Loading...
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� ROSAE=RIVE Jam- �Cosine & Associates �� �� /\ PROPOSED WE PAN FIRST / . & /\ . ) ��. �� L� ROSAE=RIVE Jam- �Cosine & Associates �� �� PROPOSED WE PAN FIRST / . & III �� L� ROSAE=RIVE Jam- �Cosine & Associates �� �� Hill LA ROSA DRIVE OS E ONO R0fl James V. Coane &AssociatesLA ROSA DEVELOPMENT ■VIII VIII IIIIIIIIII FIII illlll—i lvWtxb Y !wv aloou Le flw. dl.. T�pN fAy, G BI)80 F t PROPOSED ME PLMI-R001 plgN LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT 1atWaa L9Rma OrM1e Tem— pe Gly, G 81190 6 6. 5 0 LA ROSA DRIVE James V. Cooane& Associates ■ 3 ArMItMs Eo 0 @ _5 S F t PROPOSED ME PLMI-R001 plgN LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT 1atWaa L9Rma OrM1e Tem— pe Gly, G 81190 6 6. 5 0 LA ROSA DRIVE James V. Cooane& Associates ■ 3 ArMItMs Iz Is 0 �F 'm lei j � I Q� � I •1� 11 __ uu — P I LOT #6 LOT ----------------- - L A R O S A DRIVE AEM FHNI E \ P o >4 I LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT r Biu too .. Dn.. To Tempe Gty, a eneB CIk917 \ lei j � I Q� � I •1� 11 __ uu — P I LOT #6 LOT ----------------- - L A R O S A DRIVE iW w10 AEM FHNI E lI fl ST ELODR NEIGHBOR BC ENING DIAG. o I LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT r too .. Dn.. To Tempe Gty, a eneB CIk917 iW w10 AEM FHNI ! I _ I CB = \ Y \ F n mom James V. Coane & Associates ■ i Pft11118c15 Rr ANV Ave _rF2nFOSED STREET ELEVATION HELM LA nosh On mor m znrE t� li�k (N)PRIVATE ROAD LOT #I PIZOP05ED LA R05A DEVELOPMENT 10024 LA R05A RD. PiOR— wmr RitEFT R PVATION Hidl NEW PRIVATE ROAD rouas. fm'• aml LA ROSA Of LA ROSA OR LOT 46 1 LOT 45 LOT #4 LOT #4 PROPOS SOUTH STREET ELEVATION FROM NEW P VATE ROAD PROPOSED LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT STREET ELEVATIONS LOT a-- ROBINHOOD wvE ! -- .I z� I / /. SECOND FLOOR NEIGHBOR SCREENING _aa ' ROBINHOOD wvE ! -- .I z� I /. SECOND FLOOR NEIGHBOR SCREENING _aa ' 4 m0POSED FLOOR FLANS LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT 1..a 10 L. R.- Drt T.k Chy. CA 91180 wq James V. Coane & Associates 0 m 0 8 r n Z co z z_ i m r m zy#i James V. Coane &Associates gtchryawb — ■ e ADo vuw �, a N �raoROS LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT roma n toga u Awe oma TamOM Gry, C481]00 x fI ---- n iL- 6� _ NOHFH F3.EVAl (FACNG LA NOW lJ MO E Al 0 i EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SPANISH SCHEME EA3I E AT (FACING R ATE SIFEM WEST ELEVATON U) M a r O X P N Z C s m im James V. Coane &aAssociates ■ Jam a Z PRO POSED FLOOR FILMS LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT �� ,omea,waa L. Roa. ome Temple Clry, G 8990 James V. Coane &aAssociates ■ Jam a Z Ilk Tffjjj MO ED RO FP I James V. Coane & Associates LA ROSH DEVELOPMENT T.* 01780 - - - - - - - - - M � r ?4 m m 0 m m r m z m z 0 0 C C0 0 m K m x S PROPOSED "NST Rom PUN WLA ROSA DEVELOPMENT 1W Temq>Clry, 69IN =flora prluv 91)!0 c na James V. Co. ane & Associate` ■ Artlies } i G { 110 r Y { q LA OSSA DEVELOPMENT OP EN ' D James V. Cooane & vAssociates ■ W LA ROSH DEVELOPMENT Arc�kecls t N TMpl. y, 9 RM OMe Tvnpla My, G 91190 N ° D I James V. Coane i Associates W to ROSH DEVELOPMENT prc�peGs Temple Ctly. G4 917H ,...�......�,.............. EAST E ATDN (FROM ELEVATION) �IrI1r1�IrNEI rIlrrl •t1�1 II�Ir1\Ir:11� p)� 1 r�11go 1rr rlrrr 1IlrrrlrOlr. olf/r �Ir1116 P� I�Ilrlllrrllr\P� _.rim rso NMI 11P IIr. �Ir.11 1`r1.1�s1�1rlrrrlrl�lrrrlr\r1�. mnrr11rr11rii1. 1111/I�Ir1�Ip�Ir1�1�Ira1�Ir1�1/1/lot 1Igo 11\ p 1 1■ nub I r l/: 1 nnnmll n._ 111 � EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - FRENCH COUNTRY SCHEME e. U 1`:F A110N '7, x TIA \ 1 rrt �.n.9 4Y ® ® Q �RfH 9.EVAtpN �� 4:r ANOIE PLNE OIAQiAM 55719R ELEVATIONS - FRENCH COUNTRY SCHEME i w a1 0 w sm �aR'aRs o Nf� va A3.5 9 r 8 i MR SEC FIRST FLCGi PLAN E A LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT 1NU A I'M4 L. Rwo on e TxnpN Gry, CA Bt>80 [,l m W �: 2E 6 ii n 0 James V, Coane 8 Associates ® I V I I I N him a AI R z Z lk 9 U 8 << W—IG v VAED DEVELOPMENT EFLOOR RAN ° D James V. Coane & Associated ROS ■ & A lA .P 61WN A TUha emVM GY, CF 9 91180W .,._�u.x... ............. f r1 Fui 0 PROPQSED F" •? LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT ALJ iwxaiaw �. no.. om. T.mq. cxy.wetreo James V. Coane & Associates j NUit.w ji $i 11' �'r r James V. Coane & Associates j NUit.w WEST EL VATON (FRONT E ATON) 1a_ EAST EL ATON(PEAR aI ARION) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - MEDITERRANEAN ao ; A ® P y Illi P� A4.4 VE 1� f Y� NOFiH ELEVAT ELEVAT lIIII ul -------- ---- � I %�1 0�� EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - MEDITERRANEAN SCHEME ' % 4 I % IRs a 6 � ANGLE PLAEE ONrnnN A4.5 E 1q D ` i FIASt FLOOR PUN James V. Coane & Associates ■ IIIIIF Itllll VIII I�--�rllll VIII—Illll�i � L,4 ROSASA DEVELOPMENT NNNxV { t � ioosae+aoa �. ao:. on,a T+mow cly, cn sneo r F. Z M M i. Ni JK71 PROPOSED ROOF % LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT Le Ron Rin To 0t Chy, CN 9170 James V. Coane & Associates NORM f AT" II Ihil °Illlim�f, (IIIIIII..,�mllll I,��Inia��lllll_IIIII�II�III�I_�_ ��II�IIII III 4111111111 . ----- -------- --1,ll„f_` I�" ' IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII EAST H AT" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -TUSCAN STYLE (SINGLE STORY) z 09e Dig a !s H c- A5.3 NONiM ELEVATION E ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -TUSCAN STYLE (SINGLE STORY) _ ..A 4 f 14 James —V'Coane & Associates ■ IIIIIHIIIII IIIII�--titilllll VIII IF- LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT Arc�ilecb i 1D]3e6100M Le Rase 0.Na TempHCMy, CA B1IB0 0 0 0 M M 0 M 0 0 r D Z 0 0 Co 0 M M M x eq �/yq(� J9 AIS 44- n I� MiCPo D.00F PU ODi LA ROSA DEVELOPMENT Iv Tma iBBaie nom. Temple qy, CA 01]MBO James V. Coane &pAssociates ■ I I I I A Ar mem NOfliH ELEVAT EAST ELEVAl1ON EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -TUDOR STYLE (SINGLE STORK _ A6.3 HOFlFH S AT E E SEVAT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -TUDOR STYLE (SINGLE ST ■ 1±1 LJILJII { , :� 4 .r, 1 I r Y4q� r/ 1 SPANISH SMOOTH STUCCO LaHaBra color: x-12 chablis SHUTTERS Benjamin Moore color: forest hills green 433 10034 & 10044 LA ROSA DR WINDOWS Milgard Windows & Doors Vinyl Window color: espresso CUSTOM FRONT DOOR & GARAGE DOORS solid wood stain color: Dark Walnut SMI ROOF Capistrano Concrete Tile Eagle Roofing Albuquerque Blend/Santa Cruz Blend Mediterranean SMOOTH STUCCO LaHaBra color: x-74495 beaufort SHUTTERS Benjamin Moore color. forest hills green 433 10034 & 10044 LA ROSA DR WINDOWS CUSTOM FRONT DOOR ROOF Milgard Windows & Doors &GARAGE DOORS Malibu Concrete Tle Vinyl Window solid wood Eagle Roofing color: chocolate stain color: dark walnut Piedmont Blend M 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: dark walnut J�or 46 ROOF Bel Air Concrete Tile Eagle Roofing Evergreen -- Attachment H Ht O,g1.1N ra+,n^ •• 1 5Y. I s.0 ieJ,. ium � Jo i eo i ss j ss � eo I sc � uj ,it j Be �•-� I 'OII © ® W jI rzao-�I a4" " I I I .IY Q I 32 I 3/ I®"•I��?'1;1 ®�j ©Nc e; © I ®:I i6 I a I® F Q __ ,!—i.�1.w ro I I j • I I I I I ,I I 'I 45 I I S./2mixOle. _ raz /s% iao .�- �JB -'-�i — -Yo � • �-'S4em,, " 4 4 � V i 3 o / 1 $ R n® n I sono-,�i0 •u a it zz \lo @ I O_ s �uu A I I s I$ �BLK. AI I e`n ® R I.303 3 i 02-14 E r 4 5- `Fy T 6 1"i, J Rem•" 11 II 121 1 13 I, 1 I m 11 C3 O j1I 0YS�`RI Q O Co • ve I��3 630 I iI II i. ,>• II I I I I I � r/J � )o /oa /as ✓e I .ro ar so � Sin t raa er' �.. C6 x rol .!r !M� -- 3LA ROSA DR. - V A ROS A DR._ . oro• /Arlo Y b:.. ywp �;4-,Tr�v > ��,.a �� © � 3 x $I IO' at O I 21,63'. ie%6cRl� sa © $ 9® wi,�v I H $ as i� -I =: � a✓W<Li elm-� .' Ly (A Q22 R x ®2a L. - - ' __-___-_____ 1 z � a,w-txz 37x Y..•9'.9CV a GbFin' ii ®24 C.• -•� `6iiW^ 0 ®zQ <m 3 - o r 3 ©a, R ®3o x ll,..aiic" `GPM 328 - 4r1° ,�mI• L ®�$--- T-----�L---I� } 3 iv -8m -- _m`��31O608®Dxx8��.�3i�7`z°I�''t O X___ W ®_xro--�-xAxe ��pJ �II �. rD 1 u""tntx��ap �1; 9 . aQ-•w'•rct�SHH4,Eed'E.° 2 % �ina:g GO HAL SOD DR_i.0 ^�® e sJQ _ I PGI 1b aO"Q® I?Q®mony� e a R Q BIL 1 ,P xa ¢ � I I O(i OY m g• m )� I -3z O i • OO14m I NOK . Y� MPMY[ ' ----------�(aISfB 1'C I D Cm o 'mom 10 I :QsZO. a q 8569 ' $p O �� 902 tl I I OC K O- tm Kw® SOa18 O x 1mm A Z q , m n^ u IB a �s O g O en m -G m ,sO$ PM 7534-35 au�:>a tp ms 'r�iaztlm t PeeORO t tmL 36 c m+b m n '+ �TRACTNO171O7 uu ii'.`.1' a q oi' O� $ z0 $ 9 ' . s $ zo i ` O4 w MB 402-28.30 - a O m ;IYt$ u I t at m Qna N 'z O -TRACT NO 52213 $ IDS t PG _____ x u Iax m SHE M ggO2 ® �■ ro� t '� 4i•-{; lET2 I ��:mp s s ezwul In mf mL M B 1234 - 65 - 67 lJmx °m° ze C' O•"`I�e mra nJ s"i tnr ussv S LOWERQAZUSA Rpt 9 LOwERAZUSA RDs Attachment IT' M1LS F�N V[d.. fps e. www ® slpl®I pal i i i 1®i°�"I � i ei I i t8 45 __try yr I I I I I I I I zj • I 1 I aRe" I I I I i I ® I I I I ysO�l Y re y@ R40 xj m� .'�Pl jp tl �♦ sm-_. BM Al / 09$IM ens.! a� € aLK. Al �. I. a =:rf 2a4 g•rl1I 1I 12 13 1O LA OaA ROSA u x'©f3zDR. • �( I I N 1 ..0 i.•h� x '04 : 3 i - eel �.i 3 ® :1 1 � 8LK C ------------ I � -"--mss-Lu `?a©. ��'. ,oe ;, `�ie .•' ®zee +GPM 328 - 3 - 4, �1 mmo:..i d •-" e- �d rye Qs ®ag� e�.'° f I iuO HA_LLW OOD_ _ - Iw la� Qaepm f8CDs ° w tlg O aF F O, I I o'w0q jw a ®e y,m� i b A W mA 0 ' p � — --- � ----- rpl N e • Qi 3•e PG .ave D Gm O' yp 10 Ep. ---, 6� 13 fJ bF. .� g iI -- --- m ®Oafs emVyi ®m z Oa PM 76-34-35 Y I I�I1 _ a"I 9 Nes$SE 's OQg R TRACT NO 17107 mu �•• i 1mDD pp °S"nlnm MBd-2&30 O° GTCT o 52213 g'O3 ° G PG mO •8• ,�•m �Y g SHO F-672 iEQY ® e Nil g �114 m me 12M 68 - 67 v ra101 �I 2LOWERYAZUSA ROY a LoWERAZUSA RD - r* - NoPf0 Z J 03 z ©: I �® 10Ri O i 0 i 031Y xo4x.. I I 1 p I Y©FiE ZBLK.AI I I I 'I 0V I. 0I 41'' 1r I I II a 12i . 1 13 I aF 14 Sp a 2 2 Q2C • m a¢; n • CA1 W mci 30 m© r0 T a ®rl iQIO ��I I — �'•i f— o `O m a® . ep p �p0®2G C : 0p. 4� —�+ A up {+ALL_W�00—ISR R. •`( ____ ____—___- � IPOI i a0s i a+e —J I I UI IW E °® a, ----� Ia ° I I _N -.f Qz ! pO 1 10 I I I DK asas —I PM 75 -S4 -s5 r ® \x tF J i a 1@u . i ..\iii w. O1 2 1 _____` d na TRACT ; ] :5 ma E __ � II I 3 zQn s 'ffi E �� �¢ Qi 9 a • MB IO2-28-30-28-30 z >�w�B E GTRAOT NO 52213 sQO • ° _—___- I. O 'Izz x c m xsal la f MB 1234@ 65 - 87 ' r�1 �• ------ = E� �aO�E ��,3•. N, ..� 8LOWERSAZUSA RDS B LOWER UM RDs _ ®m ij -5 .a>< 3 P z > ON o - v a sa A,I r f BLK. ._O� —>9 aai i'eO�.:fr 78zzz • 121 20 Sp a 2 2 Q2C • m a¢; n • CA1 W mci 30 m© r0 T a ®rl iQIO ��I I — �'•i f— o `O m a® . ep p �p0®2G C : 0p. 4� —�+ A up {+ALL_W�00—ISR R. •`( ____ ____—___- � IPOI i a0s i a+e —J I I UI IW E °® a, ----� Ia ° I I _N -.f Qz ! pO 1 10 I I I DK asas —I PM 75 -S4 -s5 r ® \x tF J i a 1@u . i ..\iii w. O1 2 1 _____` d na TRACT ; ] :5 ma E __ � II I 3 zQn s 'ffi E �� �¢ Qi 9 a • MB IO2-28-30-28-30 z >�w�B E GTRAOT NO 52213 sQO • ° _—___- I. O 'Izz x c m xsal la f MB 1234@ 65 - 87 ' r�1 �• ------ = E� �aO�E ��,3•. N, ..� 8LOWERSAZUSA RDS B LOWER UM RDs _ ®m ij -5 .a>< 3 P z > ON o - v 10132 La Rosa Drive Temple City, CA 91780-3303 September 4, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: RE: Development of 10034,10044 La Rosa Drive My husband and I have been residents on La Rosa for over 40 years. One of the reasons I liked this street was because of its wide street, custom homes, and low density. It has come to my attention that there is to be a new development on La Rosa involving two homes and their large lots (10034 and 10044 La Rosa Drive). These fairly modest homes are to be replaced by six homes on a private cul de sac! Four of these homes are large two story with two one story. This plan will most certainly impact everyone who lives on La Rosa not to mention the immediate neighbors to the east, west and south of the property. If you drive down Glickman (between La Rosa and Lower Azusa) to the east of this future development, you can see first hand the effect of crowding many houses on lots meant for single family homes. There is a hodge-podge of development. This street feels crowded with homes extremely close together and near the street. There is no back yard to speak of? Private cul de sacs or homes "stacked" one behind another are on this street mixed with established properties. On my walk this morning down Glickman, one of these streets had no less than 15 cars parked in driveways or along the private street! I would ask that development of these La Rosa properties be reconsidered. For instance, limit home size so they do not overwhelm small lots (as is the case in Arcadia). Perhaps, three and three, that is: three two story and three one story homes. Or four homes instead of six might be considered. The overall look and feel of a neighborhood will be impacted not to mention the increased traffic. Private cul de sac streets are not ideal and must depend on the cooperation of all residents who live on them to maintain the street properly. (There are several of these private streets on La Rosa that are not well maintained because residents cannot agree on maintenance). I request a rethinking of present and future development projects on La Rosa Drive and Temple City in general to address the density and crowding of lots on streets meant to contain modest family homes. RECEIVED P,,;, July 14, 2015 To whom it may concern, I am the owner of the home at 5015 Ryland Ave. and I would officially like to protest the construction of the 6 new homes off of IA Rosa. The proposed new 6 home construction, would directly affect my proper- ty as well as 4 others surrounding properties on its border. Our entire backyard's side property line borders the lot in question at almost 100%. The proposed buildings, if built would block out sunlight from our backyard, which would also effectively block out sunlight to 30% of our windows, making our home much darker than it is now. It would also take away any privacy we once had. We have a pool in our yard and like to swim from time to time in the summer and cook outside. It would make it extremely uncomfortable for us to have the windows of these new homes looking directly into our property. Furthermore, we now have a wonderful view of the mountains from our yard. With the construction of these homes, this view would be completely obscured. First and foremost, our neighborhood was built in the 1950s and had nice large lots for single family homes. The proposed build would cram 6 large buildings on a lot really intended for one single family home. I believe once these properties are built, the future residents would really be living in unsanitary, noisy and cramped conditions. With the increase in residency we will see an increase in trash, pollution from additional vehicles, not to mention a lot more noise pollution. Most of us moved into this neighbor- hood initially for many reasons but a big one for a lot of us was its roomy lots with plenty of yard space and space between neighbors. But with the build of the proposed new houses, cramped, unattractive and incongruous conditions are being forced on us without our consent It detracts from the initial value and privacy we chose our homes for in the first place. I can see maybe putting 2-3 homes on the lot at the most, as it is a large lot, but any more than that will be asking for trouble. I think 6 is a ridiculous number of homes to put on the lot, I think it colors the develop- ers as individuals motivated by greed who want to capitalize on limited space just to make an extra buck. They have no concern for surrounding neighbors, the aesthetics of an old neighborhood, or even the future residents who will purchase these homes. The limited space affords little to no privacy for the 6 homes within the property lines or for existing surrounding homes. Cars, driveways and mailboxes will also all have to be allotted necessary space and will make living conditions even more unbearable. Traffic on La Rosa will increase and I am sure there will not be enough room for all the cars and vehicles that 6 new residencies will bring. As an effect I predict that cars will have to park on the street and this will pose a hazard for La Rosa cross traffic. La Rosa is already a busy street We are asking for an increase in the number of accidents on La Rosa if cars will have to park on the street just to accomodate all the vehicle overspill from these 6 cramped buildings. There are many reasons why this build is a bad idea, which I have briefly outlined above. Another thing that the proposed build will do, is decrease surrounding property values including my own. If I ever want to sell my property, I am sure a backyard without a view or privacy would not be high on the list of any prospective buyers. Are the builders willing to compensate me for my loss of property value or those of my neighbors? If this build is completeled, myself and some of the other neighbors may have to pursue legal action against these builders to regain the value lost on our properties because of the proposed cramped and unattractive new build. I highly discourage the powers that be to grant this new build at the consequence of decreasing the quality of life of not only surrounding neighbors, but new residents of these properties as well. The only people who stand to gain from this are the builders who instead of allotting some yard space and breathing room for the new home owners has instead decided to cram as many buildings as they can unto one piece of land hoping to increase their profits. I find this despicable and am sadly dissappointed that people can be so greedy at others expense. Please ban this construction, I beg you for the good of all residents involved. If these properties are built, I will have to get an estimate on my property value before and after the build. If there is a discrepency, I will have no choice but to take legal action on the builders for bringing down the value of my home. I am sure many of my neighbors would do the same. If I were the builders, I would ask myself if this is worth what little profit they will make by squeezing those 3 extra houses on a property made for far less houses. Please hear my voice and those voices of my neighbors I have spoken to who are very upset with the proposed plans. All of these problems are only once the homes are actually finished, I have not even addressed the pain and suffering the surrounding neighbors will experience once constmcion has actually BEGUN. The noise and dirt and toxins stirred up by the construction will be extremely hazardous for many of my neighbors who are elderly and rely on clean air. The construction zone will give off hazardous fumes and toxic dust to be breathed in by older lungs who might now tolerate it as well. Are the builders prepared to compensate my neighbors for any medical problems they might experience as a result of all these toxic compounds being put into their immediate air supply? My elderly father stays with me occasionally and has asthma. He has trouble sleeping at night and so has to sleep during the day. If there is constant construction noise during the day, he will not be able to get any rest. Without rest, it could aggravate his heart and lung conditions, as well as breathing in the air polluted by toxic chemical construction com- pounds. If he is, God forbid hospitalized or suffers doctors visits or trauma as a result of the noise and disturbance caused by this new construction, I will have no choice but to seek legal help in getting com- pensation for any physical damages he might suffer. I know several of us have pools that will be close to the construction. I am sure dust and debris will be blown into our pools from the construction. Are the developers willing to compensate us for the clean up in our pools or pay for repairs on malfunctions in our pool pumps cause by the extra dirt and debris deposited by the new construction? What about those of us who work from home? I have a freelance and small hand made furniture business that I conduct from my home. If I cannot concentrate or complete my projects on time because of stress from construction or disturbances in phone conversations with my clients, I will have no choice but to seek damages for income lost because of this new construction. The builders might not be aware that we are willing to fight back. I hope my letter will educate them on what sorts of damages they might cause and what legal actions may or may not transpire due to a decision to build. If you would like to contact me in regards to this letter, please do so in the following ways: email: hudesigns@yahoo.com phone: 626-602-6773 mail: 5015 Ryland Ave., Temple City 91780 Thank you, Josephine Hu osee - I" Andrea and Thanh Tran 4938 Robinhood Ave Temple City, CA 91780 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in regards to the proposed project taking place on 10034 and 10044 La Rosa Drive, which would take these properties that currently has two single family homes into six single family lots and homes. We are concerned of the impact creating six separate lots and six single residences would have on our neighborhood. Our concern is for the traffic and impact this project would potentially create. La Rosa Drive is a primary road that is used to enter and leave our neighborhood. It is used by most residence on the adjoining streets of Robinhood, Ryland, Birchland, Rosevale, Glickman and others. Certainly affecting more residence than the residence that were included in the mailing of the letter notifying us of the public hearing. The project proposes six single homes with two car garages, which translates to at least 12 cars coming from that property, plus potentially more when visitors of six homes are considered. Secondly our concern is that the project will be obtrusive and inconsistent with the aesthetic appearance of our neighborhood. Our concern is that allowing the building of six homes in this area would be incongruent with surrounding homes. Furthermore, we feel that creating two story homes constructed so close together will be obtrusive to the neighborhood. Our hope is that the planning commission will take into consideration these concerns and see the reality of how this project can potentially affect current and faithful Temple City residents. We work hard in keeping our neighborhood looking nice and take pride in upholding Temple City. We hope that the City of Temple City will uphold its residence too. Sincerely, Andrea Tran & Thanh Tran 7-11-15 t j 7A 411715 �� � � ►,ems 4A -,k kA tt, i I r -A JPNA /, 4 LA J1 -JA Ll 1 1 2 p V 3 7C� le �I LP$�I.a.Kd Q.2^e.