HomeMy Public PortalAbout15) 8A Appeal of the Planning Commissions Decision Approving a Tentative Tract Map 10034 10044 La Rosa DriveAGENDA
ITEM &A.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: October 20, 2015
TO: The Honorable City Council
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager
Via: Michael D. Forbes, AICP, Community Development Director
By: Scott Reimers, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING
A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, A SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT 10034, 10044 LA ROSA DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to:
a) Open the public hearing;
b) Accept public testimony from the applicant and members of the public; and
c) Adopt Resolution No. 15-5123 (Attachment "A") finding that the project is exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Acts (CEQA) and approving File No. 15-29
subject to the conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
1. On January 21, 2015, the City received an application for a tentative tract map to divide
the project site, which consists of two existing lots, into seven parcels (six parcels for
new single family houses and one street parcel).
2. On February 24, 2015, the applicant submitted a site plan review application to
construct six new single family houses.
3. On May 13, 2015, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit application. The
conditional use permit seeks to make use of a provision in the Zoning Code that allows
City Council
October 20, 2015
Page 2 of 6
allows certain development standards to be waived or modified if the project features
certain period architectural styles.
4. On July 14, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
matter. The Planning Commission voted 3-1 approving the proposed tentative tract
map, the site plan review, and the conditional use permit as submitted by the
applicant (see Attachment "B" and "C" for the Planning Commission staff report and
minutes). A conditional use permit recommended by staff that would have modified
the roof design of two houses was denied by the Planning Commission.
5. On July 29, 2015, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed with
the City Clerk (Attachment "D").
ANALYSIS:
The following analysis and the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment "B") is
provided to assist the City Council in making its decision.
Existing Conditions: The site consists of two existing lots with a combined area of
approximately 54,385 square feet. The structures are one story in height and total 2,954
square feet on the west lot and 1,900 on the east lot.
Proposed Project: The application includes a tentative tract map (Attachment "E") and
major site plan review to create six single-family lots, a seventh lot for a private street,
for the construction of six single-family houses. The project proposes a cul-de-sac
shaped street parcel which will be commonly owned and maintained by the
homeowner's association. It is the City's practice to require these streets to remain
private so as to limit the City's future financial responsibility to maintain the street and
related infrastructure. The street will service six single family lots ranging from 7,300
square feet to 8,300 square feet. Two story houses are proposed on the four lots
nearest to La Rosa Drive (Lots 1, 2, 5, and 6). Single story houses are proposed on the
two rear lots — Lots 3 and 4. The living area for the six houses varies from 2,700 square
feet to 3,100 square feet. Figure 1 and Attachment F provide the site design and
building layout.
During the Planning Commission hearing on this item members of the public spoke in
opposition to the project (see Attachment "C" for the meeting minutes).
In reviewing the application the Planning Commission appreciated the design and diversity
of architectural styles. They noted that the project met the minimum lot size in the Zoning
Code and that two story houses are allowed by right. They also noted that a large number
of houses on Ryland have smaller lots and therefore greater density than the proposed
project. After deliberating the Planning Commission voted to approve the project.
City Council
October 20, 2015
Page 3 of 6
Subsequent to the Planning Commission's approval, a joint appeal application was
submitted to the City Clerk's Office by three property owners in proximity to the project
(See Attachment D for the Appeal Letter). The appeal and other correspondence on the
case noted a number of issues which generally can be categorized into concerns about
the density of the project and the compatibility of the new structures with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Figure 1: Site Plan
LLNECENO�FS --pII REAR .S4 4v
PR(POYD M SEIBACR
NOU$E 1
RE„R UNE OENYIIE$ Ulf OEM0/E$ !I RFAR
.4rBAfd' PROWSEOHOUX
ji .glBAd'
Mal
�1111111f1�
cor #z � �Rxwr
$EI6Apl
LAW OGtliE$
PR(YO$EO
NCU¢
EFF]
FRMI S MAd
Density: The proposed tentative map is consistent, in terms of density and use, with the
City's Zoning Code and General Plan designations. The General Plan allows a
maximum of six dwelling units per acre and the Zoning Code limits new lots to a
minimum of 7,200 square feet. The density of the proposed project is 4.8 dwelling units
per acre and all lots are greater than 7,200 square feet.
The assessor's parcel map (Attachment "H") shows that the size and pattern of
development surrounding the site varies widely; there is no consistent pattern. The
Q
J
Ah
REAR LINE OEN0
Y/8Ab( PROPO.YO
H(WW
2
REAR
Lot 3 .
8,344 S.
t
rsr nR
IST FLR
9QF $frBAfX
,X
a �
d
LOT yJ
LLNECENO�FS --pII REAR .S4 4v
PR(POYD M SEIBACR
NOU$E 1
RE„R UNE OENYIIE$ Ulf OEM0/E$ !I RFAR
.4rBAfd' PROWSEOHOUX
ji .glBAd'
Mal
�1111111f1�
cor #z � �Rxwr
$EI6Apl
LAW OGtliE$
PR(YO$EO
NCU¢
EFF]
FRMI S MAd
Density: The proposed tentative map is consistent, in terms of density and use, with the
City's Zoning Code and General Plan designations. The General Plan allows a
maximum of six dwelling units per acre and the Zoning Code limits new lots to a
minimum of 7,200 square feet. The density of the proposed project is 4.8 dwelling units
per acre and all lots are greater than 7,200 square feet.
The assessor's parcel map (Attachment "H") shows that the size and pattern of
development surrounding the site varies widely; there is no consistent pattern. The
Q
J
City Council
October 20, 2015
Page 4 of 6
properties within 100 feet of the site range in size from 22,140 to 4,365 square feet. The
surrounding neighborhood is made up of flag lots (a lot with access to the public right of
way by means of a narrow strip of land under the same ownership), tiered lots (an
arrangement no longer permitted that results in a lot that has access to the public right of
way by means of a narrow easement across similarly situated lots), and cul-de-sac
subdivisions. The diversity of subdivision types and the vast range of lot sizes makes it
difficult to conclude that the subject site's proposed subdivision is not in keeping with the
neighborhood's existing development pattern or lot size. There is a cul-de-sac subdivision
on La Rosa Drive within 200 feet of the proposed project, Rosevale Drive. That
subdivision's total size is similar to the proposed project and the average lot size is 7,725
square feet, 60 square feet more than the average lot size of the proposed project.
Compatibility. Concerns brought up by the appellants can be characterized as
compatibility issues. The project addresses compatibility in the following ways.
• Diversity of architectural styles. In keeping with the diversity of architectural
styles in Temple City the applicant has provided five distinct architectural styles.
• Consistent front yard setbacks. To respect the larger front yards of the
neighboring properties on La Rosa Drive, the project proposes a 30 -foot setback
from La Rosa Drive (Lots 1 and 6), 20 feet larger than required by the Zoning
Code.
• Inclusion of one story houses. The applicant has designed the subdivision so
that the two houses furthest from La Rosa are one-story; this is not required by
the Zoning Code.
• Privacy. The applicant has proposed a new six foot block wall around the site,
minimized the size of bedroom windows and has generally located windows on
walls not facing neighboring houses. To further address community concerns,
Staff recommends the City Council approve condition 15 (added to staffs
recommendation after the Planning Commission hearing) which requires the
applicant to make all windows in second floor bathrooms view obscuring (such as
frosted glass) and move second floor windows to elevations not facing adjacent
properties or increase the sill height to five feet as allowed by the Building Code's
emergency egress requirements. To further reduce privacy concerns and
improve compatibility Staff recommends the City Council approve condition 14
(added to staffs recommendation after the Planning Commission hearing)
requiring the applicant to submit a landscape plan which shall include hedges
along the perimeter walls and demonstrate preservation of existing trees when
feasible.
• Second floor massing. The second floor of the houses facing La Rosa Drive have
side yard setbacks beyond what the Zoning Code requires. The proposed
setbacks are shown in Figure 2. The required setback is eight feet, six inches.
City Council
October 20, 2015
Page 5 of 6
Figure 2: Second Floor Setbacks
a
PROPOSED LA Rase. DEVELOPlB
Im
Requested Conditional Use Permit: The Zoning Code provides flexibility, through a
conditional use permit, for projects which feature "a period or historical architectural style."
The front elevations of the houses on Lots 1, 5, and 6 do not meet the development
standard of "at least fifty percent (50%) of the second floor front elevation of any dwelling
shall be recessed or set back no less than ten feet (10') from the front wall of the first
story". The issue with the houses on Lots 1 and 5 is the covered balcony on the second
floor. The issue with the Tudor house on Lot 6 is the high-pitched gable with half-timber
oriented toward the private street. The front elevations of the three houses are provided in
Attachment G.
Staff supports the applicant's request. Relaxing the "50% recess on the second floor"
requirement for the three houses would allow the three houses to maintain the character of
a period architectural style. No adverse effect is expected; all three elevations are facing
the private street and not neighboring properties. This request meets the intent and the
findings (as contained in Resolution No. 15-5123, Attachment "A") for a conditional use
permit.
LIOUW4Ly[H,4a
Based upon the finding that the tentative tract map is consistent with the land use
designation for the site as well as the principles of the Subdivision Map Act; based upon
the finding that the proposed development satisfies all applicable development
standards (with the exceptions that can be addressed through a conditional use permit);
and based upon the finding that the design of the houses on Lots 1, 5, and 6 satisfy the
findings required for a conditional use permit; staff recommends that the City Council
adopt Resolution No.15-5123 approving File No. 15-29, subject to conditions of approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item does not have an impact on the Fiscal Year 2015-16 City Budget.
City Council
October 20, 2015
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 15-5123
B. Planning Commission Staff Report
C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2015
D. Appeal Letter
E. Tentative Tract Map No.73258
F. Development Plans
G. Front Elevations for House on Lot 1, 5, and 6
H. Parcel Map for the Area
I. Letters from the Members of the Public
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 15-5123
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY APPROVING FILE NO. 15-29 WHICH INCLUDES THE
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73258, A SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF SIX SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 10034 AND 10044 LA ROSA DRIVE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the
administrative record, which includes, but is not limited to:
1. Reports and presentation of project related data and analysis prepared by the
Community Development Department.
2. The City of Temple City Municipal Code, and all other applicable regulations and
codes.
3. Public comments, written and oral, received and/or submitted at or prior to the
public hearing, supporting and/or opposing the applicant's request.
4. Testimony and/or comments from the applicant and its representatives submitted
to the City in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing.
5. All related documents received and/or submitted at or prior to the public hearing.
SECTION 2. Based on the foregoing evidence, the City Council finds that:
1. On January 21, 2015, the applicant submitted the application.
2. On May 22, 2015, the application was deemed complete.
3. Notice of the July 14, 2015 Planning Commission public hearing was posted at
the Council Chambers.
4. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was put in the newspaper at
least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.
5. Notice of the July 14, 2015 Planning Commission was mailed to property owners
within 300 feet of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.
6. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
7. The project site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 2
8. The project site is designated Low Density Residential by the General Plan.
9. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site to create six single-family
residential lots and one private street parcel.
10.The applicant is proposing to construct six single-family residences on the site
after the subdivision.
11. On July 14, 2015 at a public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the
project by a vote of 3-1.
12. On July 29, 2015, a member of the public filed with the City Clerk the request
appealing the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The public
hearing for the appeal was subsequently scheduled for the Council meeting of
October 20, 2015.
13. Notice of the City Council public hearing was put in the newspaper least ten (10)
days prior to the hearing.
14. Notice of the October 20, 2015 City Council meeting was mailed to property
owners within 300 feet of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.
15. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
SECTION 3. For the tentative map, the City Council must deny the project if it can make
any of the following findings of Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans;
The proposed map will result in six single-family lots which will be consistent with
the zoning and General Plan designation for the site. Therefore such a finding
cannot be made for the project.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans; and
The sizes and dimensions of the lots, as well as the site configuration meet all
applicable regulations and standards. The structural improvements comply with
all applicable development standards of the City. Therefore, such a finding
cannot be made for the project.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; and
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 3
The site is determined to be suitable for the proposed development. The site is
relatively flat with a land area large enough for the creation of six residential lots.
Therefore, such a finding cannot be made for the project.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development; and
The proposed density is 4.8 lots per acre, fully complying with the maximum
density of six lots per acre allowed by the General Plan. Therefore, such a finding
cannot be made for the project.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; and
Based on the initial study, this project is exempt from California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 for new construction or
conversion of small structures and Section 15332 for In -fill development projects
as provided by the CEQA Guidelines. Vehicular access can be made through the
adjacent public street as well as the private street proposed by the project. The
proposed private street has an adequate roadway to facilitate the traffic that will
be generated by the subdivision. In addition, the project site is found to have no
value concerning the wildlife and their habitats. Therefore, such a finding cannot
be made for the project.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to
cause serious public health problems; and
The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems
because it does not expose persons to health hazardous causes. Therefore,
such a finding cannot be made for the project.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use
of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the
governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for
access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall
apply only to easements of record or to easements established by
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby
granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has
acquired easements for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
The design of the tentative tract map is required to comply with all the conditions
developed by the City's Engineer to address the use of existing public easements
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 4
and future easements dedication. The final map review and approval is
contingent on the compliance with such conditions. Therefore, such a finding
cannot be made for the project.
SECTION 4. Based upon a public hearing for the site plan review, the City Council finds:
1. The construction complies with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.
With the exception of the front elevation design for houses on Lot 1, Lot 5, and Lot
6, the development plan has been reviewed and is found to be consistent with
applicable development standards of the Zoning Code. The front elevations of the
three houses on Lot 1, Lot 5, and Lot 6 do not meet the zoning standard of "50% of
the elevation recessed by no less than 10 feet' standard. However, in accordance
with the Zoning Code, approval of a conditional use permit can be used to relax
certain zoning standards. Considering the particular architectural styles applied to
the designs, and considering that any potential impact will be self-contained and/or
be minimal, staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit. Therefore, the
project meets this finding.
2. The construction is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific
plan, and any special design theme adopted by the City for the site and
vicinity.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code, as
the project will result in the construction of six single-family residences. The design
of the construction has been reviewed and is found to comply with the Design
Guidelines of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the project meets this finding.
3. The approval of the site plan review is in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The approval of the site plan review is in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the project is categorically exempt from
CEQA in accordance with the Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the project meets this finding.
4. The proposed structures, signs, site development, grading and/or
landscaping are compatible in design, appearance and scale, with existing
uses, development, signs, structures, and landscaping for the surrounding
area.
The scale and appearance of the proposed six single-family residences have been
reviewed. They are found to comply with the provisions contained in the Design
Guidelines of the Zoning Code. The project is also required to submit a landscape
plan to demonstrate that permeable and landscaped areas are provided to the
extent possible, and that hedges along the property lines will be provided as a
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20. 2015
Page 5
buffer for the privacy of the neighboring homes. Therefore, the project meets this
finding.
5. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed
structures, yards, walls, fences, parking, landscaping, and other development
features.
The project is large enough to accommodate six single-family residential lots. Each
lot will have a land area larger than the required 7,200 square feet for the minimum
lot size. The dimensions of each lot also comply with the zoning standards.
Therefore, the project meets this finding.
SECTION 5. Based upon information for the conditional use permit, the City Council
finds:
1. The proposed dwelling offers a unique and unusual architectural style
which is not likely to be achieved within the parameters of the adopted
development standards.
To represent a period architectural style, the massing design must provide
certain elements and characteristics typical to that style such as a symmetrical
front fagade design, high pitched roofs, and/or balconies. Among the five period
architectural styles used by the project, four of which are not likely to be
accomplished within the parameters of the adopted development standards.
Relaxing development standards are necessary. Therefore, the project meets
this requirement.
2. The proposed dwelling has a positive aesthetic impact upon the
surrounding neighborhood.
The design of the project achieves the quality of a period and historical design.
Five different styles are used for six dwellings. The diversified styles along with
the quality of the exterior design such as the materials used, the details provided
on the buildings, and the massing and articulation designs will result in a positive
aesthetic impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the project
meets this requirement.
3. The site for the new single-family dwelling is adequate in size, shape,
topography and circumstances.
The site contains a land area of approximately 54,385 square feet which is large
enough for six single family lots to be created. Each lot within the subdivision
exceeds the minimum land area of 7,200 square feet. Each lot also complies with
the lot width requirement of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the project meets this
requirement.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 6
4. The site has sufficient access to streets and highways, which are adequate
in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic
generated by the new single-family dwelling.
Access to each lot of the subdivision can be accessed through the public street
as well as the private street. The private street will be improved with a sidewalk
and regular curbs and gutters. The private street is designed with a roadway of
34 feet which is sufficient to carry the quantity and quality of the traffic generated
by the project. Therefore, the project meets this requirement.
5. The new single-family dwelling will not have an adverse effect upon the
use, enjoyment or valuation of adjacent or neighboring properties or upon
the public welfare.
The subject site is in the R-1 zone and is surrounded by properties zoned for
single-family residences. The subdivision will not change the land use for the site
and the proposed six single-family residences on the site will comply with
applicable development standards with the exception of the front elevation for
residences on Lot 1, Lot 5, and Lot 6, However, considering the particular
architectural styles applied to the designs, and considering that any potential
impact will be self-contained and/or be minimal, staff concludes that the project
will not have an adverse effect.
SECTION 6. This project is found to have no significant effects upon the environment,
and is Categorically Exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines, §15303
(New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures) and §15332 (In -fill
Development Projects).
SECTION 7. Accordingly, File No. 15-29 is approved and is subject to the following
conditions:
FINAL MAP REQUIREMENTS
1. A final tract map prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil
engineer or licensed land surveyor shall be submitted to and approved by the
City of Temple City prior to being filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder.
2. A soils report is required.
3. A preliminary tract map guarantee shall be provided which indicates all trust
deeds (to include the name of the trustee), all easement holders, all fee interest
holders, and all interest holders whose interest could result in a fee. The
account for this title report shall remain open until the final tract map is filed with
the Los Angeles County Recorder.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 7
4. Easements shall not be granted or recorded within any area proposed to be
dedicated, offered for dedication, or granted for use as a public street, alley,
highway, right of access, building restriction, or other easements until after the
final tract map is approved by the City of Temple City and filed with the Los
Angeles County Recorder; unless such easement is subordinated to the
proposed dedication or grant. If easements are granted after the date of
tentative approval, a subordination shall be executed by the easement holder
prior to the filing of the final tract map.
5. Monumentation of tract map boundaries, street centerlines, and lot boundaries
is required if the map is based on a field survey.
6. All conditions from City of Temple City Departments and Divisions shall be
incorporated into the tract map prior to submitting the tract map for review.
7. In accordance with California Government Code Sections 66442 and/or 66450,
documentation shall be provided indicating the mathematical accuracy and
survey analysis of the tract map and the correctness of all certificates. Proof of
ownership and proof of original signatures shall also be provided.
8. Proof of Tax clearance shall be provided at the time of tract map review
submittal.
9. Upon submittal of the tract map for review by the City of Temple City, a letter
signed by both the subdivider and the engineer shall be provided which
indicates that these individuals agree to submit one (1) blueprint and one sepia
mylar, and pdf copy on a CD of the recorded map to the City of Temple City
Public Works Department.
PLANNING
10. The applicant and property owners, and their successors in interest, shall
indemnify and defend the City of Temple City and its officers, employees and
agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions
concerning this project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation
expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of
any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this project. The City
shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall
reimburse the City's expenses incurred in its defenses of any lawsuit
challenging the City's actions concerning this project.
11. Prior to approval of the final map, the following shall be submitted to and
approved by the City of Temple City unless specifically waived:
a. Public Improvement Estimates and Surety Bonds
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123 Page 8
October 20, 2015
b. Final Map
c. Landscape and Irrigation Plan
12. The subdivision shall be in substantial compliance with the tentative tract map
and improvement plans submitted on June 25, 2015 and June 30, 2015, except
as modified hereinafter.
13. No building permits shall be issued until the final map has been recorded.
Demolition permits for site clearance and grading permits may be issued at any
time.
14. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the
Planning Division prior to submitting for building plan check. The landscape
plan shall preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible as
determined by the Community Development Director and propose perimeter
hedges. In addition, at least two trees shall be provided for each dwelling unit
or lot; one of which shall be planted in the front yard of each lot. Said trees shall
be no less than twenty-four inch (24") box -size specimen trees.
15. The applicant shall modify the plan so that all windows in second floor
bathroom are view obscuring (such as frosted glass). Second floor windows in
bedrooms shall be located on elevations not directly facing adjacent properties
or increase the sill height to five feet. In instances where compliance with this
condition would violate the Building Code or the Fire Code, those Codes shall
take precedence.
16. The project is subject to the requirements of the City's Low Impact
Development Standards.
17. A chain link security fencing six (6) feet in height shall be installed around the
site prior to the demolition of existing structures. Any unoccupied structure
shall be boarded and fenced so as to prevent vandalism.
18. A screening block wall shall be constructed around the perimeter of the site
provided that said wall does not interfere with the natural flow of drainage; said
wall shall consist of solid decorative block fencing which does not disrupt or
alter the drainage pattern. Any new block wall shall be slump stone, split face,
or stucco -over CMU block. Chain link or wood fencing shall not be allowed.
The maximum fence or wall height shall be six (6) feet along the sides or rear
property lines.
19. A building permit shall be obtained for the construction of any new wall or
fence. Any existing wall or fence may be maintained, if deemed acceptable by
the City's Building Inspector. Prior to the installation of any new wall or fence,
No new wall or fence shall block contributory drainage from adjacent properties
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 9
or interfere with the natural drainage pattern. No weep holes or open head
joints is allowed on the southerly and easterly perimeter walls.
20. Any proposed perimeter fence for the front yard area of each individual lot shall
comply with the regulation of the Zoning Code.
21. The applicant/property owner shall maintain the subject property after this date
and until start of construction and until the project is completed to be free of
weeds, debris, trash or any other offensive, unhealthful and dangerous
material. If after five days notice by certified mail, the developer does not
comply with the before -mentioned criterion, the City Council may void the
Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Map, Building Permits, etc. and/or enter the
subject property with City forces and remove all subject violations, bill the
applicant and/or put a lien on the subject property.
22. Noise shall not exceed the limits of the City's noise ordinance. During any
demolition and/or construction, noise will be controlled by limiting work on the
site to 7:00 am through 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday and by requiring all
trucks and motorized equipment to have properly operating mufflers. No
construction work shall occur on Sunday.
23. The Park Development fee of $500 per dwelling in the total amount of $3,000
and the Sewer Reconstruction fee of $25,000 shall be paid to the City of
Temple City prior to the issuance of building permits for any new construction.
24. As provided for in Government Code Section 66020, applicant has ninety days
from the date this project is approved to protest the imposition of any fees,
dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed on the project for the purposes
of defraying the costs of public improvements, services or amenities. This
condition shall serve as the notice the City is required to provide applicant
under GC Section 66020(d)(1).
25. All windows shall be double pane to mitigate noise impacts and assist in energy
conservation.
26. The six residences shall be provided with a mechanical ventilation system
designed to attain enhanced air filtration with the use of air filters that have a
filtration efficiency equivalent to a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV)
of 14 or higher as determined by testing methods established by the American
Society Of Heating, Refrigerating And Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
standard 52.2, as periodically amended. All such ventilation system equipment
and air filters shall be installed, operated, maintained and replaced in a manner
consistent with applicable building code requirements and with the
manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. Alternative air pollution
mitigation measures (e.g., setbacks, landscaped buffers, etc.) may be utilized
where feasible if they can be shown to have a mitigating effect that is equal to
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 10
or greater than the enhanced air filtration measures specified herein. (Ord. 13-
972)
27. Prior to approval of the final map or the issuance of grading permits and
building permits, a precise grading and drainage plan must be submitted and
approved to:
a. Eliminate sheet overflow and ponding
b. Demonstrate that the site will be free of flood hazard
c. Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties
d. Provide for the proper distribution of drainage
e. Provide for issuance of encroachment permits from the County of Los Angles
Flood Control district allowing for the project's storm drain connection and
acceptance of storm water flows into the Eaton Wash
f. Provide for issuance of posting a bond for the perimeter block wall
g. Minimize change in the existing grade unless warranted by the grading and
drainage design. To the minimum, the existing grade along the perimeters of
the site shall be maintained to the extent possible
28. Heating and air conditioning equipment shall be located so as not to be visible
from public streets or adjacent properties in order to avoid disturbing adjacent
tenants or property owners with noise or exhaust.
29. That a method for continual maintenance of the private street and common
area shall be provided in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's)
and that this document shall incorporate maintenance provisions for sidewalks
and the private street, drainage devices and other utility lines in the private
street and or common area, and all yard areas as determined by the City to be
common yard areas. Specifically, the CC&R's shall state the following: a) "no
vehicular access gates shall be installed across the private street" b) "the City
of Temple City and L.A. County Sheriffs Department shall have the
authorization to fully enforce the prohibition of overnight parking without a
permit in the private street, including issuing citations and towing of vehicles
parked. (c) "these CC&R's shall not be changed or modified without the written
consent of the City of Temple City". The CC&R's and provisions contained
therein shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney prior to
approval of the Final Map.
30. A Street Improvement Plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the
approval of the Final Map. The Street Improvement Plan shall include a five-
foot sidewalk along the private street, street lighting plans, curb and gutters,
and other improvements as deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
31. Building construction plans for each lot shall include a blue -line sheet(s)
showing each page of this resolution, including all conditions of approval
contained herein.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 11
32. All existing structures on the subject site shall be removed prior to recordation
of the final map.
33. Prior to the final map approval, the subdivider shall submit the request for a
street name for the private street and assignment of the street numbers for
each residential lot to the Community Development Department of the City.
34. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the street name sign(s)
shall be installed for the private street at the location determined by the Public
Works Division of the City.
35. Reserve reciprocal easements for drainage, ingress/egress, sewer, water,
utilities, right to grade, and maintenance purposes, etc., in documents over the
common private street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The repair and
maintenance of the utilities within the said reciprocal easements shall be the
sole responsibility of the Home Owner Association.
36. The conditions of approval contained in this Resolution may be enforced by the
Sheriffs Office as well as City staff. Any violation of any condition is a
misdemeanor and may be processed directly by criminal complaint.
37. No building permits shall be issued until the final map has been recorded.
Demolition permits for site clearance, if applicable, must be finaled prior to final
map and grading permits may also be issued after tentative map approval.
38. There shall be installed a separate water, gas, and electric meter for each
dwelling unit, as well as a separate meter for common irrigation, if applicable.
39. Proof of Tax clearance shall be provided at the time of final map review
submittal.
40. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, building address numbers shall
be approved by the City and submitted to LACFD.
41. Upon submittal of the final map for review by the City, a letter signed by both
the subdivider and the engineer shall be provided which indicates that these
individuals agree to submit five (5) blueprints and one sepia mylar of the
recorded map to the City Public Works Division.
42. That this tentative map shall expire 24 months from the date of approval. If the
final map is not to be recorded prior to the expiration date, the subdivider may
apply in writing to the Community Development Director at least forty (40) days
before the expiration date for an extension of time on the approval of the map.
The Map may be extended for up to five (5) years from the date of approval, at
the discretion of the granting body.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
ENGINEERING
Page 12
43. School Developmental Fees shall be paid to the School District prior to the
issuance of the building permit.
44. Fees shall be paid to the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District prior to
issuance of the building permit.
45. An application to assign building numbers shall be filed with Building Division
prior to plan check submittal.
46. In accordance with paragraph 5538(b) of the California Business and
Professions Code, plans are to be prepared and stamped by a licensed
architect.
47. Structural calculations prepared under the direction of an architect, civil
engineer or structural engineer shall be provided.
48. A geotechnical and soils investigation report is required, the duties of the soils
engineer of record, as indicated on the first sheet of the approved plans, shall
include the following:
a. Observation of cleared areas and benches prepared to receive fill
b. Observation of the removal of all unsuitable soils and other materials
c. The approval of soils to be used as fill material
d. Inspection of compaction and placement of fill
e. The testing of compacted fills
f. The inspection of review of drainage devices
49. The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or
Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all grading,
site preparation, and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be
performed by another soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the
subsequent soils and/or geotechnical engineer submits and has accepted by
the Public Works Department, a new Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical
Investigation.
50. Prior to permit issuance the pdf copy of the soils report shall be provided by the
applicant.
51. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the building
permit. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate how all storm drainage
including contributory drainage from adjacent lots is carried to the public way or
drainage structure approved to receive storm water.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123 Page 13
October 20, 2015
52. The building permit will not be issued until the property has been surveyed and
the boundaries marked by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California.
53. Foundation inspection will not be made until the excavation has been surveyed
and the depth and location of the footings has been determined to be in
accordance with the approved plans by a land surveyor licensed by the State of
California. THIS NOTE IS TO BE PLACED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN IN A
PROMINENT LOCATION.
54. Project shall comply with the CalGreen Residential requirements.
55. Demolition permit is required for any existing buildings which are to be
demolished.
56. All fire sprinkler hangers must be designed and their location approved by an
engineer or an architect. Calculations must be provided indicating that the
hangers are designed to carry the tributary weight of the water filled pipe plus a
250 pound point load. A plan indication this information must be stamped by the
engineer or the architect and submitted for approval prior to issuance of the
building permit.
57. Separate permit is required for Fire Sprinklers.
58. Building permits shall not be issued until the final map has been prepared to the
satisfaction of the Building Official.
THE FOLLOWING ARE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
59. The initial plan check fee will cover the initial plan check and one recheck only.
Additional review required beyond the first recheck shall be paid for on an
hourly basis in accordance with the current fee schedule.
60. The second sheet of building plans is to list all conditions of approval and to
include a copy of the Planning Commission Decision letter. This information
shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the first submittal for plan check.
61. South Coast Air Quality Management District must be contacted prior to any
demolition or renovation. Call (909) 396-2000 for further information. Failure to
comply with the provisions of Rule 1403 may result in a penalty of up to
$25,000 per day.
62. All fire sprinkler hangers must be designed and their location approved by an
engineer or an architect. Calculations must be provided indicating that the
hangers are designed to carry the tributary weight of the water filled pipe plus a
250 pound point load. A plan indication this information must be stamped by the
engineer or the architect and submitted for approval prior to issuance of the
building permit.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 14
63. A geotechnical and soils investigation report is/will be provided for any of the
following conditions:
a. A tract or parcel map is being processed as part of the development
b. The allowable soil bearing pressure used for the foundation design exceeds
1,500 pounds per square foot
c. Subterranean work which is deeper than three feet at any point measured
from the top of adjacent grade
d. Unusual soils conditions are encountered which effect the design or stability
of the structure
64. Where a soils report is required, the duties of the soils engineer of record, as
indicated on the first sheet of the approved plans, shall include the following:
a. Observation of cleared areas and benches prepared to receive fill;
b. Observation of the removal of all unsuitable soils and other materials;
c. The approval of soils to be used as fill material;
d. Inspection of compaction and placement of fill;
e. The testing of compacted fills; and
f. The inspection of review of drainage devices.
65. The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or
Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all grading,
site preparation, and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be
performed by another soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the
subsequent soils and/or geotechnical engineer submits a new Preliminary Soils
and/or Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the Public Works Department.
66. Projects shall comply with the requirements of the NPDES (NATIONAL
POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM) prior to issuance of a
Demolition, Grading & Building permit. These include requirements for
sediment control, erosion control, and construction activities control to be
implemented on the project site.
PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING FEES
67. Prior to issuance of grading, building or other permits as appropriate, the
applicant shall pay all necessary fees to the City.
68. A separate public works permit and payment of fee is required for all work in
the public right-of-way.
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIREMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 15
Separate plans for improvements within the public right-of-way are not required.
However, prior to issuance of a building and/or grading permit, all necessary
improvements within the public right-of-way shall be shown on building and on
grading plans in accordance with established City standards or as directed by the
City Engineer and/or his/her designee.
THE FOLLOWING ARE REQUIRED FOR THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS:
69. Install new T -intersection for private easement in accordance with Standard
Plans for Public Works Construction (SPPWC) as directed by the City Engineer
or his/her designee.
70. Install a new curb ramp at both corners of La Rosa Drive and new Private
Street in accordance with SPPWC Standard Plan 111-5 and as directed by the
City Engineer or his/her designee.
71. Close existing driveway apron, and install necessary improvements (parkway,
landscape, sidewalk, curb and gutter, any others as applicable) to match
required adjacent sections, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her
designee.
72. Install a new concrete sidewalk along the length of the property frontage in
accordance with SPPWC Standard Plan 113-2, and as directed by the City
Engineer and/or his/her designee.
73. Remove and replace broken and off grade curb and gutter in accordance with
SPPWC Standard Plan 120-2, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her
designee.
74. Water meters shall not be located in the side walk as directed by the City
Engineer or his/her designee. If applicable, relocate existing water meter.
75. Install new street light to match existing street light standards in the street
block, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
76. Pay in lieu fee to rehabilitate existing AC street pavement along the length of
the property frontage to the centerline of the street as indicated below, and as
directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee: Grind existing pavement to a
depth of 2" and overlay new AC.
77. Underground all services to the property.
78. The sewer area study shows existing sewer system has inadequate capacity
for the proposed development. Sewer mitigation measures are required per the
County of Los Angeles guidelines and satisfaction of the City Engineer or
his/her designee:
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 16
THE FOLLOWING ARE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS:
79. All improvements are to be designed, installed and completed at the sole
expense of the applicant/developer/property owner.
80. The applicant/developer/property owner shall design and construct the
improvements to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer or his/her
designee.
81. All work shall be done in accordance with SPPWC Standard Plans, and/or as
directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
82. Project shall meet all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) related to pollutants; runoff or non-stormwater
discharges.
83. All existing damaged or off -grade curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be removed
and replaced as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
84. Any existing improvements damaged or made off -grade during construction,
shall be removed and replaced in accordance with appropriate standards, and
as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
85. Bench Marks, Center Line Ties, and any other Survey Monumentation, shall be
established and/or replaced accordingly at the completion of the project.
86. When required, existing street pavement shall be rehabilitated along the length
of the property frontage to the centerline of the street and as directed by the
City Engineer or his/her designee:
87. All new driveways shall be according to SPPWC Standard Plan 110-2, Type B
or C with the minimum width established by Planning and/or Los Angeles
County Fire Department.
88. All existing noncomplying driveway aprons shall be constructed in accordance
with applicable SPPWC standards.
89. Top of driveway apron X shall be 5 feet minimum from any trees, power poles,
traffic signal controllers, electric services, or similar improvements in the public
right of way.
90. When required, all existing driveways aprons to be closed shall be removed
and replaced with necessary improvements (parkway, landscape, sidewalk,
curb and gutter, any others as applicable) to match required adjacent sections,
and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
91. All existing and proposed utilities shall be conveyed to the site underground.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20, 2015
Page 17
92. New street lights shall match existing street light standards in the street block,
and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
93. Easement shall be granted to the City, appropriate agency or entity for the
purpose of ingress, egress construction and maintenance of all infrastructure
construction for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
If required by City, a bond shall be provided for required Public Improvements.
Bond Cost for the Public Improvements shall be calculated based on latest cost
unit prices adopted by the County of Los Angeles.
FIRE PROTECTION
94. Fire Department apparatus access shall be extended to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior walls of any future buildings or structures. Verification
for compliance will be performed during the architectural plan review prior to
building permit issuance.
95. Access as noted on the Tentative and the Exhibit Maps shall comply with Title
21 (County of Los Angeles Subdivision Code) and Section 503 of the Title 32
(County of Los Angeles Fire Code), which requires all weather access.
96. All proposed streets within this development shall provide approved street
names and signs. All future buildings shall provide approved address numbers.
Compliance required prior to occupancy to the satisfaction of the City of Temple
City, Public Works, and the County of Los Angeles Fire Code.
97. Provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders,
except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an
unobstructed vertical clearance 'blear to sky" Fire Department vehicular access
to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the
building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building.
Fire Code 503. 1.1 & 503.2.1.
98. The Final Map shall be submitted to our office for review and approval prior
recordation.
99. Fire Department vehicular access roads must be installed and maintained in a
serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Code
501.4.
100. Multiple residential buildings having entrances to individual units not visible
from the street or road shall have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units
within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the
structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No. 15-5123
October 20. 2015
Page 18
positioned to be plainly visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code
505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505.1.
101. All hydrants shall measure 6"x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current
American Water Works Association standard C503 or approved equal.
102. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants on this residential development
is 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of two hours, over and
above maximum daily domestic demand.
103. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be
installed, tested, and accepted prior to construction.
104. All proposed structures shall be equipped with fire sprinkler systems that are
designed and maintained in accordance with NFPA 13D
105. This project requires and additional review by the Fire Prevention Engineering
Unit during the Building Plan Check phase.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, Resolution No. 15-5123, was adopted by the
City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 20th of October,
2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
Council Members:
NOES:
Council Members:
ABSENT:
Council Members:
Attachment B
Planning Commission
Staff Report
July 14, 2015
Item: 8B
FILE: 150000029
ADDRESS: 10034, 10044 La Rosa Drive
DESCRIPTION: A tentative tract map, a conditional use permit, and a major site plan
review for the creation of six single-family lots and the construction of
six single-family houses on the site. The site is comprised of two
existing lots which are both zoned R-1.
APPLICANT: James Coane (the representative of the owner)
PROJECT PLANNER: Hesty Liu, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures) and Section 15332 (In -fill Development Projects) of
the CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution to approve File 150000029
CRITICAL ISSUES:
• Consistent with the General Plan designation
• Compliance with the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance
• Compliance with the Subdivision Map Act
• Favorable findings with regard to a unique architectural style
BACKGROUND:
The request is a tentative tract map and major site plan review for the creation of six single-family lots
and the construction of six single-family houses. The site is zoned R-1 and is designated Low Density
Residential by the General Plan. The site is comprised of two existing lots with a combined land area of
approximately 54,385 square feet. The total number of parcels proposed in the subdivision is seven,
including six residential lots and a street parcel. The street parcel will be commonly owned and
maintained as the ingress/egress driveway and as the utility easement. The street parcel features a cul-
de-sac street providing a roadway of 34 feet in width. The lot size for the six lots ranges from 7,300
July 14, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report —Item 8B
File 150000029
square feet to 8,300 square feet. A two-story house will be built on Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 5, and Lot 6. A
single -story house will be built on Lot 3 and Lot 4. The living area for the six houses varies from 2,700
square feet to 3,100 square feet. Figure 1 provides the site design and building layout.
Figure 1:
Isar ��Nc acvorzs zS sA.¢ eW.r:, I.
3 tivEDflq]£S ¢IB
¢B/IX VFmO5E0 6C PafPO5E0 q ¢IRAN
NWSE �I'A( NWSE 1
�- tt iS KaP
C SfTAG
^ Lot 3: 8,34 x t 2c.7,291 S.F. n Lot 1: V!5I�YI.co�
0 A
coIll
ELK WW Lor /r
¢TBAar
LOT {3
VO
r
o
W
fta
` LOT 45 r LOT /6
vNpaDSED
a ure
ILJ
LoY4=$ 335 fX,�. o.r. of 6: 7,353 ii F. 9
k ncae
i 9{� ¢18AIX
R jai CC�'^
Y T l9AGf a F.FO`/T ¢IRAQ
lMl£ IXNOIES 90f ¢18ACIf p
¢IBAIX'¢D IPMO°OYD�S a 5£TAIX IST M 11b fIN
The applicant is also seeking a conditional use permit for the project. The Zoning Code provides
flexibility, through a conditional use permit, for projects which feature "a period or historical
architectural style." In this case, the applicant is making use of this flexibility in the Code for the three
houses proposed on Lot 1, Lot 5, and Lot 6. The three houses are designed to represent a Spanish
Colonial Revival, a Mediterranean style, and a Tudor Revival respectively. The front elevations of the
three houses do not meet the development standard of "at least fifty percent (50%) of the second floor
front elevation of any dwelling shall be recessed or set back no less than ten feet (10) from the front
wall of the first story'. The applicant requests that the Planning Commission grant a conditional use
permit to allow the designs as proposed based on their period architectural styles. The front elevations
of the three houses are provided in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4.
Page 2
IN
z
July 14, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report — Item 8B
File 150000029
Figure 4 (Lot 6)
Analysis:
1. The Subdivision: The proposed tentative map is consistent, in terms of density and use, with the
City's Zoning Code and General Plan designations. The site is zoned for single-family residences
with the maximum density allowed by the General Plan as 6 lots per acre. The tract map will result in
six single-family lots with a proposed density of 4.8 lots per acre (excluding the private street),
complying with such a land use designation. Access to each individual lot can be taken through the
adjacent public street as well as the private street both of which are considered adequate to
accommodate the traffic generated by the project.
The City Engineer has preliminarily reviewed the tentative map. Conditions have been recommended
for water, sewer, cable and communication services, drainage design, soil quality, grading designs,
and etc. Detailed drainage design, soil quality, and public improvement plans are required before
the final map approval. The final map will also be reviewed in light of compliance with the State
Subdivision Map Act. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
tentative tract map.
2. The Site Desian and Buildina Lavout: The site plan features a centrally located cul-de-sac street with
six lots laid out counter -clock wise around the street. The four lots close to La Rosa Drive will be
built with a two-story house. The rear two lots (at the end of the cul-de-sac) are proposed with a
single story house. The front elevation of all six houses will be facing the private street. The yards for
Lot 1 and Lot 2 on La Rosa Drive are provided at 30 feet, to respect the larger front yards of the
neighboring houses on the same side of the street. The project has been reviewed in light of the
Page 4
July 14, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report — Item 8B
File 150000029
applicable development standards. With the exception of the front elevation designs for the houses
on Lot 1, Lot 5, and Lot 6, the project is in full compliance. Figure 5 provides the summary of the
proposed Floor Area Ratio, the Lot Coverage, and the Permeable Lot Coverage for each lot. The
zoning Minimum/Maximum standards are provided for a comparison.
Figure 5
Lot # ' ProposeProposel Woning
Floor Area Lot Permeable Floor Area Lot Permeable
Ratio Coverage Lot Coverage Ratio Coverage Lot Coverage
Lot 1 .37 28.2% 50% .38 50% 35%
w/incentive
Lot 2 .40 33.6% 54% .41/w 50% 35%
incentives
Lot 3 .37 44.2% 38% N/A 50% 35%
Lot 4 .39 43.5% 37% N/A 50% 35%
Lot 5 .40 31.3% 52% .41 50% 35%
w/incentives
Lot 6 .38 28.3% 49% .38/w 50% 35%
incentive
3. Architecture and Conformance with Desian Guidelines: For the six houses, five distinctive designs
are used. They are Spanish Colonial, French Country, Tuscan, Tudor Revival, and Mediterranean.
Exterior design including the materials and details, the massing, and the architectural articulations
have been reviewed. Staff concludes that the project is consistent with the provisions of the design
guidelines of the Zoning Code. It is noteworthy that the project has demonstrated that the massing
designs for the two houses (Lot 1 and Lot 6) fronting La Rosa Drive have taken into account the two
existing houses on the adjacent properties. The westerly second -floor setback for the house on Lot
1 is provided at 19'-4" rather than the 8'-6" minimum required by Code. The easterly second -floor
setback for the house on Lot 6 is provided at 12'-6" rather than the 8'-6" minimum required by
Code. The larger side yard setbacks for the two houses have the effect of respecting the scale of the
two single -story houses on the adjacent properties. Figure 6 provides the illustration of the massing
design.
Figure 6
Page 5
July 14, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report—Item 8B
File 150000029
4. The Conditional Use Permit: The designs of the three houses on Lot 1, Lot 5 and Lot 6 do achieve
the quality of a period and historical design. The house on Lot 1 represents a Spanish Colonial
Revival which is characterized by arched windows and doorways, as well as the second floor
balconies. The house on Lot 5 represents a Mediterranean style which is characterized by a
symmetrical front fa4ade, a recessed entry porch, and full -height arched windows on the ground
level. The house on Lot 6 is a Tudor Revival which is characterized by high-pitched roofs with
dormers. Detailing on the gables combined with a small tower built into the volume of the roof and
for the entrance of the house are also typical for a Tudor Revival. Relaxing the "50% recess on the
second floor' rule is necessary because it allows the three houses to maintain an authentic flavor for
the intended period styles. All six houses within the subdivision will be facing the private street.
Giving this flexibility will not result in any potential impact on the neighboring properties. In
accordance with the criteria of the Zoning Code, staff recommends the approval of the conditional
use permit.
Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission consider relaxing the zoning standards on the
building height and Floor Area Ratio for the house on Lot 2 and the house on Lot 4 to achieve more
aesthetic period architecture and a higher quality of design. This is not a request from the applicant
but a recommendation of staff, in an effort to address the mansard roof design (Figure 7) for the
two houses. The mansard roof over the garage for the house on Lot 2 was the result of the 18 -foot
height limitation for the single -story portion of a two-story house. The mansard roof for the house
on Lot 4 was the result of the Floor Area Ratio limitation (35 percent Maximum) which would apply
to a single -story house if it exceeds 18 feet in height. A preliminary redesign for the two houses
shows that removing the mansard roofs will significantly enhance the aesthetics of the two houses;
but it requires that the ridge height for the single -story portion of the house on Lot 2 be 22 feet and
the ridge height for the house on Lot 2 be 23 feet and eight inches. The overall building height for
the two-story house on Lot 2 will not be changed which is in compliance with the maximum of 26
feet of the zoning standard. The portoin of the roof over 18 feet for the two houses will be a small
percentage of the structure's footprints, and therefore is not anticipated to have a significant effect
on the building mass. A condition of approval (condition number 13) has been incorporated in the
resolution which requires that a revised roof design for the two houses be submitted to and
approved by the Community Development Director. To ensure that the height increase will not
result in additional floor area, the condition also requires that a covenant be recorded on the titles
to restrict the construction and the use of the attic space to the purpose of insulation and
ventilation only.
Figure 7
A Commercial Structure with Mansard Roof
July 14, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report — Item 88
File 150000029
5. Site Access/Circulation: Vehicular access to Lot 1 and Lot 6 will be taken from La Rosa Drive. Access
to Lot 2 through Lot 5 will be taken from the private street. La Rosa Drive is a collector street which
has a right-of-way of 60 feet and a roadway of 40 feet. The private street is proposed with a
roadway of 34 feet. Both streets are considered adequate for the types and volumes of the traffic
that will be generated by the project. A name will be assigned for the private street by the City. The
name will be chosen from the list provided by the City's Historical Society, which is intended to carry
a significance from the history of Temple City.
6. Landscaoina: A landscaping plan is required for the project. The design of the landscaping can be
used to provide buffers between the project and the neighboring homes. As shown on the
preliminary site design, the project proposes a tall hedge along a six-foot masonry wall on the three
sides abutting neighboring properties, which intends to protect the privacy of the neighbors. For
the landscaping plan, staff also recommends a condition of approval which requires that each lot be
provided with two 24" box trees, one of which must be in the front yard.
7. Utilities (drainage, sewer): The tentative map has been forwarded to the local water, gas, and
electrical suppliers. "Will serve letters" are required for the project to ensure availability of the
services. For the drainage design a condition of approval has been recommended which requires
that the drainage design for the project retain the existing grade to the extent feasible. Such a
condition will ensure that the project will not drastically alter the existing grade in the areas abutting
the adjacent properties. To enhance the permeability level within the subdivision, the project is
required to comply with the City's Low Impact Development Standards.
8. Other: Necessary public and private improvements pertaining to the subdivision have been
conditioned in the attached Resolution (condition number 15, 16, 17, 29, 33, 34, 35, 68, 69, 70, 71,
72, 73, 74, and 77).
REQUIRED FINDINGS:
The required findings are provided in the attached resolution (Attachment 1) in accordance with Section
66474 of the Subdivision Map Act for the tentative tract map, and in accordance with the provisions in
9-1F-11, Burden of Proof, of the Temple City Municipal Code for a Conditional Use Permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has determined that this project is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Section 15332 (In-
fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Page 7
July 14, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report — Item 8B
File 150000029
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The recommended conditions of approval are contained in the attached resolution (Attachment 1).
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Planning Commission Resolution
B: Tentative Tract Map
C: Conceptual Drainage Plan
D: Application and Development Plans
E: Photographs of site and surrounding area
F: Area Zoning
G: Aerial Photo
Page 8
4
0
4.
Attachment C
PLANNING COMMISSION
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 14, 2015 — 7:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER — Chairman Leung
ROLL CALL — Commissioner Chen Marston, Cordes, Haddad, O'Leary, Leung
PRESENT: Commissioner—Cordes, Haddad, O'Leary, Leung
ABSENT: Commissioner — Chen Marston
ALSO PRESENT: Community Development Director Forbes, Planning
Manager Reimers, City Attorney Vega, Associate Planner
Gulick, Associate Planner Liu, and Planning Secretary
Venters
Commissioner Cordes made a motion to excuse Commissioner Chen Marston for
due cause seconded by Vice -Chairman Haddad and was approved unanimously by
the following votes:
AYES: Commissioner— Cordes, Haddad, O'Leary, Leung
ABSTAIN: Commissioner — None
NOES: Commissioner — None
ABSENT: Commissioner — Chen Marston
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
Community Development staff calls for nominations for a new Chairman.
Commissioner Cordes made a motion to nominate Vice -Chairman O'Leary for
Planning Commission Chairman, there were no other nominations, the motion was
seconded by Commissioner Haddad, and was unanimously carried by the following
votes:
AYES:
Commissioner — Cordes, Haddad, Leung, O'Leary
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner — None
NOES:
Commissioner — None
ABSENT:
Commissioner—Chen Marston
Chairman conducts nominations for new Vice -Chairman.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2015
Page 2 of 7
Commissioner Cordes made a motion to nominate Commissioner Haddad for
Planning Commission Vice -Chairman, there were no other nominations, the motion
was seconded by Commissioner Leung, and was unanimously carried by the
following votes:
AYES: Commissioner — Cordes, Leung, Haddad, O'Leary
ABSTAIN: Commissioner — None
NOES: Commissioner — None
ABSENT: Commissioner — Chen Marston
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA - None
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Planning Commission is requested to review and approve:
1) Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 23, 2015.
Commissioner Cordes moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Seconded by
Vice -Chairman Haddad and was approved unanimously by the following votes:
AYES: Commissioner—Cordes, Leung, Haddad, O'Leary
ABSTAIN: Commissioner — None
NOES: Commissioner — None
ABSENT: Commissioner — Chen Marston
8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. A time extension request for a Tentative Parcel Map for the construction of
three condominium dwellings located at 9619 Broadway.
The subject site is located on the north side of Broadway Avenue between
Temple City Boulevard and Golden West Avenue. The site has a land area of
approximately 11,470 square feet and is currently improved with two residences
with a total floor area of 1,950 square feet. The Tentative Parcel Map proposes
to demolish the two residences and construct three detached, two-story
condominium dwellings. Each dwelling will contain four bedrooms and three
bathrooms. The site is zoned R-1 and is designated Medium Density Residential
by the General Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2015
Page 3 of 7
Associate Planner Liu gave a brief summary of the staff report.
Chairman O'Leary opened the public hearing.
Jav Muller, applicant, stated that he did not initially move forward with the
approved development as the selected contractor had moved. He stated that
he is now ready to move forward with the development.
Chairman O'Leary closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Cordes made a motion to approve File 150000217, adopt the
resolution, and find that the project is categorically exempt. Seconded by Vice -
Chairman Haddad and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner—Cordes, Leung, Haddad, O'Leary
ABSTAIN: Commissioner— None
NOES: Commissioner— None
ABSENT: Commissioner— Chen Marston
B. A Tentative Tract Map, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Major Site Plan Review
for the creation of six single-family lots and the construction of six single-family
houses on the site located at 10034, 10044 La Rosa Drive.
The request is a Tentative Tract Map and Major Site Plan Review for the
creation of six single-family lots and the construction of six single-family houses.
The site is comprised of two existing lots with a combined land area of
approximately 54,385 square feet. The total number of parcels proposed in the
subdivision is seven, including six residential lots and a street parcel. The street
parcel will be commonly owned and maintained as the ingress/egress driveway
and as the utility easement. The street parcel features a cul-de-sac street
providing a roadway of 34 feet in width. The lot size for the six lots ranges from
7,300 square feet to 8,300 square feet. The living area for the six houses varies
from 2,700 square feet to 3,100 square feet. The site is zoned R-1 and is
designated Low Density Residential by the General Plan.
Associate Planner Liu gave a brief summary of the staff report.
Chairman O'Leary opened the public hearing.
James Coane. architect, provided the specifications for the development. He
stated that he would like the development to feel like a neighborhood as
opposed to residences that are similar in appearance. He expressed his
intention to be flexible with staff and the Planning Commission. He stated that
he will comply with the conditions of approval.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2015
Page 4 of 7
Gary Hart, resident, proposed that the developer build a wall along the easterly
side of the development and requested that the water run off does not flow onto
his property. He stated that he preferred the maximum height of the single story
residences to be in compliance with the zoning code. He inquired regarding
landscaping and curbs.
Mira Ramos, resident, spoke in opposition of the project.
Vivian Harris, resident, spoke against the project and submitted a letter detailing
her opposition to the Planning Commission.
Josephine Hu, resident, spoke against the proposed development and
submitted a letter detailing her opposition to the Planning Commission.
Andrea Tran, resident, spoke against the proposed development and submitted
a letter detailing her opposition to the Planning Commission.
John Lin, resident, expressed concern regarding increased traffic and possible
insufficient parking. He felt that the proposed residences were too large and the
garages were too small.
James Coane, architect, provided a response and answered the questions of
the public.
Chairman O'Leary closed the public hearing.
Vice -Chairman Haddad asked if the hours of construction could be amended
City Attorney Vega stated that typically hours of construction are not altered
unless there is a unique circumstance.
Commissioner Cordes is in favor of the architectural style, however, he felt that
the development was not appropriate for the area.
Commissioner Leung could make the finding to approve the project if the height
of the roof is in compliance with the zoning code.
Chairman O'Leary concurred with fellow Commissioner Leung.
City Attorney Vega, recommended that staff revise the resolution and bring to
the Planning Commission for signature.
Commissioner Leung made a motion to approve File 150000029, modify the
resolution accordingly, and find that the project is categorically exempt.
Seconded by Vice -Chairman Haddad and carried by the following roll call vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2015
Page 5 of 7
AYES: Commissioner— Haddad, Leung, O'Leary
ABSTAIN: Commissioner — None
NOES: Commissioner — Cordes
ABSENT: Commissioner — Chen Marston
C. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a drink and food
establishment in the Camellia Square shopping center located at 9055 Las
Tunas Drive, Units 100-102.
The subject site has an overall lot size of 3.7 acres and is located at the
northeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. The property
has approximately 321 feet on Rosemead Boulevard (east property line),
approximately 490 feet on Las Tunas Drive (south property line) and
approximately 226 feet on Sultana Avenue (east property line). The property is
located in the C-2, General Commercial zone and is designated as Commercial
on the City's General Plan Land Use Map.
Associate Planner Gulick gave a brief summary of the staff report.
Chairman O'Leary opened the public hearing.
Hewitt Lee, aoDlicant, asked the Planning Commission to vote in favor of his
request.
Peter Choi. President. Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the
proposed business.
Jim Clift, resident, asked for clarification regarding product delivery.
Associate Planner Gulick stated that delivery access is located on Sultana
Avenue.
Chairman O'Leary closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Cordes made a motion to approve File 150000162, adopt the
resolution, and find that the project is categorically exempt. Seconded by Vice -
Chairman Haddad and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner—Cordes, Leung, Haddad, O'Leary
ABSTAIN: Commissioner — None
NOES: Commissioner — None
ABSENT: Commissioner — Chen Marston
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2015
Page 6 of 7
10. NEW BUSINESS
A. General Plan Land Use Diagram and Projections
Planning Manager Reimers provided a presentation regarding the General
Plan Land Use Diagram and Development Projections brought forth by the
General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The Draft Land Use Diagram and
Projections include increased/decreased residential density, a new mixed use
designation, new open space, and planning for the Sphere of Influence. He
provided an overview of proposed changes for each area in detail then asked
the Planning Commission for input.
Commissioner Cordes spoke in favor of area one and four, however he felt
concern regarding area nine as there is no active historical preservation
ordinance.
Commissioner Leung spoke regarding balance between residential
communities and businesses. He stated that he would like to see additional
open space in the City.
Vice -Chairman Haddad suggested higher density in area one and asked if the
City would be impacted financially should the industrial zone be reduced. He
stated that he would be in favor of additional open space.
Chairman O'Leary stated that historically the population in Temple City has
remained consistent.
Planning Manager Reimers responded to the inquiries of the Planning
Commission. He thanked the Planning Commission for their input and asked if
members of the public would like to provide input.
Jennifer Pedraza, GPAC Member, stated that the GPAC has put a lot of effort
into the Proposed General Plan.
11. COMMUNICATIONS— None
12. UPDATE FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Community Development Director Forbes announced the upcoming Water
Conservation Fair located at Temple City High School on August 8, from 10:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m.
13. COMMISSION ITEMS SEPARATE FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTORS REGULAR AGENDA
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2015
Page 7 of 7
A. COMMISSIONER CHEN MARSTON -Absent
B. COMMISSIONER CORDES — Congratulated fellow commissioners Haddad and
O'Leary for being selected as Vice -Chairman and Chairman and thanked
Commissioner Leung for serving as Chairman for the last year.
C. COMMISSIONER LEUNG— None
D. VICE-CHAIRMAN HADDAD — Thanked his fellow commissioners for selecting
him to serve as Vice -Chairman. He also congratulated fellow commissioner
O'Leary for being selected as Chairman. He spoke regarding recycled water
use in residential developments. He made a motion to agendize flexibility to
amend the hours of construction in other than unique cases at the Planning
Commissions discretion. No commissioner seconded the motion therefore the
motion failed.
E. CHAIRMAN O'LEARY - Thanked his fellow commissioners for selecting him to
serve as Chairman.
14. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
— None
15. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission Regular Meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Chairman
Secretary
To: City Clerk
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
REQUEST FOR REVIEW
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC
9701 Las Tunas Drive - Temple City, CA 91780
(626) 285-2171 - Fax (626) 285-8192
Attachment D
DATE:
nA F RFCFIVFC
RECEIPT:
1111 29 9(115
avc �.,�
APPROVAL:
TEMPLE CITY
VI I T %�Lt!?IK
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Pursuant to the provisions of 9-1F-27of the Temple City Zoning Code, I hereby file this RFR regarding
the decision of the Planning Commission:
SUBJECT INFORMATION
Meeting Date: u 1 a J I
PC Resolution No: ti ' �
Property Address: 1 -7 I
-rt[-A&- C Ay 1 Ca. 17 S D I�� lei )SDix D�q
CONTACT INFORMATION ._ _
Contact Perso
�iidLQLA ii0.rr>S .�al1n Lug AncQre_CL, oneNumbe.�
Address: bran 1 v Fax Number. T � 9-�
gTJ- k-Ylo.ticl p1q: �Xt-? 'ID Emai. vff I. JbrLhl 0.r�1. C oryl�
r.�Ter�le_C�k 91790 �;fL ��r V,k_ or •))Icy. 60
A(T : 192g ob4, L� f�Je.�ern�a1�C: �)t'1�'1� l�T.ctndere�es�y0.l��c�
I certify that this request for review is not based on an predetermination of support for or opobsition
to such decision; but instead, is based on my opinion that such decision is of such interest, import,
precedent, or significance that it should be determined by elected officials who are responsib a to the
electorate.
Signature ��.�Jl �. �!'Ch���t tsb Date:
r
4 ala1, QD Appeal F&--
CMLENGMEERBASIS OF BEARING:
rµ,yp pt �XE�-nOYOM£
555E VueWIP➢.
,un,ra RcsaE
BENCHMARK
ENCHMwx
MXOxu�TnGRx E[»Yi LONA®Y Ltli55LY➢wW A`.F
s `iww.
�� amr,wermma wew�s name Lw Imcl
MAJOR LAND DIVISION
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 73258
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A PORTION OF LOT 4. 5 AND LOT 6 IN BLOCK 'B' OF TRACT NO. 10821, IN THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORD IN BOOK 205 PAGE 60 OF YAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF COUNTY RECORDED OF SND COUNTY
FOR SUSDMSION PURPOSES
i
1 � I
LOi3
OT2 1
]]B1 S.F.: L0t 1
«l ....TxyaF. I
T
Abi
t 1
ea
uss,c]R 1
F.•. t0T6 1
-. 9F i
L(
..,., N155.F.
I
� q
rwn S ex».^
VICINITY MAP
LEGENDS
1
w
z
SERVN Es
� q
rwn S ex».^
VICINITY MAP
LEGENDS
1
w
SERVN Es
WAiR-C41Wl. MEPoC/.V wniEA
Caua4ry
f twFA. uc wH¢n mr sHo waxrun er caurvry
oM�"cuw'mrun
xwm[nxcu Lwum LmSw
rt[ewwE nMa
s1wcT
*
FF
z 29?
s-Zl L
-::1 consraornoN rcoTrsm
? • •" 6 � ®e..t�wuvEwA. ]sntxroe[xovm
X�i /.:�_: i Q an Lo oxrvFxnr Amw
„h
-S ® MawE cYwE LL'
® www»o.»wsAu,Ew. o�
®.woro»noAFA� om
,Wnxx1.: E �<
a D
INt
T-1 3
CD
m
ABBREVIATIONS
--
SYMBOLS VICINITY MAP
oa FTTT v ra
--� wnunie,aT
m.-� wmxuruv
ssa-Q N-
a� O e'ew.rma
NTS
�`-R�-wrunnmr
ADDITIONAL NOTES
THE Lw .. FOR THIS N...' ARE TNEmnrxaowM
ILFCIEMWSANDICRC EIELTPIUL CECT uECw.NICurCMc1. M1VNPIrIDIFPLL fIHE
CO.T X. ENERGY FCVE MASI>NOlNErotofulFdwu sRE[N
DISE'YmN'�arx u1EHouiN INAANNY,M.w.' .+wo,o Y
N
TS
).E THE aTRVLNRx'XFi, R $ PRchcT SNUL I.L'.1 TTE
W IREFIEMa OF
THE Atl C W EO0.NM B V WING GOR ICBCI AM EHCINEEN A.
PRHCIREa
v sFPARNTE.YPLIu X ANRP 11A MF RFWIRN. FO.'
.. uECNAMiALAwn
.nNuauc ADu
nRmNNL
L AurOMeT."Y "N".ER srsTFM
SIS YATISAFTNEII
L-AINn N oR.1 ro A wMK FRIT OF ANY
SCOPE OF WORK
. OFMOLIfION OF (E)TM SQ". HOUSE
- OEMOI.MN OF TER 0. SOFT. HOUSE
-FOUR NEWT OPSTORY SINGLE FMILY RESIDENCES
TWO NEW ONES TORY SMa FAMILY RESIDENCES
- SIX TWO.CPR ATTACHED GARAGES
SHEETINDEX
LA ROAA OFVELOPNEM ARE
TAD PROINUSED SITE PIAN OVAMM
AD] FU
PROSED SITE PWT - FIRST nCOR OF ENrAE OEYS..1.ENT
AD.a PROFUSED SITE PIAN- SELONS MOOR R ENTIRE OENELOPNENT
AOA PROPoSED"TIE PLAN- ROOF PLAN OF ENTIRE OEYKOPMEM
A05 F IRST FLOOR NEIGHBOR "CRF ENING OMOMM
mE SECOND FF1.0044XEILNOOR"CREENDq 04GRAN
.i DEO LA NO.. RO. STREET ELEYAPON
SOT F 1-SMXIBH STYIE
A1.1ILOT 1: SPANISN STYLE-PROPOEEO FLOOR PUNS
All OT I:SPANISN STYIF
At.] LOT I:SPNI6X-PROPoSEOROOF PUN
,T,E ROPoSEDEFTERIOIE.All..
LOT F % EN W SH 7 UUOY STYLE
ATI LOT 6: ENGLISX TYCOR ST'LE-PROPOSED FIRST FLWAPIM
All OT S E NOLRN LII W R"IYLE - RLOPOSFD RCOF PI. W
All
LOT B. ENGLISH TUDLVi STYLE -PROPOSED FSTENOREL£VAR]NS
I .FRENCH(:ONNTIY STY Alt SL BT t FRENCH COUNTRY STYLE- PROPOSERFIITTI'WORPVN
MS LMx'FRENCNCWNIT'BME-PROPo
SEE ECONO nWR RAN
NlLOTS: FRENCNCWNTRV "lYlE-MOPQSED FW1 PIAN
LOT 3: FRE NCN L W NMY SIYIF - PROPo"FD F%IERIOR ELENATgNs
Aly LOT Q'FRENCM CCIINTMY SlY1E-PROPo"FD E%TEPIOREL£VAipW
YiDM ATTKI® LOVEI@D
MOUSE, SURCAS"T. i MFNrtECT A.n«
LOTS-MEOITE"FUN All SlV1E
` M.1 LOTS: MEOITERRANEAXSTYLEPROPoSEO fIPSTFLOORPUY
M$ LST 5:ME011ERWWFAN STYLE- P0.0Po"EO SECOND FLOORPIAN
STYLE-PROPo"EO ROTI PIAN
PRoIEOL �...... sTRUC1URLLEx WEER
MM;LOT :NEOOERMNFAN
O}5: EORERMXFAN STYLE. PPOPOSEO EXTERIOR ELEVATRAR
IN x►�
N
F
e
AE1 LOT;TLLSFANSIYIE-PROPOSEOFSSTFLWR PIAN
37
7 m.
AS LOT S 710V STYLE- PROFUSED ROOF T,N1
LOT >TU"GX mLE-PROPOSED EXTEFF RS.A.
EO 53FT
AS. LOTSTXSLANSTYLE- MLOFlX. EXES. ELENATKKI3
US. N," am vJH. TLV b' w0'FFT.
Emisl],p5e I
^'
ASI L1TCM OlE
' K1 WTITIAOR STYLE-PROPoSEORR"TMOORIMN
M3 LOTS-TUE.:3TYlE-PROFUSED ROOFPUN
]ASO Nin 996M SEA I
N3 LOT,TWOReMF- FROPOSEO E%IERILR FIEVATIO
AS, LOTR:TIW0.PROPWED FXTERS10. El£rATION.XB
W
S
l]t6 Yin I.MI b.Ff. a10 50 NM Nin.
3318 53n. 519M 53!
w II• ��.�
S
CL
FS.
965] 90FT-I Mai 9Dx
NS. AA
> E
a
6303 93FT 13JCa bn a1. S]n.
Sb0] b.PTI VJ3% STA
?
IN
sIN,mr..�
:.O ""
r.�Ea•
�aq
w w u_m
M
w
FT,1
Se
I6ARAbE
130e Nxn aM 90n. 3D00 b.PT UJ 50n.
I.SNIS 6.'l.A.
6
A.2 .1 a99 SO, ]OlH WIT UlA 53Pi.
I.ISaRO01.5AOR
EES
3
TT]WIT AS WIT* ].MO SOI 130A ES,
1
I]043Jb.Sl.A
1
S
1.16150FT ab WIT. 3J11 b." lim WIT.
I,ID]/i1t..6[3x
6
13
5oe]mn. am Son
A �
s-
4
9Jd •AFF. AID 50n.
WA
IF,
T 1
vxLLLOINS AOGmONnL SO:A FRO, &ARMIES THAT EXL® 30' NTEROR OlNERINOYE.
••IN' .. WRN A LELLIIG IEI6NT 6FFARR THAT p' -O'.
.
m
[
SYMBOLS VICINITY MAP
oa FTTT v ra
--� wnunie,aT
m.-� wmxuruv
ssa-Q N-
a� O e'ew.rma
NTS
�`-R�-wrunnmr
ADDITIONAL NOTES
THE Lw .. FOR THIS N...' ARE TNEmnrxaowM
ILFCIEMWSANDICRC EIELTPIUL CECT uECw.NICurCMc1. M1VNPIrIDIFPLL fIHE
CO.T X. ENERGY FCVE MASI>NOlNErotofulFdwu sRE[N
DISE'YmN'�arx u1EHouiN INAANNY,M.w.' .+wo,o Y
N
TS
).E THE aTRVLNRx'XFi, R $ PRchcT SNUL I.L'.1 TTE
W IREFIEMa OF
THE Atl C W EO0.NM B V WING GOR ICBCI AM EHCINEEN A.
PRHCIREa
v sFPARNTE.YPLIu X ANRP 11A MF RFWIRN. FO.'
.. uECNAMiALAwn
.nNuauc ADu
nRmNNL
L AurOMeT."Y "N".ER srsTFM
SIS YATISAFTNEII
L-AINn N oR.1 ro A wMK FRIT OF ANY
SCOPE OF WORK
. OFMOLIfION OF (E)TM SQ". HOUSE
- OEMOI.MN OF TER 0. SOFT. HOUSE
-FOUR NEWT OPSTORY SINGLE FMILY RESIDENCES
TWO NEW ONES TORY SMa FAMILY RESIDENCES
- SIX TWO.CPR ATTACHED GARAGES
SHEETINDEX
LA ROAA OFVELOPNEM ARE
TAD PROINUSED SITE PIAN OVAMM
AD] FU
PROSED SITE PWT - FIRST nCOR OF ENrAE OEYS..1.ENT
AD.a PROFUSED SITE PIAN- SELONS MOOR R ENTIRE OENELOPNENT
AOA PROPoSED"TIE PLAN- ROOF PLAN OF ENTIRE OEYKOPMEM
A05 F IRST FLOOR NEIGHBOR "CRF ENING OMOMM
mE SECOND FF1.0044XEILNOOR"CREENDq 04GRAN
.i DEO LA NO.. RO. STREET ELEYAPON
SOT F 1-SMXIBH STYIE
A1.1ILOT 1: SPANISN STYLE-PROPOEEO FLOOR PUNS
All OT I:SPANISN STYIF
At.] LOT I:SPNI6X-PROPoSEOROOF PUN
,T,E ROPoSEDEFTERIOIE.All..
LOT F % EN W SH 7 UUOY STYLE
ATI LOT 6: ENGLISX TYCOR ST'LE-PROPOSED FIRST FLWAPIM
All OT S E NOLRN LII W R"IYLE - RLOPOSFD RCOF PI. W
All
LOT B. ENGLISH TUDLVi STYLE -PROPOSED FSTENOREL£VAR]NS
I .FRENCH(:ONNTIY STY Alt SL BT t FRENCH COUNTRY STYLE- PROPOSERFIITTI'WORPVN
MS LMx'FRENCNCWNIT'BME-PROPo
SEE ECONO nWR RAN
NlLOTS: FRENCNCWNTRV "lYlE-MOPQSED FW1 PIAN
LOT 3: FRE NCN L W NMY SIYIF - PROPo"FD F%IERIOR ELENATgNs
Aly LOT Q'FRENCM CCIINTMY SlY1E-PROPo"FD E%TEPIOREL£VAipW
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT
10034 & 10044 LA ROSA DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
PROJECT INFORMATION
YiDM ATTKI® LOVEI@D
MOUSE, SURCAS"T. i MFNrtECT A.n«
LOTS-MEOITE"FUN All SlV1E
` M.1 LOTS: MEOITERRANEAXSTYLEPROPoSEO fIPSTFLOORPUY
M$ LST 5:ME011ERWWFAN STYLE- P0.0Po"EO SECOND FLOORPIAN
STYLE-PROPo"EO ROTI PIAN
PRoIEOL �...... sTRUC1URLLEx WEER
MM;LOT :NEOOERMNFAN
O}5: EORERMXFAN STYLE. PPOPOSEO EXTERIOR ELEVATRAR
mneun u.m
ME IT S:MEOIiFIiMXEANSIYLE. PROPOSEOE.RIORELEYATWW
owrvER
` LOTXI-NSCM'SFYLE
wwIN
?vm' uarF
AE1 LOT;TLLSFANSIYIE-PROPOSEOFSSTFLWR PIAN
] .T]. FT.
AS LOT S 710V STYLE- PROFUSED ROOF T,N1
LOT >TU"GX mLE-PROPOSED EXTEFF RS.A.
EO 53FT
AS. LOTSTXSLANSTYLE- MLOFlX. EXES. ELENATKKI3
US. N," am vJH. TLV b' w0'FFT.
Emisl],p5e I
^'
ASI L1TCM OlE
' K1 WTITIAOR STYLE-PROPoSEORR"TMOORIMN
M3 LOTS-TUE.:3TYlE-PROFUSED ROOFPUN
]ASO Nin 996M SEA I
N3 LOT,TWOReMF- FROPOSEO E%IERILR FIEVATIO
AS, LOTR:TIW0.PROPWED FXTERS10. El£rATION.XB
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT
10034 & 10044 LA ROSA DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
PROJECT INFORMATION
YiDM ATTKI® LOVEI@D
MOUSE, SURCAS"T. i MFNrtECT A.n«
r RM1OESCPo �.
PRoIEOL �...... sTRUC1URLLEx WEER
.w..-. `��"�w
mneun u.m
�A�.w,iemmeemmuc.
owrvER
varwTO mE
wwIN
?vm' uarF
CALCULATIONS
3wARe Poor/.Be TAY E.. N, . SITE DANA TA III
I9 SODS.'I
1. SADA bn I
PRNOSEO PAR.
.OF LOT 91L! ALLOYNRe FM 151 PLOOR• ]W rLO " TOTK
1 1yY A.Fr %SDY.].rA Do.Pr, lale 53 PT. UBD'+9 IT ]1u.1 ]TSA 1
D l$5950.FT I35L•].Ma 90Pr 16e2Ni1 IJ]1.' l --WI TM I
12 1310 B31r. % S..2.&. 50Fr. I.11] b1T I]0A•APT ]Att 5O£T. a0 i
s t310 SO, NA'....2s btl L10150rr. ue3 mFr- s+a3 5.7 aowx 1
S B]e5 SO, ....= 50PT. 'p0 EST, WA 3003 bfl. 319A
A BlXS ESYT. lClifi.9Pv3.1 SJBa b .. WA 91M •AFT. INS. I
PIPLBM.VE OF tOT COVMAbC
MA.% LOT LOJpVbS. bYl
DIS IST PLPoR eARASC LOF LVRb
YiDM ATTKI® LOVEI@D
MLLOHF 1
LOT IST PLW"R
31D PLOJR•' 6A0.ME J=-, tRELL15 FATW
LVRB O`Mf
Is sol -T.
IPL WIT MO b!T 6V 50Fr.
]OI 90.IT.
6 1663.1..
USA .11 '9PT
] .T]. FT.
I] b£T 41B?FT. ICO YiFI ISO SS.FT.
EO 53FT
IS Lt DI YlF
US. N," am vJH. TLV b' w0'FFT.
Emisl],p5e I
I9 SODS.'I
1. SADA bn I
PRNOSEO PAR.
.OF LOT 91L! ALLOYNRe FM 151 PLOOR• ]W rLO " TOTK
1 1yY A.Fr %SDY.].rA Do.Pr, lale 53 PT. UBD'+9 IT ]1u.1 ]TSA 1
D l$5950.FT I35L•].Ma 90Pr 16e2Ni1 IJ]1.' l --WI TM I
12 1310 B31r. % S..2.&. 50Fr. I.11] b1T I]0A•APT ]Att 5O£T. a0 i
s t310 SO, NA'....2s btl L10150rr. ue3 mFr- s+a3 5.7 aowx 1
S B]e5 SO, ....= 50PT. 'p0 EST, WA 3003 bfl. 319A
A BlXS ESYT. lClifi.9Pv3.1 SJBa b .. WA 91M •AFT. INS. I
PIPLBM.VE OF tOT COVMAbC
MA.% LOT LOJpVbS. bYl
DIS IST PLPoR eARASC LOF LVRb
.OT
LOi PAW. PACOYDRSD
LVRB O`Mf
I
tss3 SOHr 1x6 bn. Aa bn H Don.
3p13 bn 30]A Sox
13yy yPT IAS] SOFT, a5V DOn.
]ODI yJn ]OS! MIE
Z
3
TS3 9O1. ITIS SOn. aM 1i PT. NM Yxn b0 bn.
]ASO Nin 996M SEA I
W
S
l]t6 Yin I.MI b.Ff. a10 50 NM Nin.
3318 53n. 519M 53!
d P
9
0]BS Y]PT/. 3003 S]n a10 Hifi. FR •Yi z
965] 90FT-I Mai 9Dx
ZD
> E
a
6303 93FT 13JCa bn a1. S]n.
Sb0] b.PTI VJ3% STA
?
LOT
I.TTEFA OR IT.LWR 3XO FL YMt" • LF ]NO MG3R
w
FT,1
I6ARAbE
130e Nxn aM 90n. 3D00 b.PT UJ 50n.
I.SNIS 6.'l.A.
6
A.2 .1 a99 SO, ]OlH WIT UlA 53Pi.
I.ISaRO01.5AOR
EES
3
TT]WIT AS WIT* ].MO SOI 130A ES,
1
I]043Jb.Sl.A
1
S
1.16150FT ab WIT. 3J11 b." lim WIT.
I,ID]/i1t..6[3x
6
13
5oe]mn. am Son
A �
s-
4
9Jd •AFF. AID 50n.
WA
IF,
T 1
vxLLLOINS AOGmONnL SO:A FRO, &ARMIES THAT EXL® 30' NTEROR OlNERINOYE.
••IN' .. WRN A LELLIIG IEI6NT 6FFARR THAT p' -O'.
.
-
I
SPANISH
10034 &
10044 LA ROSA
DR
SMOOTH STUCCO
SHUTTERS
WINDOWS
CUSTOM FRONT DOOR
ROOF
LaHaBra
Benjamin Moore
Milgard Windows & Doors &GARAGE DOORS
Capistrano Concrete Tile
color:
color:
Vinyl Window
solid wood
Eagle Roofing
x-12chablis
forest hills green 433
color: espresso
stain color: Oark Walnut Albuquerque
Blend/Santa Cruz Blend
El
FRENCH COUNTRY 10034 & 10044 LA ROSA DR
SMOOTH STUCCO SHUTTERS WINDOWS& DOORS STONE ROOF
Benjamin Moore Benjamin Moore Milgard Windows & Doors Sandstone Mint Ponderosa Concrete Tile
color: color: Vinyl Window &Doors Rustic Cladding Eagle Roofing
luxe AF -580 nightfall 1596 color: white Charcoal Range
Tuscan 10034 & 10044 LA ROSA DR
SMOOTH STUCCO SHUTTERS WINDOWS CUSTOM FRONT DOOR STONE
LaHaBra stained wood Milgard Windows & Doors &GARAGE DOORS Golden Slate
color: stain color: Vinyl Window solid wood Rustic Cladding
x-81584 Suffolk lightwalnut color. chocolate stain colonclarkwalnut
.~ .r m-_
ROOF
Capistrano Concrete Tile
Eagle Roofing
Santa Barbara Blend
Tudor 10034 & 10044 LA ROSA DR
SMOOTH STUCCO SHUTTERS WINDOWS CUSTOM FRONT DOOR STONE ROOF
LaHaBra Benjamin Moore Milgard Windows & Doors &GARAGE DOORS Dressed Fieldstone Estate Concrete Tile
color: color: Vinyl Window solid wood Stone Cladding Eagle Roofing
x-81 oatmeal barrel brown 2098-10 color: espresso stain color: dark walnut Charcoal Range
J
i _
Mediterranean
SMOOTH STUCCO
LaHaBra
color.-
x-14495
olor:x-14495 beaufort
SHUTTERS
Benjamin Moore
color:
forest hills green 433
10034 & 10044 LA ROSA DR
WINDOWS CUSTOM FRONT DOOR ROOF
Mllgard Windows & Doors & GARAGE DOORS Malibu Concrete Tile
Vinyl Window solid wood Eagle Roofing
color: chocolate stain color: dark walnut Piedmont Blend
ENGLISH TUDOR 10034 & 10044 LA ROSA DR
SMOOTH STUCCO SHUTTERS WINDOWS CUSTOM FRONT DOOR STONE
LaHaBra Benjamin Moore Milgard Windows & Doors & GARAGE DOORS Sandstone Grey
color: color: Vinyl Window solid wood Rustic Cladding
x-81 oatmeal barrel brown 2098-10 color: espresso stain color: darkwalnut
ROOF
Bel Air Concrete Tile
Eagle Roofing
Evergreen
vcA
��
L � R O S A E = R I V E
J a m - � C o s i n e &