay window 4ft. max. on upper floors only. Eave min. 2ft. clear of curb 4.3 T-4 Urban Neighborhood Zone 4.3A Purpose The T-4 Urban Neighborhood provides an appropriate transi- tion from the urban environment into the residential areas, and to provide flexible buildings in a a residential form that can allow a mix of residential and walkable neighborhood serving commercial and service uses. 4.3B Building Placement Court 2/30 Live-work EiROwhpuse Rosewalk or Btliigalow Court 1/18 04.0.10.:K;Pflt.41.0§.( 100/100 1140 150/150 75/80 3/40 150/150 125/125 3/40 125/150 4.3E Frontages and Encroachments 75/100 "3/40 150/150 50/100 3/40 75/10.: i Allowed Frontages W = Building lot width along primary frontage; 0 = Building lot depth perpendicular to primary frontage. Building height limited to 25 ft. when within so ft. and 35 ft. when within 100 ft., of a property zoned or developed as single-family residential. Upper Stories Min, Height 10 ft. 4.3D Parking i Required Parking a Residential uses Studio or 1 1.5 space per unit bedroom 2+ bedroom 2 spaces per unit b Non-residential uses 0.65 of cumulative parking requirements per WCMC for projects which comply with the DTPC standards. ii Parking Placement: On-site parking and access shall be located in compliance with the following requirements: Setback a Primary street min.30 ft. b Side Street min. 15 ft. c Side property min. 5 ft. d Rear property/ min. 5 ft. rear alley 54 West Covina Downtown Plan St Code See Section 5.2C See Section 5.2D See Section 5.2E See Section 5,2F See Section 5.2G See Section 5.2H See Section 5.2,C See Section 5.21) See Section 5.2E X 5.1 Building Standards Figure 4.5./: Building type transect. 5.1A Purpose This Section provides design standards for individual buildings to ensure that proposed develop- ment is consistent with the Downtown Plan's goals for building form, physical character, land use, and quality. 5.1B Applicability Each building shall be designed in compliance with the applicable general requirements in Section 5.2 and all applicable requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended and adopted by the City. 5.1C Allowed Building Types by Zoning District Each proposed building or existing building modification shall be designed as one of the building types allowed for the zoning district applicable to the site as identified in Table 5. Building Type Duplex, Multiplex Rosewalk/Bungalow Court Row house Live-work Court Hybrid Court Liner Building Flex Building X See Section 5,2D tqs, Seclicll 5,2E See Section 5.2F See Section 5.2C See Section 5.24-1 ,„2/1 • e''.;SeCtion:?-5..2B X Building type not allowed in Zoning District Part 4, Section 5: Building Si.andards 55 Corner and mid-block condition with parking access from the alley aulLi OE El I I 1F-- I fing0 11111 m innimilimminni 1111111m in 11111111 lin t Con, unee.frat al. Duplex,Multiplex Duplex consists of a pair of dwelling units located side-by-side or one above the other to create a building that reads like a medium or large house. Multiplex is a residential build- ing of three to six dwelling units respectively. Depending on the lot size and context the units can be placed side-by-side, front-to-back or stacked, or some combination of these options. Coding Criteria These medium to large footprint buildings requires a minimum lot width of 50 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet. Duplex and multiplexes when packaged within house-like form and detailing, with breaks in build- ing elevations in the horizontal and vertical planes provide human scale and make the building contextual. Typical height of the building is 2 to 3 stories. Rosewalk & Bungalow Court Rosewalk: Six or more single dwell- ings arranged in a linear manner along either side of a common green. Pedestrian access to the building entrances are accessed from the common green and/or primary street. Bungalow Court: Four or more single dwellings arranged around a shared courtyard, with pedestrian access to the building entrances from the courtyard and/or fronting street. Coding Criteria The defining feature of Rosewatk and Bungalow court is the com- munal central open space. The lot width should be large enough to allow a functional public and private open spaces and area for driveways. The building size and massing of individual buildings is similar to a single dwelling unit. Entrance to units shall be directly from the front yard or from the courtyard. Row House A building comprised of five or more attached two- or three-story dwelling units arranged side by side, with the ground floor raised above grade to provide privacy for ground floor rooms. The primary building sits at the front of the property, with the garage at the rear, separated from the primary building by a rear yard. Coding Criteria The single family dwelling units can either be separated by property lines or located on narrow single tax lot 16 to 30 feet wide. Design principles such as repeti- tion, rhythm and order must be considered carefully to add interest and individuality. Rowhouses have shallow front yards, 5 to 10 feet, to maximize the size of a private open space in the rear yard. The rear yard should be large enough to be functional and receive sunlight and screened by fence or wall to provide privacy. Live work Live/Work is an integrated resi- dence and work space located at street level, occupied and utilized by a single household in an array of at least 3 such structures, or a structure with at least 3 units arranged side by side along the primary frontage, that has been designed or structurally modified to accommodate joint residential occupancy and work activity. Coding Criteria The floor to ceiling height of the work floor is typically about 15 feet. The main entrance to the street floor work space should be accessed directly from and face the street. The dwelling unit above the work space should be accessed by a separate entrance, and by a stair or elevator. Each unit should have access to private open space. The private open space should be in the rear yard of each unit. 56 West Covina Downtown Plan & Code terdeze .17 teql,ani,aing swism<1.1.1.1 smukfrenary Court A group of dwelling units arranged to share one or more common courtyards. The courtyard is intended to be a semi-public out- door room that is an extension of the public realm. The units may be arranged in four possible configu- rations: rowhouses, rowhouses over flats, flats, and flats over flats. Court buildings may accommodate ground floor commercial/flex uses in either a live-work configura- tion or as solely commercial/retail space in qualifying zones facing the primary street. Coding Criteria The main entry to ground floor units should be directly off the courtyard or from the street. Access to second story units should be directly from the courtyard through stairs. Elevator access, if any, should be provided between the underground garage and courtyard-podium only. The open space is designed as a central court or partial, mul- tiple, separated or interconnected courtyards. Hybrid Hybrid Court is composed of two building types: the stacked dwelling and courtyard housing, arranged around a courtyard. This building type combines a point-access portion of the stacked dwelling with a walk-up portion of the courtyard housing building type. The building may be designed for occupancy by retail, service, or office uses on the ground floor, with upper floors also configured for those uses or for residences. Coding Criteria Stacked dwelling defines the street edge and the building mass tapers down to a courtyard building type. The main entrance to all ground floor units should be directly from the street. Entrance to the stacked dwelling element can be through a dedicated street level lobby, or through a dedicated podium lobby accessible from the street or through a side yard. Access to units above the second level in the stacked dwelling element not accessed from the podium is through an interior, double-loaded corridor. Liner Building A liner building has a thin footprint that conceals parking garage or other large scale faceless building, such as a movie theater, or "big box" store to create a pedestrian friendly environment. The building can be designed for occupancy by retail, service, and/or office uses on the ground floor, with upper floors configured for retail, service, office, and/or residential uses. Coding Criteria The main entrance to each ground floor storefront and the theater or big box retail is directly from the street. Entrance to the upper levels of the building is through a street level lobby accessible from the street or through a side yard. Inte- rior upper level uses are accessed by a corridor. Required parking is accommo- dated in an underground garage, surface parking at the rear of the lot, parking tucked under from the back, or a combination of any of the above. Flex Building Flex Block is a vertical mixed- use building typically of a single massing element, designed for occupancy by retail, service, or office uses on the ground floor, with upper floors configured for retail, service, office, and/or residential uses. Second floor units may be directly accessed from the street through a stair. Upper floors are accessed through a street level lobby. This building type is typi- cally found in town centers and main streets. Coding Criteria The floor to ceiling height of the first floor is greater than the rest of the floors, typically about 15 feet to accommodate the unique needs of commercial space and increase the comfort of occupants and guests. The main entrance to each ground floor tenant bay should be directly from the street. Required parking is accommodated in an underground garage, surface park- ing, structured parking, tuck under parking, or some combination of these options. Part 4, Section 5: Building Standards 57 Illustrative axonometric diagram iJ 1 Description 3 Pedestrian Main entrance location: Primary street Acess On corner lots each lot shall front a separate street. 4 Frontages Porch Stoop Dooryard 5 Vehicle Parking spaces may be enclosed, covered, or open. Access & Parking 5.2 Building Types 5.2 A Duplex, Multiplex 4- I The Duplex Building Type is a small- to medium- sized structure that consists of two side-by-side or stacked dwelling units, both facing the street, and within a single building massing. This Type has the appearance of a medium to large single-family home and is appropriately scaled to fit within primarily single-family neighborhoods or medium-density neighborhoods. it enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed higher densities and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. The Multiplex is a medium structure that consists of 3-6 side-by-side and/or stacked dwelling units, typically with one shared entry or individual entries along the front. This Type has the appearance of a medium-sized family home and is appropriately scaled to fit sparingly within primarily single-family neighborhoods or into medium-density neighbor- hoods. This Type enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed higher densities and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. 2 Lot Size Width 50 ft. min. 75 ft. max. Illustrative plan diagram Depth 100 ft. min. 150 ft. max. 6 Private Open Width Depth Area Space 8 ft. min. 8 ft. min. 100 s.f. min. 7 Building Size Length along frontage: 36 ft. max for duplex and & Massing 50 ft max. for multiplex Length along side yard: 80 ft. max. The footprint area of an accessory structure may not exceed the footprint area of the main body of the building. 58 West Covina Downtown Plan & Code Illustrative oxonometric diagram Illustrorlvo p!o of bm 5.2 B Rosewalk and Bungalow Court Six or more single dwellings arranged in a linear manner along either side of a common green. Having the same right-of-way width as a narrow neighborhood street, the Rosewalk (in contrast to the Bungalow Court) must connect two parallel streets. Pedestrian access to the building entrances are accessed from the common green and/or primary street. Rosewalks are prohibited on corner lots. Four or more single dwellings arranged around a shared courtyard, with pedestrian access to the building entrances from the courtyard and/or front- ing street. The courtyard is wholly open to the street and parking is placed in the rear of the lot or behind each unit. Bungalow courts are prohibited on corner lots that do not have alley access. Width 75 ft. min. 150 ft. max. Depth 100 ft. min. 150 ft. max. Main entrance location: Common courtyard On corner lots each lot shall front a separate street. 4 Frontages Porch Stoop Dooryard 5 Vehicle Access Parking spaces may be located in the rear, or tuck & Parking under. 6 Private Open Width Depth Area Space 8 ft. min. 8 ft. min. 100 s.f. min. 7 Common Width 20 ft. min. clear Courtyard Depth 50 ft. min. clear 8 Building Size Length along frontage: 40 ft. max & Massing Length alongside yard: 40 ft. max. The footprint area of an accessory structure may not exceed the footprint area of the main body of the building. Illustrative photo of rosewolk 1 Description 2 Lot Size 3 Pedestrian Acess Part 4, Section 5: Building Standards 59 5.2 C Rowhouse 1 Description Delachod garages 2 Lot Size Width 125 ft. min. Depth 125 ft. min. 3 Pedestrian Main entrance location: Primary street Acess 6 Private Open Width Space 8 ft. min. Depth Area 8 ft. min. 100 s.f. min. T4-UN A small- to medium-sized building comprised of five or more attached dwelling units arrayed side by side, with the ground floor raised above grade in order to provide privacy for ground floor rooms. The primary building sits at the front of the prop- erty, with the garage at the rear, separated from the primary building by a rear yard. Each dwelling unit is directly accessed from the front yard/street. Row- houses are prohibited on a lot with-out alley access, since garages must be located and accessed from the rear of the lot. This Type is typically located within medium-density neighborhoods or in a loca- tion that transitions from a primarily single-family neighborhood into a neighborhood main street. This Type enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed higher densities and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. Illustrative plan diagram Illustrative photo of rowho use illustrative photo of rowhouse 4 Frontages Porch Stoop Dooryard 5 Vehicle Parking spaces may be enclosed, covered, or open. Access & Parking 7 Building Size Width per rowhouse: 18 ft. min.; 36 ft. max. & Massing The front elevation and massing of each rowhouse building may be either symmetrical or asymmetri- cal, repetitive or unique in disposition, as long as the delineation of each individual unit is evident. The footprint area of an accessory structure may not exceed the footprint area of the main body of the building. 60 West Covina Downtown Plan & Code 5 Vehicle Access Parking spaces may be located in the rear, tuck & Parking under. 7 Building Size & Massing Width per 18 ft. min.; 36 ft. max unit The footprint area of an accessory structure may not exceed the footprint area of the main body of the building. 6 Private Open Width Space 8 ft. min. Depth Area 8 ft. min. 15% of the lot area min. \ Illustrative (manometric diagram II II Illustrative photo of live-work 11.1111111T4-G1 T4 UN 5.2 D Live-work 1 Description 2 Lot Size Depth 80 ft. min. 150 ft. max. 3 Pedestrian Main entrance location: Primary street Acess Ground floor space and upper unit shall have sepa- rate entries. 4 Frontages Forecourt Dooryard Shopfront Lightcourt Gallery The Live-Work Building Type is a small to medium- sized attached or detached structure that consists of single dwelling unit above and/or behind a flexible ground floor space that can be used for home-office uses such as residential, personal and general service, or retail uses. Both the ground-floor flex space and the unit above are owned by one entity. This Type is typically located within medium-density neighborhoods or in a location that transitions from a neighborhood into a urban neighborhood street. It is especially appropriate for incubating neighbor- hood-serving retail and service uses and allowing neighborhood main streets to expand as the market demands. Live/Works are prohibited on a lot with- out alley access, since garages must be located and accessed from the rear of the tot. The work space is accessed directly from the primary street, and the living space at the rear or above is accessed directly or indirectly from the working space. Width 75 ft. min. 150 ft. max. Part 4, Section 5: Building SI andards 61 5.2 E Court 2 Lot Size 1 Description Mid-block conditioh with underground parking and a SerVICO court accessed horn street Corner lot condition with underground parking iI ,I r` IN Fl I IiE7i i i Ai i i Illustrative plan diagram Illustrative photo of court 6 Private Open Width Space 8 ft. min. Depth Area 8 ft. min. 100 sl min. A group of dwelling units arranged to share one or more common courtyards. The courtyard is intended to be a semi-public outdoor room that is an extension of the public realm. Court buildings may accommodate ground floor commercial/flex uses in either a live-work configuration or as solely commercial/retail space in qualifying zones facing the primary street. This building type enables the incorporation of high-quality, well-designed density within a walkable neighborhood. Width 100 ft. min. 150 ft. max. Depth 100 ft. min. 150 ft. max. 3 Pedestrian Direct access from street or courtyard. Acess 4 Frontages Porch Stoop Dooryard 5 Vehicle From alley. For lots without alley, via driveway, max. Access & 12 ft. wide, located as close to side yard property Parking line as possible. This open space is exclusive of the courtyard and may be located in a side or rear yard. 7 Common Recommended Width/ 1:1 approx. Courtyard depth/height ratio: Width/depth: 20 ft. min. 8 Building Size Length along frontage: 200 ft. max. & Massing Length along side yard: 140 ft. max. The footprint area of an accessory structure may not exceed the footprint area of the main body of the building. 62 West Covina Downtown Plan & Code 6 Private Open Width Space 8 ft. min. Depth Area 8 ft. min. 100 s.f. min. Illustrative photo of hybrid court 5.2 F Hybrid Court Description A building that combines a point-access portion of the building with a walk-up portion. The building may be designed for occupancy by retail, ser- vice, and/or office uses on the ground floor, with upper floors also configured for those uses or for residences. Width 150 ft. min. 200 ft. max. Depth 160 ft. min. 250 ft. max. The main entrance to each ground floor is directly from the street. Entrance to the residential portions of the build- ing is through a dedicated street level lobby, or through a dedicated podium lobby accessible from the street or through a side yard. Interior circulation to each unit above the second level in double-loaded corridor element of the build- ing is through a corridor of at least 6 feet in width with recessed doors or seating alcoves/offsets at every 100 feet at a minimum. For other units, it is directly off a common courtyard or through stairs serving up to 3 dwellings. 2 Lot Size 3 Pedestrian Acess 4 Frontages 5 Vehicle Access & Parking Porch Stoop Dooryard Underground garage, surface parking, tuck under parking, or a combination of any of the above. 7 Common Courtyard This open space is exclusive of the courtyard and may be located in a side or rear yard. Recommended Width/ 1:1 approx. depth/height ratio: Width/depth: 20 ft. min. 8 Building Size Length along frontage: 200 ft. max. & Massing Part 4, Section 5: Building Standards 63 I Su 0,-Ming= 9.d.,444 ,Lnum, Viry11:1.1.1.n 5.14:0,:e ;6111,, 110, cp., 5.2 G Liner 1 Description 2 Lot Size 3 Pedestrian Acess A building that conceals a garage, or other large scale faceless building such as a movie theater, or "big box" store designed for occupancy by retail, service, and/or office uses on the ground floor, with upper floors configured for retail, service, office, and/or residential uses. The access corridor, if appli- cable, is included in the minimum depth. Width 400 ft. max. Depth 150 ft. max. Direct access from sidewalk. Upper floors accessed from street level lobby. 4 Frontages Forecourt Shopfront Gallery Arcade Vehicle Access Required parking is accommodated in an under- & Parking ground or above-ground garage, tuck under parking, or a combination of any of the above. 6 Private Open Private open space is required for each residential Space unit and shall be no less than 50 s.f. with a minimum dimension of five (5) feet in each direction. 7 Shared Open The primary shared common space is the rear or Space side yard designed as a courtyard. Courtyards can be located on the ground or on a podium and must be open to the sky. Side yards can also be formed to provide outdoor patios connected to ground floor commercial uses. Recommended Court- 1:1 approx. yard width/depth/height ratio: Width/depth: 20 ft. min. 8 Building Size Length along frontage: 400 ft. max, but if over 200 ft., & Massing must provide massing break. 64 West Covina Downtown Plan & Code Illustrative axonometric diagram Surface surta( Parking Parkin I Ii Illustrative plan diagram Illustrative photo of flex building Illustrative photo of flex building 2 Lot Size 3 Pedestrian Acess 4 Frontages A building type designed for occupancy by retail, service, and/or office uses on the ground floor, with upper floors configured for retail, service, office, and/or residential uses. Second floor units may be directly accessed from the street through a stair; upper floors are accessed through a street level lobby. Width 400 ft. max. Depth 150 ft. max. Direct access from sidewalk. Upper floors accessed from street level lobby. Forecourt Shopfront Gallery Arcade 5.21-1 Flex Building 1 Description 5 Vehicle Access Required parking is accommodated in an under- & Parking ground or above-ground garage, tuck under parking, or a combination of any of the above. 6 Private Open Private open space is required for each residential Space unit and shall be no less than 50 s.f. with a minimum dimension of five (5) feet in each direction. 7 Shared Open The primary shared common space is the rear or Space side yard designed as a courtyard. Courtyards can be located on the ground or on a podium and must be open to the sky. Side yards can also be formed to provide outdoor patios connected to ground floor commercial uses. Recommended Court- 1:1 approx. yard width/depth/height ratio: Width/depth: 20 ft. min. 8 Building Size Length along frontage: 400 ft. max, but if over 200 ft., & Massing must provide massing break. Part 4, Section 5: Building Standards 65 10.1 Other Standards A Purpose This section of the Downtown Code establishes the standards for particular elements of sites and streetscapes to ensure a consistent and high level of quality in site design, materials, and land use activity. Applicability i. The standards of section 10.0 apply to all property subject to the Downtown Code. Standards for Site Walls i. A 6-foot perimeter wall is required when adjacent to single-family residential development. Walls up to 8 feet in height may be permitted with the approval of a Minor Site Plan Review or Precise Plan. ii. Screening elements such as solid walls, hedges or combination of walls and hedges shall be used to screen service areas, storage areas, or garbage areas from public view from the street or pedestrian ways. iii. Low walls (2 to 3 feet in height) may be used to divide space, create a variety in landscaping and to define site edges. iv. Solid walls (3 to 8 feet in height) or hedges, are permitted to screen mechanical equipment, garbage receptacles, loading areas and other unsightly areas and provide privacy at the back of lots and along side streets in compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 'Frontage Standards'. When a wall exceeds 3 feet in height, the wall shall be designed as an extension of the primary building in materials and color. v. Front yard fencing shall comply with the following requirements as applicable: a. Fences shall be located in compliance with the frontage requirements in Section 6.0; b. Where allowed, fences shall be setback from the adjacent sidewalk by at least 12 inches to allow for planting intended to visually improve the appearance of the fence along the sidewalk; c. The overall height of fencing along the front yard and adjacent side street, when present, shall not exceed 4 feet. Design Standards i. Gutters and downspouts are not to project from the vertical surface of a building. A mixed-use residential or residential building can propose exterior gutters and downspouts if they are architecturally consistent and incorporated with the architectural style of the development. Exterior gutters and downspouts shall be reviewed by the Town Design Advisor and approved by the Planning Commission as part of the Precise Plan. Part 4, Section 10: Other Standards 97 Outdoor Dining in Public Right-of-Way This section provides regulations for outdoor dining within the public right-of-way when accompanying a restaurant use type. i. Permit Requirement. No person may establish outdoor dining in the public right-of-way unless an Administrative Review is approved by the Planning Director. The Administrative Review application shall include adequate plans and information to determine compliance with this section. ii. Evaluation Standards a. To provide for adequate pedestrian circulation, a minimum of four feet of clearance between dining furnishings and any curbline, street furniture, or above ground utilities. A minimum of 50 feet of clearance, shall be maintained between dining furnishings and the centerline of intersecting perpendicular driveways, alleys or streets to provide for adequate vehicle sight, unless a lesser distance is determined by the Director and City Engineer to be adequate for the protection of the public safety. b. Tables and chairs used for outdoor dining shall be of substantial materials. Tables shall be a maximum of three feet in diameter if round and three feet along the longest side if rectilinear. All such furnishings shall be stored indoors after hours of operation. c. No portion of the outdoor dining use, including furnishings and signs, shall block visibility of display windows or signage of adjacent businesses, unless written consent of any affected adjacent business owner to block visibility is obtained by the applicant and provided to the Director. d. If encroaching in the right-of-way, the outdoor dining use operator shall provide an executed city hold harmless waiver and proof of Liability insurance to the satisfaction of the city risk manager. Signs i. Blade signs shall be allowed with the approval of a Sign Adminstrative Review (SAR), requiring approval by the Planning Director. The following development standards, found in Section 26-357 of the West Covina Municipal Code, shall apply: a. One blade sign is permitted per enclosed tenant space. b. Blade signs may have a maximum area of one-half of total allowable sign area allowed on primary frontage. (double-face permitted). The projecting sign area shall be subtracted from the total allowable sign area allowed on the primary frontage. One face of a double- face sign shall be counted. c. Blade signs may project up to 8 feet from the building face. d. Height shall be limited to 1.2 times the height of the building, with a maximum height of 10 feet. e. Blade signs shall maintain a minimum 8-foot vertical clearance from the sidewalk level. f. Blade signs located above driveways and parking spaces shall maintain a minimum 13.5- foot vertical clearance, and comply with Fire Department standards. Other Municipal Code Standards All other requirements of the Municipal Code not specifically provided in the Downtown Plan apply including, but not limited to, screening (i.e. rooftop mechanical equipment), trash enclosures, the installation of underground utilities. 98 West Covina Downtown Plan 8c Code A Review Authority This section of the Downtown Code establishes the standards for particular elements of sites and streetscapes to ensure a consistent and high level of quality in site design, materials, and land use activity. Applications The following types of applications shall be reviewed and acted upon by the identified body or individual. i. Ministerial Applications. The Planning Director shall be the Review Authority for ministerial applications as listed in Table 10.A. ii. Discretionary Applications. Discretionary application shall be reviewed as listed in Table 10.A. Application Z_qiirv-J,-,][ Administrative Review MiHur lAJiIHHn 1 Minor Site Plan Review Outdoor dining in iiHf ',I- , 11-_[11111 Lot-line Adjustment Pecise Plan Conditional Use Permit Change of Zoninr, 1:!1:SubdiiiiP-i Variance Special Exception General Plan Amendment Review Authority Authority Actions Planning Director A Approves PW Public Works Recommends PC Planning Commission RA Reviews on Appeal CC City Council FD Final Decision Part 4, Section 11: Administration 99 Special Exception Process The purpose of a special exception is to allow projects that provide special amenities, design details, and/or aesthetic benefit to the community. Required Notification Special Exceptions shall require notification of the public hearing, as described in Section 26-606(1) of the West Covina Municipal Code. Required Findings for Special Exceptions Before a Special Exception may be granted the following findings must be made: i. The proposed project, while not consistent with a specific provision of this Code, is justified by its intent to pursue a comparable or better designed development; ii. The proposed project would result in development compatible with the scale and character of existing development in the vicinity; and iii. The proposed project would result in development that is not detrimental to and would not adversely impact adjacent properties. Limitations Applications for Special Exceptions shall be limited to exceptions to Building Placement, Lot Size, Building Types and Frontage Types. Preliminary Review Process The purpose of the preliminary review process is to allow an applicant to submit a preliminary plan and receive comment from the City prior to formal submittal. To facilitate communication between the applicant, City and the Town Design Advisor, the applicant may pay the fee to obtain architectural and urban design comments as part of the preliminary review. Town Design Advisor To facilitate the application and review process, the City shall hire an architectural and urban design advisor who shall advise staff and the Planning Commission for precise plan review, conditional use permit, change of zoning, subdivision, special exceptions, and variances. 100 West Covina Downtown Plan & Code Planning Commission Resolution No. Zone Change No. 17-02 June 26, 2018 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2018. Lloyd Johnson Mayor ATTEST: Nickolas S. Lewis City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF WEST COVINA ) ) ) I, Nickolas S. Lewis, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2018. That, thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 2018. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Nickolas S. Lewis City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kimberly Hall Barlow City Attorney P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan\PC\Resolution.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 — February 27, 2018 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 NON-HEARING ITEMS 4. STUDY SESSION — CODE AMENDMENT NO. 17-02 Consideration of potential modification to the Downtown Code adopted in December, 2016. Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation he told the Commission that when the Downtown Code was adopted it was expected that some amendments would need be needed. He asked the Commission for direction on the following matters: standards for blade signs, the list of permitted uses, parking requirements for the Glendora Avenue shops and setback requirements from Single-Family zones. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding amending allowed uses, drive-throughs, Farmer's markets and outdoor community events. In addition, the Commission considered the setback requirements for the Downtown area adjacent to single-family residential zones. After a short discussion the Commission directed staff to amend the Code to require 15-foot rear-yard and side- yard setbacks from R-1, Single-Family Residential properties when adjacent to the Downtown area. After the discussion the Commission directed staff to incorporate the matters discussed into the Downtown Code and schedule this matter for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 411v.t1.F.1.136P01.F4, \\StorageIlplandata\PLANCOM\MINUTES120I8 MINUTES12.27. 18 minutes.doe ATTACHMENT NO. 3 City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 27, 2018 FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 17-02 Downtown Plan Revisions I. DESCRIPTION On November 28, 2017, the Planning Commission initiated Code Amendment No. 17-02 to consider changes to the Downtown Plan. II. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted the Downtown Plan in conjunction with the General Plan on December 20, 2017. The Downtown Plan is a form-based code which regulates development in the Downtown (formerly central business district) area. The Downtown Plan was created during the General Plan update and multiple study sessions were held with the Planning Commission and City Council to review the standards. At the time of adoption, there was an expectation that modifications might be necessary after the first year to address any issues that were not foreseen when the Downtown Plan was reviewed and adopted. Since the adoption of the Downtown Plan, staff has utilized the Downtown Plan in responding to questions at the counter and on the phone as well as for review of two development applications. Staff has made notations of issues as they were discovered. Staff has worked with two applicants on projects including a hospital and a multi-family housing project. In both cases, questions about the standards were forthcoming from the applicants. III. ANALYSIS A study session on the Downtown standards was held on January 23, 2018. Staff presented a table to allow for discussion, alternatives, and recommendations on the subjects provided below. The Commission provided direction on the following standards. 1. Nonconforming expiration time of 2 years. Change the expiration term to 1 year as drive-through uses are an allowed use in the Downtown Plan. nease Files\CODE AMEND12017 117-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.2.27.181Study Session.SR.doc Code Amendment 17-02 Downtown Plan Revisions February 27, 2018 - Page 2 2. Outdoor Dining approval process. Require the approval of an Administrative Review as the process is less costly and faster to process. 3. Hospital building height allowance. Change the allowed height for hospitals to 58 feet (currently 40 feet) and up to 3 stories to encourage the development of hospital facilities. 4. Building height within 100 feet of single family properties. Change the allowed height when adjacent to single-family houses to 25 feet within 50 of a single-family property and 35 feet within 100 feet of a single-family property. 5. Zoning designations and allowed building types. Revise the list of Building Types to include all building types on the lists provided in the Downtown Plan to provide flexibility. 6. Downtown Plan parking requirement application. Apply the Downtown parking requirement of 0.65 only to new development that complies with the Downtown standards. 7. Minor modification permits. Minor modifications would be added to Applications chart in the Downtown Plan. 8. Standards for Special Exceptions. Require notification same as a Precise Plan. During that study session, the Commission discussed additional standards. I. Additional signs for pedestrian-oriented urban areas. 2. Evaluation of the List of Permitted Land Uses — Discussed on January 23, 2018. 3. Evaluation of the List of Permitted Land Uses — Requested by Plaza West Covina, 4. Parking requirements for Glendora Shops. In addition, staff also is suggesting consideration of the side and rear setback standard from single-family properties. Therefore, this study session will focus on the four standards (the three above and setback from single-family properties). IV. CONCLUSION The purpose of the study session is to provide the Planning Commission with discussion points and alternatives on the issues being studied. After discussion on the issues, the Commission may ask for additional information to be provided which may necessitate another study session. Once the Planning Commission agrees on the standards to be implemented, the next step will be to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Subsequent to Planning Commission review, a public hearing will be scheduled for the City Council to determine if changes to the code are appropriate. Z:1Case Fi1es1CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan1PCSS,2.27.181Study Session.SR.doc Code Amendment 17-02 Downtown Plan Revisions February 27, 2018 - Page 3 V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the information in the staff report and attachments and provide appropriate direction to staff regarding standards to be included in the code amendment. PREPARED BY: JelfWitierson, AICP Planning Director Attachment: Attachment No. 1 - Study Session Table neaso Files\CODE AMEND12017 117-02 Downtown PlanIPCSS2.27.181Study Sossion.SR.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Code Amendment No. 17-02, February 27, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 1. Page 95 — Add In urban development, freestanding signs become less likely and Option 1 — Administratively Option 2 — This allows the standards for Blade sign sizes are generally smaller as they are mostly viewed from allow up to one-half total sip same standards as allowed for Signs close proximity, at a pedestrian scale, and at slow vehicle speeds. area allowed on the primary projecting signs and allows Given that the Downtown area has two existing blade signs, at the frontage. Sign may extend up for signs to extend above the theater and at the commercial building to the north, it is to 8-feet from the building roof in ratio to the size of the appropriate to consider allowing blade signs in the Downtown face and may project up to 10 building. Code. Blade signs projecting from the building face (projecting feet above the height of the • For 40 foot tall buildings sign, WCMC 26-357) and extend above the roofline (roof sign, WCMC 26-358). While the Code allows both projecting and roof building. that would allow the blade sign to go to 48 signs, it would allow for easier discussion and processing if the Option 2 — Administratively feet, for 70-foot buildings Code specifically included standards for blade signs. Because allow up to one-half total sign it would allow the blade blade signs are ideal for pedestrian-scale urban areas, they are not area allowed on the primary sign to go to 84 feet. necessarily important to be included for signs in the suburban frontage. Sign may extend up • Staff recommends 12 portions of the City. to 8-feet from the building face and may project up to times the height of the building up to 10 feet in Currently a blade sign would require the approval of a projecting 1.2 times above the height of height. sign and a roof sign, both of which require the approval of an AUP. the building. • Blade signs would be allowed as a Sign Administrative Review requiring approval by the Planning Director. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan1PCSS.2.27.181SSTable.PC.doc Page 1 Code Amendment No. 17-02, February 27, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Recommendation 2. Page 47-48 The Downtown Plan includes a list of Permitted Uses that Uses Discussed: — List of establishes allowed uses and uses that require a discretionary Retail and Cigar Lounges - CUP Permitted review process. Over the past year, there have been requests for Hookah Lounge, accessory use - CUP Uses types of businesses that are not included in the list of uses allowed. Bar - CUP Some of these uses were discussed as potential uses prior to the Incubator (office) - Permitted adoption of the Downtown Plan. Based on discussion on January Incubator (business startup operation including kitchen, 3D 23, 2018, the list in the Recommendation column is provided, Options for review include allowed, administrative review (staff review, no notification, allows revocation), administrative use permit (staff review, notification, allows revocation), and conditional use permit (Planning Commission review, notification, allows revocation). printing and similar) — CUP P:Tase Files \CODE AMEND 12017\17-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.2.27.18\SSTable.PC.doc Page 2 Code Amendment No. 17-02, February 27, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Recommendation 3. Page 47-48 — List of Permitted Uses The Downtown Plan includes a list of Permitted Uses that establishes allowed uses and uses that require a discretionary review process. Over the past year, there have been requests for types of businesses that are not included in the list of uses allowed. Some of these uses were discussed as potential uses prior to the adoption of the Downtown Plan. Following that meeting, staff did have communication with Plaza West Covina who requested consideration of the addition of massage and modification of processes for other uses. Their requests are provided in the Recommendation column. Options for review include allowed, administrative review (staff review, no notification, allows revocation), administrative use permit (staff review, notification, allows revocation), and conditional use permit (Planning Commission review, notification, allows revocation). Uses & Processes Requested by Plaza West Covina: Dancing, Live Entertainment, draft brewery or winery, wine bars. Existing — CUP / Requested - AUP / Proposed — CUP Restaurant with Solo musician — change to accessory use with solo musician Existing — CUP / Proposed — AR Karaoke Existing — CUP / Proposed — Permitted ATM Not w/Financial Institution Existing — AR / Requested— Permitted / Proposed — AR Massage Parlor (primary use) Existing — Not Permitted / Requested — Permitted / Proposed — CUP Barber & Beauty Shops w/accessoly body piercing Existing — Not Allowed in GU Zone / Requested - AR / Proposed— AR Tutoring Facility Existing — CUP / Requested — AUP / Proposed — AUP ATM w/Financial Institution Existing — AUP / Requested — Permitted / Proposed — AR Lodging (Hotel/Motel) Existing — CUP / Requested — AUP / Proposed - CUP Athletic Club/Gym Existing — CUP / Requested — AUP / Proposed - CUP Trade Show Existing — CUP / Requested - Permitted / Proposed - CUP Exhibit Building Existing — CUP / Requested - Permitted / Proposed - CUP Drive-Through Existing — CUP / Requested — AUP / Proposed — CUP Farmer's Market & Outdoor Community Event Existing — AUP / Requested — AR / Proposed — AUP P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017 17-02 Downtown Plan1PC.SS.2.27.181SSTable.PC.doc Page 3 Code Amendment No. 17-02, February 27, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 4. Page 51 — 4.2 1) The parking for Glendora Shops has generally been provided in the Issue I - Require no The Code should define Parking City-owned parking lot with limited parking on the properties parking for existing the Glendora Shops as requirement for adjacent to the alley to the east. The lots along that corridor are floor area, parking those properties in the Glendora Shops minimal and do not allow for parking structures due to size and depth. The lots range from 2,760 to 18,000 square feet. Because the required for floor area greater than existing. Shopfront Overlay. lots are too small to provide required parking and because the Parking would only be Allow all properties were developed utilizing the City-owned parking lot it required for additional commercial/restaurant would be unlikely that the lots could supply the required parking in floor area that is uses with no increase in the case of new development, As part of the Glendora Redesign project, the consultant (Kreuzer developed on a lot, Issue 2 - In addition to parking requirements. Allow all uses requiring Consulting Group) completed a parking study for Glendora Avenue the required parking an ALTP or CUP to on August 1, 2016. The study indicates that there are a total of 997 requirement for the address parking parking spaces available along Glendora Avenue (street, alley, City- redevelopment of the requirements through that owned parking structure and surface lot). Actual parking counts were taken on a Thursday midday and evening (7/7/16), Saturday buildings, it is also important to clarify process. night (7/9/16) and Sunday afternoon (7/10/16). Based on those parking demand for a Allow medical uses 2,500 counts, the parking spaces were currently utilized between 25% and variety of uses and sf or smaller. For 36% of available capacity. what happens if a use with a more intense medical uses over 2,500 sf, allow with approval of While there is adequate parking to meet demand currently, successful uses could increase the parking demand, so it will be important for the City to monitor parking in the area and adjust parking requirements or supply accordingly. Whatever option is selected, it should be clear in the Code that all residential units must provide parking on-site. parking requirement wants to go into one of the Glendora Shops. CUP in Storefront Overlay area. PACase Files\CODE AMEND12017 117-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.2.27.18\SSTable.PC.doc Page 4 Code Amendment No. 17-02, February 27, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 5. Page 51 — Setbacks Properties located in the Downtown plan are adjacent to single- Option I — Make no Options 2 & 4 — from Single-Family family zones. All areas adjacent to single-family zones are changes. Require 10-foot side Zones General Urban. General Urban setback standards do not setback and 15-foot require a side setback and require a 5-foot rear setback. Option 2 — Require a side setback of 10 rear setback, similar to what was required for It might be appropriate to require a greater setback on side and rear property lines when adjacent to single-family zones. feet most areas prior to approval of the Previous zoning classifications required a side setback of 0, 10 or 15 feet (with 10 being the most common). Previous zoning classifications required a rear setback of 15 feet. Option 3 — Require a side setback of 15 feet. Downtown Plan. Option 4— Require a rear setback of 15 feet. P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan1PC.SS.2.27.181SSTable.PC.doc Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 — January 23, 2018 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 NON-HEARING ITEMS 4. STUDY SESSION — CODE AMENDMENT NO, 17-02 Downtown Plan Revisions. Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation he reviewed the sections of the Downtown Plan to be considered for revision. These sections included a non-conforming use expiration of two years, an Outdoor Dining approval process, hospital building height allowance, building height within 100 feet of single-family properties, Downtown Plan parking regulation, minor modification permits, standards for Special Exception, evaluation of the List of Permitted Land Uses and parking requirements for Glendora Avenue shops. After his presentation Mr. Anderson noted that Robert Tones had submitted a letter with his comments and that letter had been provided to the Commission. Jim Grivich offered comments regarding this matter and expressed his opposition to the Glendora Avenue Redesign. In addition, he stated his opinion that the lack of convenient parking is having a negative effect on the Lakes Project and would also have a negative effect on the Glendora Avenue Redesign. Edward L. Sallee, property owner on Glendora Avenue, said the parking on Glendora Avenue is difficult for his customers and expressed his concern with the further loss of available parking. In addition, he told the Commission that his parking spaces are often littered with trash, discarded items and abandoned vehicles. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding staff's recommendations for amendments to the Code and the testimony provided. It was the consensus of the Commission that amendments to the Code should be considered. They directed staff to schedule another study session on this matter for a future meeting. Motion by Castellanos, seconded by Redholtz, to reopen Item No. 2, Request for an Extension of Time, Precise Plan No. 14-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 14-05. IIREGISE,IIImak=14.14124 fkaaR#ittg=for—theTpoieet. \\Storage1Iplandata\PLANCOM\MINUTES12018 MINUTES\ 1.23.18 minutes.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 6 City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: January 23, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 17-02 Downtown Plan Revisions I. DESCRIPTION On November 28, 2017, the Planning Commission initiated Code Amendment No. 17-02 to consider changes to the Downtown Plan. II. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted the Downtown Plan in conjunction with the General Plan on December 20, 2017. The Downtown Plan is a form-based code which regulates development in the Downtown (formerly central business district) area. The Downtown Plan was created during the General Plan update and multiple study sessions were held with the Planning Commission and City Council to review the standards. At the time of adoption, there was an expectation that modifications might be necessary after the first year to address any issues that were not foreseen when the Downtown Plan was reviewed and adopted. III. ANALYSIS Since the adoption of the Downtown Plan, staff has utilized the Downtown Plan in responding to questions at the counter and on the phone as well as for review of two development applications. Staff has made notations of issues as they were discovered. Staff has worked with two applicants on projects including a hospital and a multi-family housing project. In both cases, questions about the standards were forthcoming from the applicants. Staff has prepared a table to allow for discussion, alternatives, and recommendations on the subjects provided below. 1. Nonconforming expiration time of 2 years. 2. Outdoor Dining approval process. 3. Hospital building height allowance. 4. Building height within 100 feet of single family properties. 5. Zoning designations and allowed building types. 6. Downtown Plan parking requirement application. 7. Additional signs for pedestrian-oriented urban areas. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS,I23.181Study Session.SR.doc Code Amendment 17-02 Downtown Plan Revisions January 23, 2018- Page 2 8. Minor modification permits. 9. Standards for Special Exceptions. 10. Evaluation of the List of Permitted Land Uses. 11. Parking requirements for Glendora Shops. IV. CONCLUSION The purpose of the study session is to provide the Planning Commission with discussion points and alternatives on the issues being studied. After discussion on the issues, the Commission may ask for additional information to be provided which may necessitate another study session. Staff is anticipating at least one additional study session to ensure that staff has a good understanding of Planning Commission's recommendation to staff. Once the Planning Commission agrees on the standards to be implemented, the next step will be to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Subsequent to Planning Cornmission review, a public hearing will be scheduled for the City Council to determine if changes to the code are appropriate, V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the information in the staff report and attachments and provide appropriate direction to staff regarding standards to be included in the code amendment. PREPARED BY: JeffMideron, AICP Planning Director Attachments: Attachment No. 1 - Study Session Table Attachment No. 2 — Glendora Ramblas Project Parking Study Mose Files\CODE AMEND120 I 7 117-02 Downtown PlanIPC.SS.1.23.181Study Session.SR.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 7 Code Amendment No. 17-02, January 23, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 1. Page 41 — The West Covina Municipal Code standards expire Option 1 — Make no changes, the Option 2 — Change the Nonconforming nonconforming uses after the have ceased operation for 6 expiration continues to be 2 expiration term to 1 year. uses, expiration months. In considering the Downtown Plan, the Plan was years. Since the drive-through is established at 2 designed to prohibit drive-through uses. Ultimately, drive- allowed, there is less reason to ears y. through uses were included in Downtown Plan. A vacant drive-through use now is allowed to open up to two years after it ceases operation without a public hearing or the ability to add conditions. In considering uses to be allowed in the Downtown Plan, it was decided that the vast majority of uses be allowed. However, auto-centric uses were specifically eliminated to encourage pedestrian and street-front uses. Auto-centric uses that are not allowed are auto repair, drive-through ATM's, auto supply Option 2 — Change the expiration term to I year. Option 3— Change the expiration term to 6 months (as it is in the remainder of the City). allow for a 2-year expiration of non-conforming uses. (with installation) and car washes. As currently allowed in the Downtown Plan, these uses could be closed up to two years and subsequently allowed to open with no public hearing or ability to modify or add conditions. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND120171 17-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.1.23.18\SSTable.PC.doc Page 1 Code Amendment No. 17-02, January 23, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 2. Page 47 — Outdoor Dining indicates AR — Page 96 sa ys M inor Modification. Prior to the adoption of the Downtown Plan, most of the properties were required to obtain the approval of an administrative use permit (A1UP) to allow outdoor dining. The goal in the Downtown Plan was to make it easier to obtain approval for outdoor seating. Unfortunately, the Downtown Plan is inconsistent on the process, requiring an Administrative Review on page 47 and a Minor Modification on page 96. An Administrative Review requires a staff level review, with no notification required. An Administrative Review is generally for uses and allows for revocation in cases where the use is not complying with the conditions of approval. A Minor Modification is the same as a Planning Director's Modification. These reqoire staff level review with no notification required. Planning Director's Modifications are used for physical improvements. There is no allowance for revocation. Option 1 — Require the approval of an Administrative Review for outdoor dining. Option 2 — Require the approval of a Minor Modification for outdoor dining. Option 1 — Require the approval of an Administrative Review. This process is less costly to the applicant and can be revoked if there are issues with the use. P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017 17-02 Downtown PlaMPC.SS.1.23.181SSTable.PC.doc Page 2 Code Amendment No. 17-02, January 23, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 3. Page 51 — 4.2C Allow increased hospital building hdght, process. The Downtown Plan limits the height of buildings in the General Urban zone to 40 feet (3 stories maximum) in height. During the last year, staff was working with West Covina Medical Group (formerly Doctor's Hospital) on a potential hospital building. While they decided withdraw the application, they did inform staff that hospital buildings need additional ceiling height over what other uses might need. They recommended allowing up to 58 feet (for a 3-story building) in height for hospital buildings in the General Urban zone. All new buildings in the General Urban zone are limited to 35 feet in height within 100 feet of a single-family property. A hospital use would seem to be the type of use to encourage in the Downtown area. To encourage that use, it would be appropriate to modify the standards to allow for the use without the need to apply for a variance. Option 1 — Make no changes, the maximum height continues to be 40 feet. Option 2 — Change the allowed height to allow flexibility but retain the 3-story height limit for hospital buildings. Option 2 — Change the allowed height to 58 feet and 3 stories for hospitals. P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND120 17 17-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.1.23.18 SSTable.PC.doc Page 3 Code Amendment No. 17-02, January 23, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 4. Page 51— 4.2C The Downtown area previously included a variety of zoning Option 1 — Make no changes. Option 4— Change the allowed Building height when adjacent to designations adjacent to the sun-ounding residential development, including Office Professional, Regional Commercial, Service Option 2 — Change the allowed height within 50 feet of single- family developed properties to single-family Commercial, and Medium Commercial. The Zoning section of height within 100 feet of single- 25 feet and within 100 feet to properties. the Municipal Code includes a restriction on the heights of family developed properties to 35 feet. This reduces the buildings in those zones that ranges from 25 feet to 45 feet in height within 100 feet of single-family residential properties. 25 feet. Option 3 — Change the allowed heights in close proximity to single-family homes, but allows the flexibility to step up The Downtown Plan places a restriction on the heights of 35 feet height within 100 feet of single- to 40 feet as the buildings within 100 feet of single-family residential properties. Single- family developed properties to progress away from the single- family properties are limited to 25 feet in height. In the General 30 feet. family houses. Urban zone, which is the zone adjacent to single-family houses, the height limit is 3 stories and 40 feet. Option 4 — Change the allowed height within 50 feet of single- family developed properties to 25 feet and within 100 feet to 35 feet. Option 5 — Change the allowed within 50 feet of single-family developed properties to 25 feet. P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND120 17\ 17-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.1.23.18 \SSTable.PC.doc Page 4 Code Amendment No. 17-02, January 23, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 5. Page 51 — 4.2, Allowed Building Types consistency with Chart on Page 53 and in charts for Building Standards. The Downtown Plan is a form-based Code. One of the aspects of a form-based Code is that it establishes the type of buildings allowed in a given zone. The allowed building types are indicated in 3 locations in the Code; in Section 5 (pages 50-52), in Section 5 (Page 53), and in Section 5 at the top each page (pages 56-63). After utilizing the Downtown Code, it was noted that there is some inconsistency as to the building types allowed in the Urban Center and General Urban zones. Options provided in Subsections Below. 5. a. Building Types in the Urban Center zone The following provides information on the Building Types allowed in the Urban Center zone. Page 50 Page 53 Page 56-63 Option 1 — Allow all Buildings Types that are included in the lists, Live-Work, Court, Hybrid Court, Liner, and Flex Building, Option 2 — Allow Court, Hybrid Court, Liner, and Flex Building to match the chart on Page 53. Option 1 — Given the newness of the Code, staff recommends that the revisions allow for the flexibility where there are separate lists. Flex Building Court Court Hybrid Court Hybrid Court Hybrid Court Liner Liner Liner Live-Work Flex Building Flex Building P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017 117-02 Downtown Plan1PC.SS.1.23.181SSTable.PC.doc Page 5 Code Amendment No. 17-02, January 23, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 5. b. Building Types in the General Urban zone The following provides information on the Building Types allowed in the General Urban zone. Page 51 Page 53 Pages 56-63 Option 1 — Allow all Buildings Types that are included in the lists, Rowhouse, Live-Work, Court, Hybrid Court, Liner, and Flex Building to match lists on Page 53 and Pages 56-63 Option 2— Allow Flex Building, Hybrid Court, Liner and Live-Work to match the chart on Page 51. Option 1 - Given the newness of the Code, staff recommends that the revisions allow for the flexibility where there are separate lists. Flex Building Rowhouse Rowhouse Hybrid Court Live-Work Live-Work Liner Court Court Live-Work Hybrid Court Hybrid Court Liner Liner Flex Building Flex Building 6. Page 51.- 4.1 1), 4.21) & 4.31) Parking requirement reduction, when applicable. The Downtown Code allows for reduced parking of 0.65 parking spaces for each space required by the Municipal Code. In other words, if the Municipal Code requires 100 spaces, then for development in the Downtown area, 65 spaces would be required. The concept is that urban development allows for walking to several different properties so that you would park once and then walk to the various destination. While the Downtown Code states that Nonresidential uses require 0.65 parking spaces, it is not clear if that is for development that complies with the Downtown Plan or for all development in the Downtown area, including Plaza West Covina, the Parkway Plaza, and Samantha Court. Option 1 — Allow 0.65 parking requirement for all properties within the Downtown Plan. Option 2 — Allow 0.65 parking for new development that is in compliance and utilizes the Downtown Plan. Option 2— The concept for the lower parking requirement is based on urban development_ Most of the existing developed parcels in the Downtown are developed in a suburban model and allowing reduced parking could led to merchant issues related to the availability of parking. P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND1201.71 17-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.1.23.18 \SSTable.PC.doc Page 6 Code Amendment No. 17-02, January 23, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 7. Page 95 — Add The sign standards of the West Covina Municipal Code are very Option 1 — Make no changes Option 2 — Allow blade signs standards for flexible in the type and size of signage allowed. In urban to the type of signs allowed. in the Downtown area. Blade pedestrian oriented development, freestanding signs become less likely and sign sizes signs are ideal for pedestrian- signs are generally smaller as they are mostly viewed from close Option 2 — Allow Blade Signs oriented development. (Awning/Projecting /Marquee) proximity, at a pedestrian scale, and at slow vehicle speeds. Given that the Downtown area has two existing blade signs, at the theater and at the commercial building to the north, it is appropriate to consider allowing blade signs in the Downtown Code. Blade signs projecting from the building face (projecting sign) and extend above the roofline (roof sign). While the Code allows both projecting and roof signs, it would allow for easier discussion and processing if the Code specifically included standards for blade signs. Because blade signs are ideal for pedestrian-scale urban areas, they are not necessarily important to be included for signs in the suburban portions of the City. in the Downtown area. 8. Page 97 — Add As part of the Entitlement Processing Code Amendment (No. 14- Option 1 — Make no changes. Option 2 — Add Minor Minor Modification 05), the recommendation will be to eliminate Planning Director's Modification to the Permit? Modifications and replace them with Minor Site Plan Review (for Option 2 — Add Minor Applications Chart on Page existing development) and Minor Modifications (for development under construction). At the time the Downtown Plan was adopted the Minor Site Plan Review was added to the list of applications, but Minor Modifications was not. Modification to the Applications Chart_ 97. P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.1.23.18\SSTable.PC.doe Page 7 Code Amendment No. 17-02, January 23, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 9. Page 98 — A new discretionary application was created in the Downtown Option 1 — Make no changes. Option 2 — Revise Downtown Special Plan called the Special Exception. The Special Exception Plan to include requirement for Exception applications allows developers to request an exception from Option 2 — Revise Downtown notification in the same should require a Building Placement, Lots Size, Building Types and Frontage Plan to include requirement for manner as a Precise Plan. 300-foot Types for projects that provide special amenities, design or notification in the same manner While it is likely that a Special notification, aesthetic benefit to the community. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve a Special Exception. The Downtown as a Precise Plan. Exception will be submitted concurrently with a Precise Plan does not state a Special Exception requires a 300-foot notification, noticing in the paper or a public hearing, Plan, it is appropriate to clarify notification requirements. 10. Page 47-48 — List of Permitted The Downtown Plan includes a list of Permitted Uses that establishes allowed uses and uses that require a discretionary Option 1 — Make no changes. Uses. review process. Over the past year, there have been requests for types of businesses that are not included in the list of uses allowed. Some of these uses were discussed as potential uses prior to the adoption of the Downtown Plan. Option 2 — Allow all uses. Option 3 — Only allow certain uses. Uses to be considered include the following: • Retail and Cigar Lounges, • Hookah Lounge, accessory use • Bar (tavern) • Incubator (business startup operation including kitchen, 3D printing and office) P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017117-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.1.23.18 \SSTable.PC.doe Page 8 Code Amendment No. 17-02, January 23, 2018 Downtown Plan Revisions Item Discussion Options Recommendation 11. Page 51 — 4.2 13 Parking The parking for Glendora Shops has generally been Option 1 — Only require Option 3 — While options 2 requirement for Glendora provided in the City-owned parking lot with limited parking for floors above 1st and 4 also have merit, staff is Shops parking on the properties adjacent to the alley to the east. The lots along that corridor are minimal and do not allow story. recommending Option 3 as it locks in the amount of for parking structures due to size and depth. The lots Option 2 — Only require commercial square footage. range from 2,760 to 18,000 sqi nre feet. Because the lots parking for floor above the Successful restaurants or are too small to provide required parking and because the properties were developed utilizing the City-owned 2"d floor, other types of destination business could increase the parking lot it would be unlikely that the lots could supply Option 3 — Require no parking demand while not the required parking in the case of new development_ As part of the Glendora Redesign project, the consultant parking for existing floor area, parking required for floor area greater than increasing the amount of floor area. (Kreuzer Consulting Group) completed a parking study for Glendora Avenue on August 1, 2016. The study existing. In addition to the required parking requirement for the indicates that there are a total of 997 parking spaces Option 4 — Only require redevelopment of the available along Glendora Avenue (street, alley, City- owned parking structure and surface lot). Actual parking parking for residential uses, commercial use would not buildings, it is also important to clarify parking demand for counts were taken on a Thursday midday and evening (717/16), Saturday night (7/9116) and Sunday afternoon require parking. a variety of uses and what happens if a use with a more (7110/16). Based on those counts, the parking spaces Option 5 — Require no intense parking requirement were currently utilized between 25% and 36% of available capacity. While there is adequate parking to meet demand currently, successful uses could increase the parking demand, so it will be important for the City to monitor parking in the area and adjust parking requirements or supply accordingly. Whatever option is selected, it should be clear in the Code that all residential units must provide parking on-site. parking. wants to go into one of the Glendora Shops. This issue would be covered in a second study session. P:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12017 117-02 Downtown Plan\PC.SS.1.23.18 SSTable.PC.doc Page 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 Index of Chances to the Downtown Plan and Code 1. PAGE 41: The nonconforming expiration term was changed from 2 years to 1 year. Sections 1.2C.3, 1.2C.4, and 1.2C.5. 2. PAGE 43: The definition of the Shopfront Frontage Overlay was revised to clarify requirements and reference parking requirements. Section 2.2A.2 a. Existing: This overlay requires buildings to have shopfront frontage and a minimum floor- to-ceiling height. This requirement is to accommodate ground floor live-work, commercial, retail, or other such non-residential activity on streets where the visions expects active, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes. b. Proposed: This overlay is intended to accommodate ground-floor activity along streets, such that, from the perspective of a pedestrian, the streetscape is active and pedestrian- oriented. Commercial, retail, and residential uses are encouraged in this zone. All buildings in this overlay zone must meet the minimum floor-to-ceiling height requirements of Section 4.2. (See page 51). Building frontage must comply with the Shopfront Frontage requirements of Section 6.2.F (See Page 72). 3. PAGES 44 AND 45: The map has been updated to include Zone Change No. 17-01, and to more clearly define the Shopfront Overlay. 4. PAGES 47-49 a. Added the following uses and related entitlement process to Table 4.3.1: Alcohol, off-sale, instructional tasting; hookah lounge (accessory); retail and cigar lounge; accessory use with solo musician; karaoke (accessory); bar; solo musician; massage parlor (primary use); incubator (office use); and incubator (business startup including kitchen, 3-D printing, similar). b. Updated the entitlement required for the following uses: automated teller machines (walk- up) off the premises of a financial institution; barber, beauty, and jewelry shops with accessory body piercing; tutoring facility; and automated teller machines (walk-up) on the premises of a financial institution 5. PAGE 51 a. Added side and rear yard setback requirements when adjacent to Single-Family Residential Properties. Section 4.1.B b. Added the Court building type and standards. Section 4.1C c. Clarified that reduced parking is only permitted for projects which comply with the DTPC standards. Section 4.1D 6. PAGE 52 a. Added side and rear yard setback requirements when adjacent to Single-Family Residential Properties. Section 4.2.B b. Added the Court and Rowhouse building types and standards. Section 4.2C c. Added a maximum height allowance for hospitals. Section 4.2C d. Added building height maximums when adjacent to Single-Family Residential properties. Section 4.2C 7. PAGE 53 a. Clarified that reduced parking is only permitted for projects which comply with the DTPC standards. Section 4.2D b. Added a new section for parking requirements within the Shopfront Overlay. Section 42.D.iii 8. PAGE 54 a. Added building height maximums when adjacent to Single-Family Residential properties. Section 4.3C b. Clarified that reduced parking is only permitted for projects which comply with the DTPC standards. Section 4.3D 9. PAGES 55-65: Revised allowed building types to be consistent allowed building types indicated in Section 4. 10. PAGE 97 a. Added a requirement for perimeter walls when adjacent to Single-Family Residential properties. Section 10.1.C.i b. Added design standards for gutters and downspouts. Section 10.1.0 11. PAGE 98 a. Updated entitlement process for outdoor dining from a Minor Modification to an Administrative Review. Section 10.1.D.i b. Added regulations for Blade signs. Section 10.1.E 12. PAGE 99: a. Added Administrative Review to the Table 10.A. b. Added Minor Modification to the Table 10.A. 13. PAGE 100: Added notification requirements for the Special Exception Process. Section 11.0 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: June 26, 2018 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PLANNING DIRECTOR'S MODIFICATION NO. 18-06 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Cesar Soto, Options for Learning LOCATION: 203 S. Azusa Avenue I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION On June 28, 2016 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution for Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 for a day-care facility and Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 to refurbish the existing facility, existing landscaping, and existing site parking lot. The applicant is submitting a Planning Director's Modification to construct two 200- square foot storage sheds with a maximum height of 12'-9". The storage sheds are proposed to be located adjacent to the parking lot and along the south property line. sr-TA Noa nease Files\PD MOD12018118-06 203 S Azusa Ave (options for learning)1StaffReport.doex Planning Director's Modification No. 18-06 203 S. Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 26, 2018- Page 2 II. BACKGROUND The subject property is located south of the Interstate 10 San Bernardino Freeway on East Garvey Avenue South to the west of Barranca Street. The building is located in a "Medium Commercial" zone. The existing 54,093- square foot building is on a 70,685- square foot lot. DESCRIPTION Zoning: "Office Professional" (0-P) North: "Neighborhood Commercial" (N-C); Gas Station East: "Neighborhood Commercial" (N-C) and "Service Commercial" (S-C); Gas Station and Auto dealership South: "Single-Family Residential" (R-1); single-family residences West: "Single-Family Residential" (R-1); single-family residences Options for Learning, day-care facility IH. DISCUSSION On June 28, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution for Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 and approved Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 to allow for a day-care center and modifications to refurbish the existing site. Under the conditions of approval, any modifications to the approved site plan, floor plan, or elevations shall be reviewed by the Planning, Building, Fire, and Police Departments and the Community Development Commission, and that the written authorizations of the Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct two 200- square foot storage units with a maximum height of 12 feet 9-inches along the south property line of an existing day-care facility use. The storage sheds will be a minimum of 2 feet apart. Access to the storage sheds will be along the north elevation for the first storage shed and on the south elevation of the second storage shed. The storage sheds will be west of the existing trash enclosure. Additionally, the storage units are proposed to be 10 feet from the south property line neighboring residential properties. Upon receiving the application on February 28, 2018, staff recommended that landscaping along the eastern and northern perimeter of the proposed storage shed include plant materials to create a hedge to provide screening from the street. The applicant has indicated that landscape planters are located along the perimeter near the wrought iron fencing and throughout the parking lot including along the southerly property line. Under the Planning ZACase Files\PD MOD12018\18-06 203 S Azusa Ave (options for learning)IStaff Report,docx Planning Director's Modification No. 18-06 203 S. Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 26, 2018 - Page 3 Director's direction, the application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The storage sheds serve the purpose of storing the outside play area equipment. The storage sheds will be comprised of plywood and will be painted light brown to match the existing building. There will be a wood gate that will match the sheds, to create a barrier from the play area to the area between the storage units. V. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposal is categorically exempt, pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 1, Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the project is proposing the construction of two 200-square foot storage units at an existing property. VI. CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting a Planning Director's Modification to allow for two 200- square foot storage sheds to be located at the south portion of an existing day-care facility. The storage sheds are 10 feet from the nearest residential property on the south property line. The sheds are to provide storage for the day-care facility's outdoor equipment. The storage sheds are proposed to be consistent in color palette as the existing day-care facility. Staff recommended that the applicant incorporate landscaping directly along the perimeter (north and east elevations) of the storage sheds to create a buffer from the units to the play area as well as the parking lot. The applicant is proposing to leave the existing planters and make no changes to plant materials. The intention is that the existing landscaping in the parking area will be sufficient to screen the new sheds. Staff recommends that the following pondition be included in the conditions of approval for the application: • Landscaping along the perimeter of the two sheds shall be incorporated along the north, east and west elevations to provide screening and a buffer. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Planning Director's Modification No. 18-06 with the following conditions: a. Comply with the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2018. b. Comply with all applicable sections of the West Covina Municipal Code. Z:\Case Files\PD MO1312018118-06 203 S Azusa Ave (options for learning)1Staff Report,docx Planning Director's Modification No. 18-06 203 S. Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 26, 2018- Page 4 c. Comply with all requirements of the "Office Professional" (0-P) Zone. d. All conditions of approval for Planning Director's Modifications No. 16-17 shall remain in effect. e. This approval is for the construction of two 200-square foot storage sheds located 10 feet from the south property line. The storage sheds shall be a maximum height of 12 feet 9 inches and be a minimum of 2 feet apart. Access to the sheds shall be along the north elevation for the first shed and on the south elevation for the second shed. There shall be a wood gate consistent with the sheds to enclose the 2-foot separation of the two sheds. Additionally, the sheds shall be comprised of plywood paneling and be painted in the color of light brown, to be consistent with the existing day-care facility. f. Landscaping along the perimeter of the two sheds shall be incorporated along the north, east and west elevations to provide screening and a buffer. g. All approved materials and colors shall be clearly indicated on the construction plans. h. The Planning Director, prior to the issuance of building permits must approve the location of new electrical transformers, vaults, antennas, mechanical, and all other equipment not indicated on the approved plans. Provide construction details prior to the issuance of a building permit. i. The Planning Director's Modification No. 18-06 approval shall become null and void if a building permit is not obtained within one (1) year of the date of approval. Please be advised that the applicant will not be notified by the Planning Department about pending expiration of the subject entitlement. BUILDING DEPARTMENT j. All Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning Commission shall appear as notes on the plans submitted for building plan check and permits. k. Building design shall comply with the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). Z:\Case Files\PD MO1)12018118-06 203 S Azusa Ave (options for learning)IStaff Report.docx Planning Director's Modification No. 18-06 203 S. Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 26, 2018 Page 5 FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. NFPA 10 — Portable Fire extinguishers m. Because the playground has the capacity for 50 or more children based on size, two legal and remote exit paths/gates must be provided. It appears that the installation of the storage shed will now block at least half of one previously opened end of the playground. PREPARED BY: Christi4 Delostrinos Associate Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Jeff Anderson, AICP Planning Director Attachments: Attachment No. 1 — Planning Commission Staff Report, Dated June 28, 2016 Attachment No. 2— Resolution No. 16-5815 Attachment No. 3 — Plans ZACase Fites\PD MOD12018118-06 203 S Azusa Ave (options for leaming)1Staff Report.docx ATTACHMENT NO. 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE: June 28, 2016 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 16-02 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S MODIFICATIONS NO. 16-17 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Cliff Marcussen- Options for Learning LOCATION: 203 South Azusa Avenue I. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of a day-care facility, Options for Learning, to be in an "Office Professional" (0-P) Zone. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a Planning Director's Modification to refurbish the existing facility, existing landscaping, and existing site parking lot. Z:\Cas Files\CUP\2016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Leariting)1StafrReport.doe Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 2 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 and approve Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17. BACKGROUND ITEM DESCRIPTION ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN Zoning: "Office Professional" (0-P) SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING North: "Neighborhood Commercial" (N-C); Gas Station East: "Neighborhood Commercial" (N-C) and "Service Commercial" (S-C); Gas Station and Auto dealership South: "Single-Family Residential" (R-1); single-family residences West: "Single-Family Residential" (R-1); single-family residences Vacant facility CURRENT .....' DEVELOPMENT LEGAL NOTICE Notices of Public Hearing have been mailed to 64 owners and occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the subject site In March of 2000 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 536 to allow the establishment of a childcare center (pre-school and day-care) for approximately 168 children with 18 teachers located in an existing 13,479- square foot vacant commercial building used as an insurance office. The approval also included Precise Plan No. 878 for site and building modifications including parking lot re-striping, playground and miscellaneous site improvements and interior tenant improvements in order to facilitate the childcare center use. The childcare center was known as Tutor Time Learning Center. The business license for Tutor Time Learning Center expired December of 2013 and has been inactive since. The lot is currently vacant. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting an approval of a conditional use permit for the use of a day-care center that will be called Options for Learning. The subject property is located in an "Office Professional" (0-P) Zone located south of the Interstate 10 Freeway. Additionally, the applicant is requesting the approval of a Planning Director's Modification to make minor modifications to refurbish the existing site. The subject property abuts Garvey Avenue South and Azusa Avenue. The facility is directly adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods on the west and south side. There are two gas stations north of the subject property and an auto dealership on the east of the property. The use of a day-care center in all zoning designations requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit for the previous use of a child-care center, Tutor Time Learning Center, was approved in 2000 and has been inactive for more than six months. Under the Municipal Code, if the said use is inactive for more than 6 months the entitlement becomes null and an applicant must request an approval for a conditional use permit to allow a day-care use. Z:\Case Files CUP12016 \16-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Learning)IStuffReport.doe Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No, 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Options for Learning is a non-profit, public service agency that provides head start, preschool and child day-care services. There are multiple existing facilities located throughout the San Gabriel Valley. The facility offers programs to infants through the age of five. The classes would be organized by age groups ranging from one staff member to four infants or toddlers, to one staff member to twelve children. The program is anticipated to have a staff size of 30 employees and allow for up to 209 children from infants to the age of 5. The programs and classes will be organized appropriately by age group and be provided by the Options for Learning curriculum. The day-care would operate between the hours of 6:00 A.M and 6:30 P.M, Monday through Friday and would not be in operation during the weekends. The applicant states that the children would not use the play area on the south portion of the site before 8:00 A.M. The proposed day-care use would occupy an existing facility. The facility is located on a 45,654- square foot property. The facility is two stories with a floor area of 13,479 square feet and was built in 1987. There are three existing play areas on the property. A 3,184- square foot play area located on the north portion of the property and two areas that total a 8,175- square tbot play area located on the south portion of the property. There are two fence lines that separate the facility and the play areas on the south portion of the property from the adjacent residential homes. The play area fence is setback 5 feet from the property line wall, which is 8 feet in height. The 5- foot setback is an existing landscape planter that maintains mature ivy and trees that will remain. Along the perimeter of the parking area there is an existing 3- foot high block wall that creates a barrier from the two main streets, Garvey Avenue South and Azusa Avenue. The existing facility has two floors which facilitate the proposed day-care use. The ground-floor is 6,920 square feet and includes an infant room (6 weeks to 1 year old), toddler room (1 to 2 years old), twaddler room (2 to 3 years old), covered play area, laundry room, lounge, office, reception area, isolation room, two restrooms, and an elevator. There are two stairwells located on the west portion of the facility and the east portion of the facility. The second-story floor plan of 6,559 includes three classrooms for pre-school (3 to 5 years old), an indoor play area (labeled as 'village'), a pantry, and one restrooin. The site currently provides 50 parking stalls and 3 handicap parking stalls, for a total of 53 parking stalls. The West Covina Municipal Code does not explicitly regulate day-care parking. Staff determined that the function of a day-care use is similar to an elementary school use. The parking standard for an elementary school use is one parking space per employee. With the anticipated staff size of 30 employees, it would be required to have 30 parking stalls. The site would have sufficient parking for the proposed use with the existing parking lot of 53 parking stalls. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S MODIFICATION The applicant proposed to make minor modifications to refurbish the existing site. An approval fur a Planning Director's Modification is required to make any modifications to the exterior of the current site plan. The modifications proposed are to refurbish areas that need repair and attention. These areas include the following: Z:Case Files \CUP12016 116-02 203 S. Azusa Aeinte (Options for Learning)1StaffReport.doc Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 4 • Slurry sealing and restriping entire parking lot surface. • Removing and replacing landscaped areas that need attention for improvement, including landscape planter along the perimeter and planters located inside the parking area. • Repainting and re-patching areas that need attention on the 3- foot high block wall that is along the perimeter of the subject property, the 6- foot high wall around the north play yard, and the small wall around a planter that is along the north side of the building. • Repairing and repainting trash enclosure doors. All site modification proposals are consistent and meet the Municipal Code development standards for an "Office Professional" (0-P) Zone. Staff recommends the following conditions be added under the conditions of approval: • The entire 3- foot perimeter wall that is existing be repaired and repainted. • All landscaped areas shall be improved. • The trash enclosure improvements shall include a decorative solid cover to meet NPDES requirements. IV. FINDINGS Before an application for a conditional use permit can be made, the following finding shall be made: a) That the proposed use at the particular location is necessaty or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or community. The proposed use is consistent with the "Office Professional" (0-P) General Plan and Zoning Map designation. An "Office Professional" (0-P) zone is low density and allows professional services for adjacent residences, and serves as a buffer between residential and high-intensity uses. The proposed use is a day-care facility with a floor area of 13,749 square feet. The day-care facility would be known as Options for Learning and would provide programs for children at an early age of 6 weeks to the age of 5. The proposed use is located on the southwest corner of Garvey Avenue South, a collector street, and Azusa Avenue, a principle arterial south of the Interstate 10 freeway. The day-care use would be located near single-family residential homes, where it would be a convenience for the neighboring communities and families. The proposed day-care use meets all the applicable requirements of the "Office- Professional" (0-P) Zone. b) That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed day-care use will occupy an existing facility that was previously approved for a similar use in 2000. The operating hours of the proposed use are Z:\Casc Files\CUP\2016 116-02 203 S. Azusa Acnue (Options for Learning)1Staff Report.doc Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 5 Monday through Friday from 6:00 A.M to 6:30 P.M. The children would not be allowed to be in the play area at the south portion of the property before 8:00 A.M., as it is directly adjacent to residential properties. In addition, there is a 5- foot in width landscape planter with mature plants and an 8- foot block wall that separates the proposed day-care use and the southerly residential properties. The site maintains walls and barriers to allow buffers between the public streets on South Garvey Avenue and Azusa Avenue. With the conditions of approval, the proposed day-care use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of surrounding residents or business owners. c) That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and any other features necessaly to adjust said use to the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible therewith. The site for the proposed day-care use is 45,654 square feet in lot size with a total landscaped area of 9,069 square feet, total outdoor play area of 13,164 square feet, parking area of 17, 274 square feet, and a building footprint 7,352 square feet. The existing facility is a two-story building with a total floor area of 13,479 square feet. The site was approved in 2000 for the use of a child day-care center and site modifications to facilitate the said use. The proposed day-care use is similar in function and use to the previously approved occupant. The site and the proposed use would be compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses. d) That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed use and that street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee that such generations will not be channeled through residential areas on local residential streets. The subject property is south of the Interstate 10 freeway and abuts the Garvey Avenue South, a collector street, and Azusa Avenue, a principle arterial. The only entrance to the site is via Garvey Avenue South. The proposed day-care use will not generate a substantial amount of vehicular traffic nor alter present circulation patterns. Although the subject parcel abuts Azusa Avenue, which is a principle arterial, minimal additional traffic through the neighborhood is anticipated. e) That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the city, or any other adopted plan of the city. Granting the conditional use permit for the proposed use of a day-care facility would allow the opportunity for the surrounding community to have access to a day-care facility. The proposed day-care use would not compromise the character of the surrounding neighborhood nor be detrimental to the surrounding land uses. Allowing the proposed use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The ZACase Files\CUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Learning)1Staff Report, dm: Conditional Use Permit No, 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 6 General Plan states that the City shall arrange land uses with the regard to the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the residents of the city. V. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is a Categorical Exemption Class 1 (Section 15301: Existing Facilities) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) since the project involves only the rehabilitation of an existing structure and existing facilities. VI. CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the use of a day-care facility in an "Office Professional" (0-P) Zone that would occupy an existing building. In conjunction with the request, the applicant requests a Planning Director's Modification to allow the refurbishment of the existing site. The subject property was approved for a similar use (child day-care center known as Tutor Time Learning Center) in 2000 and became inactive in 2013. Under the Municipal Code, if the said use is inactive for more than six months the entitlement must request an approval for a conditional use permit to allow the use. Through the conditional use permit, findings were made to determine if the proposed day-care use would be suitable for the existing site and neighborhood. The findings concluded that the proposed day-care use is consistent with the "Office Professional" (0-P) land use designation in the General Plan, meets zoning code standards, and would not be detrimental to the health and safety of the adjacent land uses and residents. The proposed modifications to refurbish the existing site, through the request of a Planning Director's Modification, is consistent with the required development standards under the Municipal Code for the "Office Professional" (0-P) zone. Conditions have been added to upgrade the subject property. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 and approve Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 with the following conditions: a. Comply with the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2016. b. Comply with all applicable sections of the West Covina Municipal Code. c. Comply with all requirements of the "Office Professional" (0-P) Zone. d. The entire parking lot surface shall be slurry sealed and restriped. e. The following walls shall be repaired and repainted: ZACase Files \CUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Learning)IStaff Report.doe Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 7 • 3- foot perimeter wall along Garvey Avenue South and Azusa Avenue • 6- foot high wall around the north play yard shall • Small wall around the north side of the building around the existing planter f. A parking lot lighting plan showing electrolier types and locations, average illumination levels, point of minimum illumination and photometric data in conformance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and as requested shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and the City Engineer. g. Building and parking lot lighting is required to be architecturally integrated with the building design. Standard security wall packs are not acceptable unless they are provided with hooding that is architecturally compatible with the building. It That prior to final building permit approval, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in compliance with AB 1881 and Executive Order B-29-15 shall be submitted for all areas to be affected by project. Plans shall include type, size and quantity of landscape materials and irrigation equipment. All vegetation areas shall be automatically irrigated and a detailed watering program and water budget shall be provided. All damaged vegetation shall be replaced and the site shall be kept free of diseased or dead plant materials and litter at all times. The applicant shall coordinate with the applicable water district to determine if the water district has any specific requirement for water efficient landscaping. i. Existing trees on the property should not be topped but should be pruned to preserve their natural form. Prior to requesting a final inspection by the Building Division, the Planning Department shall inspect the development. k. The paved areas at the site shall be maintained clean and free of oil stains. All paved areas shall be pressure washed as needed to maintain the site in a clean and orderly manner. 1. Comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) by providing a decorative solid cover on the existing trash enclosure. Covers on trash enclosures require a building permits. M. All approved materials and colors shall be clearly indicated on the construction plans. n. All mechanical equipment not shown on the approved Study Plan shall be screened from all views in a manner that is architecturally compatible with the buildings on which they are mounted. Plans and elevations indicating the type of equipment and method of concealment shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits pursuant to Municipal Code Section 26-568 o. During construction, the delivery of materials and equipment, outdoor operations of equipment and construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. ZACase FilesIC1iP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aentic (Options for Learning)1Staff Repoltdoc Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No, 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 8 p. All construction equipment, stationary or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. q. That any proposed change to the approved site plan, floor plan, or elevations be reviewed by the Planning, Building, Fire, and Police Departments and the Community Development Commission, and that the written authorization of the Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation. r. The operation of the facility shall comply with the West Covina Noise Ordinance. s. Any new gutters and downspouts shall not project from the vertical surface of the building pursuant to section 26-568 (a) (3). t. The Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits must approve the location of new electrical transformers, vaults, antennas, mechanical, and all other equipment not indicated on the approved plans. Provide construction details prior to the issuance of a building permit. u. All new on-site utility service lines shall be placed underground. v. This approval does not include the approval of signs; a separate sign permit shall be obtained. All signs shall be required to comply with the City of West Covina Sign Code. w. This approval does not include the approval of signs; a separate sign permit shall be obtained. All signs shall be required to comply with the City of West Covina Sign Code. x. Any sidewalk, hardscape or parking facility, with potholes, broken, raised or depressed sections, large cracks, mud and/or dust, accumulation of loose material, faded or illegible pavement striping or other deterioration shall be repaired. y. Any graffiti that appears on the property during construction shall be cleaned or removed on the same business day. z. Clinging vines shall be installed on all retaining or freestanding walls to assist in deterring graffiti. an. Graffiti-resistant coatings shall be used on all walls, fences, sign structures, or similar structures to assist in deterring graffiti. bb. The Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 approval shall become null and void if a building permit is not obtained within one (1) year of the date of approval. Please be advised that the applicant will not be notified by the Planning Department about pending expiration of the subject entitlement. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Z:\Case Files \CUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options -for Learning)IStaff Report.doc Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 9 cc. All Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning Commission shall appear as notes on the plans submitted for building plan check and permits. dd. Building design shall comply with the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). cc. Separate application(s), plan check(s), and permit(s) is/are required for: • Tenant Improvements if The proposed use constitutes a change in occupancy. Pursuant to CBC§ 105.1 and CBC§ 3408, a building permit will be required. Prepare and submit plans to Building Division for review and approval. For proposed Assembly and Education types of occupancy, a state licensed architect will be required to prepare and sign plans at time of approval. [Business and Profession Code Section 5535-5538 and the Private School Act of 1986] gg. Complete architectural plans prepared a by State licensed architect will be required. Submit design for review at formal plans review. hh. A complete code analysis is required. Address type of construction, occupancy, exiting, allowable areas, allowable heights, etc. Provide a summary on the drawing. ii. Compliance with the State of California Accessibility regulations is required, including: • Building entrances shall be provided with an accessible path of travel connecting the building entrances from the public sidewalk, accessible parking, and other buildings or essential facilities located on the site. jj. Accessible parking: a Shall be located at each main entrance. Where multiple major entrances occur, accessible parking shall be equally distributed among the entrances. • Shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep and be provided with a loading and unloading passenger access aisle of 8 feet wide for Van space and 5 feet wide for regular accessible spaces. kk. Existing curb ramp shall be removed and replaced with new curb ramps complying with current code. 11. Al! employee areas shall be accessible including behind counters, lounge and dressing/locker rooms. inm. All restrooms serving the building shall be accessible. nn. Drinking fountains (high/low) are required to be accessible. Z:lease FilesCUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Learning)1StaffReport.doc Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 10 oo. All public telephones, if provided, shall be accessible. At least one and 25% shall be equipped for hearing impaired, volume control. At least one telephone shall comply with CBC 1117B.2.9.2 for text telephones where there are at least 4 phones on the site. pp. Provide Fire Alarms and Detection systems complying with CBC § 907.2.3 qq. Provide fire sprinklers complying with CBC § 903.2.3 for the following projects: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT rr. All existing concrete driveway approach shall be removed and reconstructed to meet current ADA requirements. FIRE DEPARTMENT ss. Based on preliminary information provided, this use will be classified as an 1-4 occupancy, per the 2013 Building Code. tt. The building must be of Type I, Type II-A or Type-III-A construction. uu. One of the two exits required from the 2" floor must lead directly to the exterior of the building and not pass through the P t floor area. vv. A full manual fire alarm and smoke detection system will be required, in accord with the 2013 NFPA 13 Standard. ww. Floors shall be divided into smoke compartments (at least two per floor) and shall meet all 2013 California Building Code requirements for construction of said compartments. xx. Infants shall not be housed/cared for on the second floor at any time. Christine Delostrinos Assistant Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ZACase Fi1es\CUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aentie (Options for Learning)1Stalf Report.doc Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 203 South Azusa Avenue- Options for Learning June 28, 2016- Page 11 Attachments: Attachment I — Conditional Use Permit Resolution for Approval Attachment 2 — Business Operations Plan Attachment 3 — Plans (Available for review by the public at the West Covina Library, West Covina Police Department, and West Covina Planning Department) ZACase Files1C1)P12016 116-02 203 S. Azusa Act= (Options for Lcarning)\StaiiReportdoc ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 16-5815 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16-02 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16-02 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Cliff Marcussen- Options for Learning LOCATION: 203 S. Azusa Avenue WHEREAS, there was filed with this Commission, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a conditional use pennit to: Allow the a day-care facility use in an existing 13,479- square foot two-story building on certain property described as follows: Assessor Parcel No. 8477-002-013 as shown on the latest rolls of the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 28 th day of June, 2016, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow a day-care facility use within an existing two-story building of 13,479 square feet that is zoned as "Office Professional" (0-P). 2. The proposed day-care facility anticipates to accommodate 30 employees and up to 209 children ranging from infancy to the age of 5. The day-care facility will be open from Monday through Friday 6:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. 3. The applicant is requesting approval of Planning Director's Modification No. 16-17 to refurbish the existing facility, existing landscaping, and existing site parking lot. 4. Findings necessary for approval of a conditional use permit are as follows: Z:\Case FiIes\CUP120 I 6116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Leaming)1Reso.doe Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-5812 Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 June 28, 2016- Page 2 a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare or persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. c. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as, all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and any other features necessary to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible thereto. d. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed uses and the street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee that such generation will not be channeled through residential areas on local residential streets. e. That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. 5. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is considered to be categorically exempt (Class 1, Existing Facilities) in that it consists of minor alterations of the existing structure in order to operate the requested use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina as follows: 1. On the basis of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for approval of a conditional use permit: a. The proposed use is consistent with the "Office Professional" (0-P) General Plan and Zoning Map designation. An "Office Professional" (0-P) zone is low density and allows professional services for adjacent residences, and serves as a buffer between residential and high-intensity uses. The proposed use is a day-care facility with a floor area of 13,749 square feet. The day-care facility would be known as Options for Learning and would provide programs for children at an early age of 6 weeks to the age of 5. The proposed use is located on the southwest corner of Garvey Avenue South, a collector street, and Azusa Avenue, a principle arterial south of the Interstate 10 freeway. The day-care use would be located near single- family residential homes, where it would be a convenience for the neighboring communities and families. The proposed day-care use meets all the applicable requirements of the "Office-Professional" (0-P) Zone. b. The proposed day-care use will occupy an existing facility that was previously approved for a similar use in 2000. The operating hours of the proposed use are ZACase Files\CUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Leaming)1Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-5812 Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 June 28, 2016 Page 3 Monday through Friday from 6:00 A.M to 6:30 P.M. The children would not be allowed to be in the play area at the south portion of the property before 8:00 A.M., as it is directly adjacent to residential properties. In addition, there is a 5- foot in width landscape planter with mature plants and an 8- foot block wall that separates the proposed day-care use and the southerly residential properties. The site maintains walls and barriers to allow buffers between the public streets on Garvey Avenue South and Azusa Avenue. With the conditions of approval, the proposed day-care use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of surrounding residents or business owners. c. The site for the proposed day-care use is 45,654 square feet in lot size with a total landscaped area of 9,069 square feet, total outdoor play area of 13,164 square feet, parking area of 17, 274 square feet, and a building footprint 7,352 square feet. The existing facility is a two-story building with a total floor area of 13,479 square feet. The site was approved in 2000 for the use of a child day-care center and site modifications to facilitate the said use. The proposed day-care use is similar in function and use to the previously approved occupant. The site and the proposed use would be compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses. d. The subject property is south of the Interstate 10 freeway and abuts the Garvey Avenue South, a collector street, and Azusa Avenue, a principle arterial. The only entrance to the site is via Garvey Avenue South. The proposed day-care use will not generate a substantial amount of vehicular traffic nor alter present circulation patterns. Although the subject parcel abuts Azusa Avenue, which is a principle arterial, minimal additional traffic through the neighborhood is anticipated. e. Granting the conditional use permit for the proposed use of a day-care facility would allow the opportunity for the surrounding community to have access to a day-care facility. The proposed day-care use would not compromise the character of the surrounding neighborhood nor be detrimental to the surrounding land uses. Allowing the proposed use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan states that the City shall arrange land uses with the regard to the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the residents of the city. 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 is approved subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code provided that the physical development of the herein described property shall conform to said conditional use permit and the conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly indicated, shall be fully performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the Planning Director before the use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before a certificate of occupancy is issued, and the violation of any of which shall be grounds for revocation of said conditional use permit by the Planning Commission or City Council. 3. The conditional use permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of the property involved (or his duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the ZACase Files\CUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Learning)aeso.doe Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-5812 Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 June 28, 2016 - Page 4 Planning Director his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this conditional use permit as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with the processing of this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690. 4. The costs and expenses of any enforcement activities, including, but not limited to attorney's fees, caused by the applicant's violation of any condition imposed by this approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be paid by the applicant. 5. That the approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: a. Comply with the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2015. b. Comply with all requirements of the West Covina Municipal Code. c. The conditional use permit may be revoked, amended or suspended by the Planning Commission under the provisions of Section 26-253 of the West Covina Municipal Code. d. The proposed business shall not constitute a public nuisance as defined under Section 15-200 of the West Covina Municipal Code. e. The day-care facility shall operate from Monday through Friday from 6:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. The play area on the south portion of the site shall not be in use before 8:00 A. M. f. The number of children served on-site at this location shall not exceed 209. g. The maximum number of employees at the site at any time shall not exceed 30. h. In the event that the availability of parking is negatively impacted, the Planning Commission shall review the conditional use permit for the use and may, at its discretion, modify or impose new conditions or suspend or revoke the conditional use permit pursuant to Section 26-253 of West Covina Municipal Code. A parking lot plan showing electrolier types and locations, average illumination levels, points of minimum illumination and photometric data in conformance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2513 and as requested shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and the City Engineer. That prior to final building permit approval, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in compliance with AB 1881 and Executive Order B-29-15 shall be submitted for all areas to be affected by project. Plans shall include type, size and quantity of landscape materials and irrigation equipment. All vegetation areas shall be automatically irrigated and a detailed watering program and water budget shall be ZACase Files\CUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Learning)1Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-5812 Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 June 28, 2016 - Page 5 provided. All damaged vegetation shall be replaced and the site shall be kept free of diseased or dead plant materials and litter at all times. The applicant shall coordinate with the applicable water district to determine if the water district has any specific requirement for water efficient landscaping. k. The paved areas at the site shall be maintained clean and free of oil stains. All paved areas shall be pressure washed as needed to maintain the site in a clean and orderly manner. 1. The applicant shall comply with maximum occupancy (total number of persons allowed to occupy the facility) requirements, pursuant to applicable Fire and Building Codes. m. This approval does not include approval of signs; a separate sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of any signs. n. Any proposed change to the allowed use of a day-care facility shall be first reviewed by the Planning Department, Engineering Division, Building Division, and Fire Depattment, and shall require the written authorization of the Planning Director prior to implementation. o. Landscaping on the site shall be maintained in a viable and healthy condition. Landscaping areas are to be kept free of litter and diseased or dead plants. Diseased, dead, damaged and/or disfigured plants shall be replaced as deemed necessary by the Planning Director. The irrigation system shall be maintained in an operative condition. P. The Zoning Code gives provisions for up to three one-year extensions to keep entitlements active. Therefore, prior to June 28, 2016, (if building permits have not been obtained) you are urged to file a letter with the department requesting a one- year extension of time. The required submittal is a letter stating the reasons why an extension is needed, as well as an applicable processing fee. Please be advised that the applicant will not be notified by the Planning Department about the pending expiration of the subject entitlement. Fire Department q. Based on preliminary information provided, this use will be classified as an 1-4 occupancy, per the 2013 Building Code. r. The building must be of Type I, Type 11-A or Type-M-A construction. S. One of the two exits required from the 2nd floor must lead directly to the exterior of the building and not pass through the 1st floor area. t. A full manual fire alarm and smoke detection system will be required, in accord with the 2013 NFPA 13 Standard. Z:lease Files\CUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Learning)1Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution 14o. 16-5812 Conditional Use Permit No. 16-02 June 28, 2016 - Page 6 u. Floors shall be divided into smoke compartments (at least two per floor) and shall meet all 2013 California Building Code requirements for construction of said compartments. V. Infants shall not be housed/cared for on the second floor at any time. HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a special meeting held on the 28 th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Heng, Holtz, Castellanos, Jimenez, Redholtz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DATE: June 28, 2016 EXPIRATION DATE: June 28, 2017 If not used Dario-Castellanos, Chairman Planning Commission Jef Wderson, Secretary Planning Commission ZACase Files\CUP12016116-02 203 S. Azusa Aenue (Options for Learning)aeso.doc DETAIL %NI SECTION:A WA/ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SOLE OENLARGED FLOOR PLAN VINNI st,T, NM" GENERAL NOTES C 0/11 0,1 PPR 110RLI .110- MIR- MISR FROM MR. ..1110: COLOR DEC1111-50RIERNIE .00001ACIP NOE. ELBIATIORIEI SOMP- PANT PINC.11 PROM Me DS COLOR PeR IPP-ERIALERV ILIE 11/0PRAP WOOD 0P,611Er 900C PER WA, ECICRETIC RAPINE ELEVA1ICN:11 ISIALBEVATC113C1 KEYNOTES: .0E. PAPp00-p1101.0 mi pvipx CRLETK ,71411 EICL IZYPED-PROES:0 N R. ® ournc apcpmr ann,a-mano IN P0CE 0 0101110 PUIPIGRNIND WPM •cq -runr 0 onmse ACC=14C pgaiim-pnrrra IR PLACE 0 1,1101al... 71,[1,01I‘ofr-PNIPIERIEE SIONCP 0CIIS MEL IP IV IP I. SIP /I 0 ow.. ma, riNd-1.13.1 Ix p.ct 0 sr,. X01.1 • CP WYLIF- MR O MIRO arricfirm laq.Kom 6, _ .,. 100P1 07C-11107 1.01 00PACC 01121 13 PROVIDE 3 -0. OnnriC Ai {r) .7.-0- WIGlir WSW .1.- KV. 3 ID.rr [..rt ran. m ',ATLI.. ,E, SIM cl.... mc yow. I.. FrE earmuisnoz (9 s'-e Tex e Imo, conzam R.. VICINITY MAP SOS S A‘USA MIL WEST COVINA. LOCATION MCRAE 10 PPLP.A. ID (E) 2 STORY BUILDING 0LIRTARE E. GARVEY AVENUE SCOPE OF WORK S. AZUSA AVENUE ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CDPIETR4,101.1 dIARES ;1%1PIG PrOJEct 11.7 OPTIONS FORLEARNING PARKINS LOTRENWATION 7333.121AVIENUE, WEST GINNA.CA SITE PLAN, ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN A EXT. ELEVATIONS E.., A-1.0 SITE PLAN AGENDA NO. 6. a. DATE: June 26, 2018 FORTHCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS July 10, 2018 A, CONSENT CALENDAR None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (1) Continued from April 24, 2018 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 17-45 SECOND STORY ADDITION APPLICANT: Jiahui Tong LOCATION: 2641 Elena Avenue (2) PRECISE PLAN NO. 18-04 BUILDING ADDITION APPLICANT: LOCATION: C. NON-HEARING ITEMS None July 24, 2018 A. CONSENT CALENDAR None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS None Bob Christoff for BMW Management (Sizzler) 1100 W. West Covina Parkway C. NON-HEARING ITEMS (1) STUDY SESSION — CODE AMENDMENT NO. 18-01 VkCievrnn,a1S-ninne1n1,1131 A 1\110(17%/1\ pravri_TrniunurYon t lA IQ Crsrthnno-ninn- rinn. AGENDA NO. 6.b. DATE: June 26,2018 WEST COVINA PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLANNING CONFERENCE ROOM — ROOM 208 REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, June 12, 2018 6:30 p.m. MINUTES 1. ROLL CALL Present: Castellanos, Heng City Staff Present: V. Hernandez 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 24, 2018 AYES: Heng, Castellanos 3. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 4. REVIEW ITEMS (A) APPLICANT: Jaime Sanchez LOCATION: 433 S. Meadow Road PROPOSAL: SD No. 18-14; the applicant is proposing to construct a new 481-square foot two-car garage, a 268-square foot addition to the front of a single-family residence, a 94-square foot front porch, and a 320-square foot covered patio to the rear. The project will include the remodeling of the existing garage into a new family room and bathroom, and the construction of a new entry foyer. The house with the proposed additions will include three bedrooms and three bathrooms Motion by Castellanos seconded by Heng to require extending the proposed stone veneer along the garage and approve the addition. The proposed addition is in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines (B) APPLICANT: Brandon Corral LOCATION: 3329 S. Flemington Drive PROPOSAL: SD No. 18-19; the applicant is proposing to construct a 710-square foot addition to the front of an existing single-family residence. The additions will expand the existing two-car garage and add two new bedrooms and one new bathroom. The house with the proposed additions will include four bedrooms and three bathrooms. Motion by Heng seconded by Castellanos to require window treatment along the front elevation, and to recommend lighting be installed on the garage, and to approve the addition. The proposed addition with the additional recommendations is in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines 5. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn at 6:45 p.m. \\Storagellplandata\PLANCOM\Subcommittee.DesignReview120181MINUTES16.12.18.docx