CITY OF POMONA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA POMONA, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Transcription

1 CITY OF POMONA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA POMONA, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 505 South Garey Avenue, Pomona, CA REGULAR MEETING OF Wednesday, September 14, 7:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Carolyn Hemming B. FLAG SALUTE: Chair Carolyn Hemming C. ROLL CALL: Brad Johnson, Development Services Manager Chair Carolyn Hemming, Vice-Chair Ismael Arias, Commissioner Denton B. Mosier, Commissioner Juan Carlos Garcia, Commissioner Luis M. Juarez, Commissioner Edward C. Starr, and Commissioner Samuel Tharpe D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Three (3) minute Limit on Non-Agenda Items Only): 1. At this time, the general public is invited to address the Planning Commission concerning any items that are not listed on the agenda, which are not public hearings, or other items under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Comments from the public of any nonagenda items will be limited to three (3) minutes in accordance with City policy. 2. Any applicant or member of the public wishing to speak on any item that is listed on the agenda is requested to adhere to the following protocol procedures/guidelines: a) Prior to the meeting, or during the meeting prior to an agenda item being discussed, any person wishing to address the Planning Commission shall complete a speaker card and submit it to the Planning Manager. Speaker cards are available in the foyer of the City Council Chambers and from the Minutes Clerk. b) When called upon, the person shall come to the podium, state his/her name and address for the record, and, if speaking for an organization or other group, identify the organization or group represented. Whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Planning Commission on the same subject matter, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, request that the group choose a spokesperson to address the Commission. c) All remarks should be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole, and not to individual Commissioners. Questions, if any, should be directed to the presiding Chair who will determine whether, or in what manner, an answer will be provided. d) Every person addressing the Planning Commission will be limited to three (3) minutes or such reasonable time as is granted by the majority of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Agenda September 14, 2016 Page 1

2 E. CONSENT CALENDAR: Note: All items listed on the Consent Calendar may be enacted by a single motion without separate discussion. If a discussion or a separate vote on any item is desired by a Planning Commissioner, that item may be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. All remaining items not removed from the Consent Calendar by a Planning Commissioner shall be voted on prior to discussion of the item(s) requested to be pulled. 1. APPROVAL OF PC MINUTES: August 10, 2016 August 24, TIME EXTENSION (EXT ) Project Address: 1495 Cleveland Street Request for a one-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ) to subdivide an existing single parcel into three (3) parcels for single-family residential development within the R-1-7,500 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district on a property located at 1495 Cleveland Street. Recommended Action: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve Time Extension (EXT ), subject to conditions. 3. SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH RESOLUTION NO Project Address: 1028 E. Lexington Avenue Request for Planning Commission approval of the site plan associated with Resolution No for a change of zone from the R-1-7,200 to R-1-E approved on August 14, 1963 on a property located at 1028 E. Lexington Avenue. Recommended Action: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site plan associated with Resolution No for a change of zone from the R-1-7,200 to R-1-E approved on August 14, F. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. MAJOR OAK TREE PERMIT (MAJOTP ) Project Address: 1118 Loma Vista Street Project Applicant: Jack Mosley Project Planner: Nancy Lee, Associate Planner Council District: CC District No. 6 Project Description: Major Oak Tree Permit for the retroactive review of the unpermitted trimming of three oak trees with a diameter greater than eight inches as measured 4.5 feet above the mean natural grade located on private property in the R-1-7,500 zoning district. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Public Resources Code, Section et. seq.), this project meets the requirements for a Categorical Exemption in compliance with Article 19, Section (Class 21 Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies). Recommended Action: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve Major Oak Tree Permit (MAJOTP ), subject to conditions. Planning Commission Agenda September 14, 2016 Page 2

3 G. NEW BUSINESS: H. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS: I. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS: J. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Pomona Planning Commission is hereby adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 28, 2016 starting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. *** CERTIFICATION OF POSTING AGENDA *** I, Brad Johnson, Development Services Manager for the City of Pomona, hereby certify that the agenda for the September 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting was posted on Thursday, September 8, Brad Johnson Development Services Manager Planning Commission Agenda September 14, 2016 Page 3

4 F Loma Vista Street F1 Planning Commission Agenda September 14, 2016 Page 4

5 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2016 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hemming in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Garcia led the flag salute Roll was taken by Development Services Manager Johnson Chair Hemming and Vice Chair Arias; Commissioners Garcia and Starr Commissioners Juarez, Mosier, and Tharpe Development Services Director Lazzaretto, Development Services Manager Johnson, Deputy City Attorney Chen, Associate Planner Bechet, Assistant Planner Session-Goins, City Engineer Guerrero, Supervising Water and Resources Engineer Garibay, and Minutes Clerk Casey ITEM D: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: ITEM E: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF PC MINUTES -June 22, July 13, 2016 Motion by Commissioner Starr, seconded by Vice-Chair Arias, carried by a unanimous vote of the members present ( ), Commissioners Juarez, Mosier, and Tharpe absent, adopting the Planning Commission meeting minutes of June 22, Motion by Vice Chair Arias, seconded by Chair Hemming, carried by a majority vote of the members present ( ), Commissioner Garcia abstained and Commissioners Juarez, Mosier, and Tharpe absent, adopting the Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 13, ITEM F: PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: F-1 PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP ) TO ESTABLISH A PAYDAY AND AUTO LOAN USE AT AN EXISTING CHECK CASHING BUSINESS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 634 E. HOLT AVE IN THE

6 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 2016 Page 2 of 4 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER OF THE POMONA CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN. Assistant Planner Session-Goins provided a staff report regarding a request to establish a payday and auto loan use. Commissioner Starr inquired what the mentioned possible negative impacts would be. Assistant Planner Session-Goins stated the Commission could find negative impacts such as additional traffic, noise, or crime, but it would be hard to say the added use would cause a noticeable increase considering the business is already existing. Chair Hemming inquired whether the new use would be operated by the existing owner. Assistant Planner Session-Goins stated per the applicant, if approved, another owner would operate the new use. Chair Hemming opened the public hearing. The applicant s representative stated the use would be a lead business for a third party company. The use would not be repossessing cars, but rather would assist a financial company in Hollywood which would do their own repossession. Vice-Chair Arias inquired whether there would be additional foot traffic due to the new use. The applicant s representative stated the existing check cashing use currently generated much business and the additional use would most likely add 100 additional customers per month. Chair Hemming closed the public hearing. Commissioner Starr stated he did not see a land use issue and he moved to approve the resolution approving the request. Chair Hemming stated she thought it was the direction of the city to remove these types of uses in the City. Assistant Planner Session-Goins stated a moratorium has not been implemented. Vice- Chair Arias requested, for future reference, a list be compiled consisting of like uses. Commissioner Starr stated he felt it would be problematic to place a moratorium on these uses as whether or not they should be in the City as not a local issue, but rather a Federal issue. He stated he felt the Commission should only consider the use. As there was a lack of a second made to Commissioner Starr s motion, Commissioner Garcia made a motion to adopt the second resolution to deny the request. Commissioner Starr stated he would second the motion, but he reiterated he felt the issue was not a local issue. Chair Hemming stated she did not feel the use would be an asset to the community or the shopping center. Motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Starr, motion failed ( ), Vice Chair Arias denied, Commissioners Juarez, Mosier, and Tharpe absent, taking no action. No decision reached based on 3-1 vote result. Development Services Manager Johnson stated the failed motion could be appealed within 20 days. F-2 PUBLIC HEARING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA ) TO ALLOW THE AMENDMENT OF THE PHILLIPS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN BY CREATING TWO NEW MIXED-USE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO REPLACE THE R-C (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) LAND USE DESIGNATION AND MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (MAJSDP ) AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM ) TO ALLOW A 6-STORY 200-ROOM HOTEL WITH CONFERENCE CENTER; A FREESTANDING 3-STORY OFFICE BUILDING TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 75,000 SQUARE FEET; AND A 3-STORY FREESTANDING PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT POMONA RANCH PLAZA RIO RANCH ROAD & RANCHO CAMINO DRIVE. 2

7 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Development Services Manager Johnson apologized to the Commission for not providing the EIR sooner for review. He stated there was not much controversy surrounding the project and it was up to the Commission to proceed or continue the item to provide additional review time of the EIR. Commissioner Starr stated a concern regarding the area being designated as a Transit Oriented District (TOD) as he did not feel there was justification to support the decision. Chair Hemming requested a study session before moving into the public hearing. The Commission discussed and agreed to hold a study session regarding the project. Associate Planner Bechet provided a staff report regarding a request to allow a 6-story 200-room hotel with conference center. In addition, he stated the TOD designation was provided to support the General Plan Amendments vision for the area. Environmental Consultant, Ross Geller provided a presentation regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. Chair Hemming inquired whether this was the first time the Commission was reviewing a major site development. Development Services Director Lazzaretto stated it was the first review, but hopefully it would not be the last as many cities don t utilize the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. He stated CUPs were typically only used for sensitive uses such as an alcoholic permit. Most cities follow the major site development process which is the process the City of Pomona would move towards. Chair Hemming inquired what would happen to the existing commercial uses if the regional commercial zoning was removed. Associate Planner Bechet stated the existing commercial uses would be consistent under the Specific Plan Amendment and if the Wal-Mart or WinCo were vacated they would then become office uses as the goal of the Specific Plan would be to move away from large uses and move towards pedestrian friendly smaller uses. Commissioner Garcia mentioned drought concerns raised on previous projects which came before the Commission and requested water efficient fixtures as well as drought tolerant landscaping for this project as well as future Major Site Developments. Chair Hemming opened the public hearing. Mr. Chuck Lau, representing the applicant, agreed with the staff report, agreed to add a condition requiring water efficient fixtures, requested the applicant s name be changed to Philips Ranch Business Center, LLC on all approved resolutions, and asked the Commission to approve. Vice Chair Arias inquired, if approved, when the expected construction date would be. Mr. Chuck Lau stated the applicant would like to immediately start with the design in anticipation to begin construction in the first or second quarter of next year. Chair Hemming closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed and agreed to add a condition requiring water efficient fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping to be utilized for the development. Motion by Commissioner Starr, seconded by Chair Hemming, carried by a unanimous vote of the members present ( ), Commissioners Juarez, Mosier, and Tharpe absent, adopting Resolution No. (16-023) approving the EIR. Motion by Chair Hemming, seconded by Commissioner Starr, carried by a unanimous vote of the members present ( ), Commissioners Juarez, Mosier, and Tharpe absent, adopting Resolution No. (16-020) recommending approval to the City Council of the Specific Plan Amendment (SPA ), Motion by Chair Hemming, seconded by Commissioner Starr, carried by a unanimous vote of the members present ( ), Commissioners Juarez, Mosier, and Tharpe absent, adopting Resolution No. (16-022) approving the Major Site Development Permit (MAJSDP ). Motion by Vice-Chair Arias, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, carried by a unanimous vote of the members present ( ), Commissioners Juarez, Mosier, and Tharpe absent, adopting Resolution No. (16-021) approving Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ). 3

8 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 2016 Page 4 of 4 ITEM G: NEW BUSINESS: ITEM H: PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS: Commissioner Garcia mentioned the address 750 W. Wilson Street where a tree was removed and lifted the sidewalk. In addition, he mentioned a consideration for a no parking zone for the area of the Hamilton Boulevard and Wilson Street intersection as parked vehicles make it difficult for drivers to see, thereby causing a possible traffic collision. ITEM I: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS: ITEM J: ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting was motion to adjourn by Chairperson Hemming at 9:10 p.m. to the regular scheduled meeting of August 24, 2016 in the City Council Chambers. Brad Johnson Development Services Manager Maureen Casey, Transcriber The minutes of this meeting are filed in the Planning Division of City Hall, located 505 South Garey Avenue, Pomona, CA,

9 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2016 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hemming in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Vice-Chair Arias led the flag salute Roll was taken by Development Services Manager Johnson Chair Hemming and Vice Chair Arias; Commissioners Garcia, Mosier, and Starr Commissioners Juarez and Tharpe Development Services Director Lazzaretto, Development Services Manager Johnson, Deputy City Attorney Chen, Associate Planner Gonzales, City Engineer Guerrero, Supervising Water and Resources Engineer Garibay, and Minutes Clerk Casey ITEM D: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: ITEM E: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF PC MINUTES -None ITEM F: PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: F-1 PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP ) AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TRACTMAP /TTM 72975) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN 11- UNIT, MULTI-STORY, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO CREATE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS ON A 37,118-SQUARE FOOT (0.85 ACRE) SITE LOCATED AT 952 E. NINTH STREET. Associate Planner Gonzales provided a staff report regarding a request to develop an 11-unit multistory, multi-family residential. Chair Hemming mentioned a concern regarding illegal trash dumping at the sites and requested a condition be included requiring a lock be installed on the gates of the trash dumpsters. In addition, she mentioned the block wall which was to be installed by the applicant and requested the park and the project site share a common wall. Commissioner Starr

10 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 2016 Page 2 of 3 mentioned a concern with a draft of the CC&Rs not yet being submitted and stated he wanted to ensure the property would be maintained due to the location of the project. He stressed the importance of the review of the CC&Rs by staff as well as the need for significant HOA fees to ensure property maintenance. Chair Hemming opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Chen, architect for the project, agreed with the staff report and asked the Commission to approve. He stated a common wall can be discussed with the City and if the trash company agreed, locks could be installed on the gates of the trash dumpsters. Commissioner Mosier inquired on the expected sale amount and stated a concern with the units being overpriced and turning into rentals. Mr. Billy Huang, property owner, stated the units expected to be priced from the high 300,000s to the low 500,000s, but the market would dictate the price. He stated the goal was to beautify the city and ensure the units were affordable for the residents. Chair Hemming closed public hearing. Chair Hemming stated her support for the project as she felt the project would be great for the area. Chair Hemming explained that the area could use some improvement and with this project and the remodel of the school, the area would see an improvement. Commissioner Mosier stated he felt the units were priced correctly and therefore he could support the project. Motion by Commissioner Mosier, seconded by Vice Chair Arias, carried by a unanimous vote of the members present ( ), Commissioners Juarez and Tharpe absent, adopting Resolution No , approving the Conditional Use Permit (CUP ) and Resolution No , approving Tentative Tract Map (TRACTMAP /TTM 72975). ITEM G: NEW BUSINESS: ITEM H: PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Mosier mentioned Pomona fair day on Friday, September 2. In addition, he requested status on the Pinewood development on Village Loop Road; as it was rumored the developers were in negotiations to sell the property. Development Services Director Lazzaretto stated he spoke to owners and the land was not being sold and they plan on moving forward with the project as recent issues with the land have been solved. In addition, Development Services Director Lazzaretto stated if someone were to purchase the property they would need to build the project as planned. Chair Hemming stated an issue with old banners being displayed on businesses which have been operating for over 2 years around the city. Development Services Manager Johnson requested Chair Hemming to staff the addresses. ITEM I: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS: 2

11 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 2016 Page 3 of 3 ITEM J: ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting was motion to adjourn by Chairperson Hemming at 7:45 p.m. to the regular scheduled meeting of September 14, 2016 in the City Council Chambers. Brad Johnson Development Services Manager Maureen Casey, Transcriber The minutes of this meeting are filed in the Planning Division of City Hall, located 505 South Garey Avenue, Pomona, CA,

12 CITY OF POMONA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: September 14, 2016 TO: FROM: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Planning Division SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION (EXT ): Request for a one-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ) to subdivide an existing single parcel into three (3) parcels for single-family residential development within the R-1-7,500 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district on a property located at 1495 Cleveland Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve Time Extension (EXT ) granting a one-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ) subject to the conditions of PC Resolution No approved on December 11, 2013 (Attachment 1). PROJECT/APPLICANT INFORMATION Project Location: 1495 Cleveland Street APN Information: Project Applicant/ Property Owner: Lily Xiao/Vanka Land Inc. City Council District: District # 6 Historic/CBD: Not Applicable Specific Plan: Not Applicable PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND On December 11, 2013 the applicant, Vanka Land Inc., received Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ) to subdivide an existing 37,578 square foot (.85 acre) parcel into three (3) separate parcels. On December 22, 2015, the applicant submitted a request (Attachment 2) to the Planning Division for a one-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ). Due to delays encountered City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

13 EXT Cleveland St. Page 2 of 2 during the Plan Check review process, the applicant was not able to exercise the subject entitlement by the December 11, 2015 deadline. Prior to the December 11, 2015 expiration date the applicant had been meeting with Planning Division staff to coordinate timing of project completion and was instructed by staff apply for a time extension. The applicant submitted the application after the December 11, 2015 deadline, but staff accepted the application based on the intention of the property owner to complete project and a desire to see the vacant lots developed. Staff supports Time Extension (EXT ) because the approved use conforms to the development standards of the R-1-7,500 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. Additionally, the proposed project will remain consistent with the conditions of PC Resolution No (Attachment 1), which were approved on December 11, RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve Time Extension (EXT ) granting a one-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ), subject to the conditions of PC Resolution No Respectfully Submitted, Prepared by, Brad Johnson Development Services Manager Leonard Bechet Associate Planner PC ATTACHMENTS: 1) PC Resolution No ) Applicant s Time Extension Application, Submitted on December 22, ) Approved Project Plans (8½ x 11 Reductions) \\STORAGE\CH-Depts\Planning\Master Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\Time Extensions\1495 Cleveland St. (EXT ).doc City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

14 ATTACHMENT 1 PC RESOLUTION NO

15 PC RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM ) TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISITNG PARCEL INTO THREE (3) LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1495 CLEVELAND STREET. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The applicant, V anka Land Inc., has submitted an application for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ) to subdivide an existing parcel into three (3) lots for single-family residential development on a property located at 1495 Cleveland St. in the R-1-7,500 (Single Family Residential) zone; WHEREAS, a Tentative Parcel Map is required to allow the subdivision of an existing parcel into two (2) lots according to Chapter 29 of the Pomona City Code regarding subdivisions; WHEREAS, the subject property is on a parcel designated as "Single Family Residence" on the General Plan Land Use Map; WHEREAS, the subject property 1s located within the R.:.1-7,500 (Single-Family Residential) zone; WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision meets all the development standards of the R-1-7,500 (Single-Family Residential) zone; WHEREAS, On November 13, 2013, the Planning Commission considered Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ) to allow the subdivision of one lot into four lots. In its deliberations, members of the Commission had concerns regarding the width of the proposed lots being too narrow to allow development that would be consistent with surrounding properties. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow the applicant to modify their proposal either reduce the number of lots to three or demolish all existing structures on the property and propose a four lot subdivision that follows the pattern of the southerly abutting lots. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of Pomona has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on December 11, 2013 concerning Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ); and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case as presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pomona, California, as follows:

16 PC Resolution No Cleveland St. Page2 of9 SECTION 1. In accordance of CEQA guidelines, the Planning Commission hereby determines that the proposed project would be categorically exempt under Article 19, Section (In-Fill Development Projects), in that the project will: a) be consistent with the General Plan designation and applicable General Plan policies; b) be located on a site that is less than 5 acres; c) be located on a site that has no value as habitat fot endangered, rare, or threatened species; d) not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and d) the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. SECTION 2. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Commission must make seven findings in order to approve Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ). Based on consideration of the whole record before it, including but not limited to, the staff report, public testimony received at the public hearing on this matter, and evidence made part of the public record, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: 1. The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with the City of Pomona General Plan. The proposed subdivision will allow the applicant to subdivide an existing parcel into three lots and allow for the future development of single-family dwelling units on lots "1" and "2". An existing single-family dwelling unit will remain on lot "3". The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Single Family Residence. The proposed subdivision is therefore consistent with the following policy of the General Plan: "It is the policy of the City to encourage the construction of new lower density development and reduce the number of vacant properties. " 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City of Pomona General Plan. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, in that the proposed project conforms to the current requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use and Housing Element. The proposed subdivision will allow for the development of additional single-family dwelling units, consistent with the goals of the General Plan, which will add to the existing housing stock as well as provide a variety of housing opportunities in the community. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed three (3) lot subdivision. Given the shape and topography of the 37,578 square-foot parcel, the subdivision design will accommodate single-family residential development, as it meets the minimum development standards for the R-1-7,500 (Single-Family Residential) zone.

17 PC Resolution No Cleveland St. Page 3 of9 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable to accommodate the potential additional residential units resulting from the subdivision. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The site does consist of vegetation, including several mature trees plated throughout the parcel. The applicant has indicated on the plans that no significant vegetation or habitat for wildlife will be removed. Further, the proposed project will comply with the policies and regulations of the Pomona City Code and General Plan and with all local or regional plans, policies, regulations, and any requirements by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Based on these factors, the proposed subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and the. type of improvements are not likely to cause serious problems to public health because the building and infrastructure improvements shall be constructed to conform to all City standards. The adopted City standards relating to the Uniform Building Code and Grading Code are designed to protect the public health and welfare and have been approved by the City. 7. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large. Further, the project will be compatible with the adjacent residential properties in the vicinity. SECTION 4. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map (TPM ) subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION General Conditions l. The subject property shall be subdivided in a manner consistent with the tentative parcel map as reviewed approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, Any major modifications to the approved tentative parcel map shall be reviewed and approved

18 PC Resolution No Cleveland St. Page 4 of9 by the Planning Commission as part of a modification to the approved tentative parcel map. Any minor modifications that do not affect the overall intent of the approved tentative parcel map, may be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager. 2. This recommended approval shall lapse and become void if the privilege authorized by the Planning Commission is not utilized and re.cordation by the County of the final map is not obtained within one (1) year from the date of Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission may extend this period for one year upon receipt of written request by the applicant at least thirty (30) days before the expiration date. 3. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, law suits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures), (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the any action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or , or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. 4. In case of violation of any of the conditions of approval or City law, the property owner and tenant will be issued a Notice of Correction. If said violation is not remedied within a reasonable period of time and/or a subsequent violation of the conditions of approval and/or City law occurs within ninety (90) days of any Notice of Correction, the property owner shall be held responsible to reimburse the City for all staff time directly attributable to enforcement of the conditions of approval and/or City law, including, but not limited to, revocation of the herein conditional use permit 5. Written appeals may be filed with the City Clerk within twenty (20) days by one or more City Council members, the applicant, or any person owning property within 400-feet of the exterior boundary of the applicant's property.

19 PC Resolution No Cleveland St. Page 5 of9 6. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a Minor Deviation Variance from the Planning Division to allow the proposed 21-foot rear yard setback on lot "3" within thirty (30) days of~lanning Commission Approval (January 11, 2014). PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7. The following conditions and public improvements, as well as all applicable plan check fees, permit fees and bond deposits shall be complied with, completed and paid for by the developer in accordance with the City standards, fee schedules and applicable laws. 8. All the required plans, studies and calculations shall be performed by a registered civil engineer or other registered/licensed professional as required, and submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. Final Parcel Map Requirements 9. The tentative parcel map shall be recorded as one final parcel map but may be developed in phases. A phasing plan for the construction of offsite public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. 10. The tentative parcel map shall be revised to depict: a) The existing and proposed sewer mains and sewer laterals. The public sewer line located onsite, along the southerly property boundary and the respective sewer easement must be shown on the map, together with the easement recording information; if said easement has not been recorded, it shall be dedicated on this map. b) The existing and proposed water mains. c) The distances from these mains to the centerlines of Val Vista and Cleveland Streets. d) The existing and proposed impervious areas, and e) The benchmark information. 11. Prior to recordation the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the proposed subdivision will not unreasonable interfere with the use of any easement holder of property. Any omission or misrepresentation of these documents may require the parcel map to be resubmitted for further consideration. 12. Prior to the parcel map recordation, developer shall secure permits and complete the demolition of all structures that are interfering with the boundary lines of the new lots.

20 PC Resolution No Cleveland St. Page 6 of9 13. Prior to the parcel map recordation, developer shall provide public road access for Lot 3, from Cleveland Street, by constructing a driveway approach to comply with the City and ADA standards and requirements. 14. Prior to the parcel map recordation, developer shall relocate the existing public right-ofway encroaching fence along Val Vista :frontage, to correspond to the property line. 15. Prior to the parcel map recordation, developer shall meet all the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). Proof of LACFD approval is required. 16. Prior to the parcel map recordation, developer shall post security guaranteeing the construction of all public improvements. The title page of the proposed parcel map shall include a Note stating the requirement of the completion of the offsite improvements for the parcels being created, in accordance with the phasing plan approved by the City Engineer. Said Note shall also list onsite storm drain improvements for the proposed subdivision. The offsite and onsite improvements shall include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Removal and reconstruction of the Lots 2 and 4 driveway approaches and new driveway approach for lot 1, to comply with the City and ADA standards and requirements. b) New sidewalk construction along Val Vista frontage. c) New ramp at the southwest comer of Val Vista and Cleveland Streets; d) Parkway drains. e) Undergrounding of existing and proposed low voltage utility lines along Val Vista and Cleveland Streets (less than 33kV) to conform with the City of Pomona Municipal Code Section (b ); power poles that carry both low and medium voltage lines are not included. f) Installation of automatic sprinklers and parkway landscaping along Val Vista and Cleveland Streets; the parkway landscaped area shall be maintained by property owner, as required by the City's Municipal Code Section g) Grind and re-pavement of Cleveland Street, along property :frontage, over the entire street width. h) Onsite storm water drainage and runoff mitigation measures in compliance with the Los Angeles County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CAS004001, Order No. R All drainage easements necessary to

21 PC Resolution No Cleveland St. Page 7 of9 convey the mitigated storm water flows to the appropriate public storm drain system must be shown on the map The required public improvements shall be shown on a site plan that must be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department together with the aforementioned phasing plan and the applicable cost estimate. 18. All work in the public right-of-way is subject to review, approval, and permitting requirements of the Public Works Department. Applicant shall procure and maintain throughout the period of the Public Works permit the following policies of insurance: Commercial General Liability; Automobile Liability; Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Note: The Commercial General Liability and the Automobile Liability policies shall include the City of Pomona as additional insured. Permittee shall pay fees associated with and possess the City of Pomona Business License. 19. All subdivisions must have centerline ties and survey property monuments set by a licensed Professional Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor as shown on the recorded subdivision. If this is not possible, then an amended map should be processed showing the correct location of the set monuments. All final monuments shall be set by the Engineer of record within one year of the parcel map recordation. Final monuments shall be set at the time of final acceptance of the project. Adequate monumentation bond is required prior to the final parcel map recordation. 20. Prior to the final parcel map approval the Title Company must submit a Final Subdivision Guarantee to the Engineering Department. 21. Prior to the parcel map recordation, owner is responsible for the compliance with any special annual levy assessment derived from the current inclusion of the project site into the City's Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District. The due assessment levy will be adjusted based on the proposed subdivision. The developer shall disclose to any future buyers that the property is within the City of Pomona Lighting and Landscaping District and is subject to annual special taxes. 22. A Mylar copy of the final parcel map with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office official stamp must be submitted to the Engineering Department. 23. Changes and additions to the proposed work, including but not limited to detail plans for street improvement work, water plans and/or other work associated with this project and due to developer's or City's request shall require additional conditions to be completed by the applicant.

22 PC Resolution No Cleveland St. Page 8 of9 Improvement plans requirements 24. Upon future site development proposal, the Public Works Engineering Department will provide additional plan and engineering study requrrements regarding water, Fire Department compliance, sewer, storm drain, public right-of-way, 'traffic and environmental compliance. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION: 25. A demolition permit and sewer cap permit shall be obtained prior to demolishing any structure or capping any sewer line or connection. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 26. Submit a copy of the Tentative Parcel Map to the Land Development Unit (LDU) for review and approval prior to submitting to Fire Prevention Engineering for building plan review. SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forward the original to the City Clerk. APPROVED AND PASSED TIDS 11th DAY OF DECEMBER 2013 BRAD JOHNSON PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED AS TJ ANDRE JARED ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

23 PC Resolution No Cleveland St. Page 9 of9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF POMONA ) AYES: Ixco, Juarez, Starr, Valencia, Mosier NOES: Beans ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Coble Pursuant to Resolution No of the City of Pomona, the time in which judicial review of this action must be sought is governed by Sec C.C.P." I:\Economic Development\Planning\Master Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\RESOLUTIONS\1495 Cleveland St (TPM ) Reso Continued.doc I! \

24 ATTACHMENT 2 APPLICANT S TIME EXTENSION APPLICATION, SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 22, 2015

25 The.City of POMONA 505 So'-'th Gare~rAvenue,Pomona,.CA Bl<1nninQOivisipn Pt.AN~aNG APPUCATfON FOR MAJOR.PROJECTS Cl M~Jor Sit'? Develof:)merit. Permit ([)PSPArea) Public Use Permit Sign Variance Specific Plan Amendment TentatiVe Parcel Map onti:llthi O Tract Map ime. Extension Tirne Extension-SFR Variance Variance.. sfr Wirel.ess Comm. Permit Other: CSP Site Plan Review FOR PLANNING USE ONLY Date Received: R~ceiveo By: P;C. Hearing Date: CaseNo(s):.;_-:...:...;..;...::...-

26 ATTACHMENT 3 APPROVED PROJECT PLANS (8½ x 11 REDUCTIONS)

27 -- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _....._.... _.... _,.... TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NOE IN THE CITY OF POMONA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 5 OF NARANJA - VAL VISTA TRACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 36 PAGE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. AUGUST 30, : CJ N 0 I 0 E (]) > +' 0 +' c ~ I 0..,.. ~ I") o_ ~---~ CJ o""'==~ CJ c 0 +' U1 s N. _ 0 I 0 E ~ +' 0 +' c (]) f- l 0.., (]) > +' 0 +' c (]) f- w- s s - w - - I I ~~:;::::;;dl,~~~_;;;:_="'..._~~~~~d!w~:;::::;;~~=~=-=-=-::_".:.dl!~.~-~ ~==i!ffi=e,,,,,,~""' ==._':' =_==W"'====_..".:.'.:._==_=_=_=-=-_=JF====:-=4\f~y-~~ I IL I / I. (101.47} -~- w -- ~J.,,~.~'=t - s -VALVlsrk - - s - s -- s~ - _(1~) - s -~ s I!,~~.15) I ' (!OJ:&!!) - - PROJECT: 1 LOT SUBDIVIDE INTO 3-LOT PROJECT SITE: 1495 CLEVELAND ST. POMONA, CA CIVIL ENGINEER/LAND SURVEYOR: APPLE ENGINEERING GROUP 9040 TELSTAfil AVE. SUITE 111 EL MONTE, CA Tel. (626) INFO@A.PPLEENGINEERING.NET WEB: ' OWNER: VAKA LAND IN,C BETHANIE ST. ROSEMEAD, Cri TEL.: (626) NOTES: APN: PRESENT ZONE: POR17500* PROPOSED ZONE: POR 17500* AREA OF THE LOT: AC/ 37,579 SF NO. OF LOT: J AREA OF THE LOTS: LOT 1: 9,694 SF LOT 2: 13,490 SF LOT 3: 14,395 SF TOTAL: 37,579 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA: LOT 1: LOT 2: LOT 3: TOTAL: UTILITY: WATER COMP~,NY: BEFORE SUB. 0 SF 0 SF 3,922 SF 3,922 SF CITY OF POMONA WATER (909) PHONE/TV CCMPANY: VERIZON 1 (800) TV COMPANY: DIRECTV ' 1 (888) AFTER SUB. 0 SF 0 SF 3,922 SF 3,840 SF GAS COMPANY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (213) SEWER COMPANY: CITY OF POMONA SEWER (909) ELECTRICAL COMPANY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (800) CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0 REMOVE EXISTING FENCE. REMOVE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE. BENCH MARK: TEMPORARY BENCH MARK PK NAIL LOCATED ON THE NORTH WEST OF INTERSECTION VAL VISTA ST. & CLEVELAND ST. TOP OF CURB. ELEVATION: 100. LEGEND:... EP (612.10)... Existing Elevation ---{612}--,.~Ex. Ground Contour Line --X--X--... Chain link Fence ''''1...i E x. St rue t ure Ji... Fire Hydrant ~ Street Light )--... Guywire Q... Ex. Tree, Diameter ----.,,,,_777_,. Edge of Asphalt Pavement -w--w~... Water Plan -S--S-... Sanitary Sewer ABBREVIATIONS: CBW... Cone. Block Wall CONC.... Concrete D/A... Driveway Appron EP Edison Pole EX... Existing FF Finish Floor Elevation ~-L Flow Line Eievation SMH... Sewer Manhole TC..... Top of Curb Elevation WM Water Meter FS... Finish Surface Elevation APN... Assessor Parcel Number M.B... Map Book No. of Final Map TG..... Top of Grate Elevation INV... Invert Elevation PL... Property Line SUB... SUBdivision SF... Square Foot c (/) (]) 0 0 c 0 E 0 o_. +' U1 CJ c 0 (]) > (]) 0 LO CJ) "'<I".., ~~--- I 0 "'<I" ~ 0 N ~ TRACT NO M.B LOT APN: I te:<. ) (/) +' u (]).. 0 o_ I CTI PLAN!'< ING C07',1\'llSS10N 20' 10' 0 19' 20' GRAP!lf.C SCA!.ll T~... l"t" A "T"l'I~ l"'l A... "'.-1 aa a.,... it..1..,.... -

28 CITY OF POMONA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: September 14, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Planning Division Request for Planning Commission approval of the site plan associated with Resolution No for a change of zone from the R-1-7,200 to R-1-E approved on August 14, 1963 on a property located at 1028 E. Lexington Ave. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site plan associated with Resolution No for a change of zone from the R-1-7,200 to R-1-E approved on August 14, 1963 (Attachment 1). PROJECT/APPLICANT INFORMATION Project Location: 1028 E. Lexington Ave. APN Information: Project Applicant: Anthony Palmisano City Council District: District # 3 Historic/CBD: Specific Plan: Not Applicable Not Applicable PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND On August 14, 1963, the Planning Commission approved an application for a Change of Zone from the R-1-7,200 zone to the R-1-E zone. The Planning Commission s approval of the Change of Zone did not include a consideration and approval of the site plan for the development of an additional single-family dwelling on the parcel. Discussion of the Change of Zone application included that the site plan will need to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits (Attachment 2). Per the Pomona Zoning Ordinance, the R-1-E zone is intended to provide for the development of deep lots where the opening of interior streets is physically impossible. The intention of the R-1-E City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

29 1028 E. Lexington Ave. Page 2 of 2 zone is not to exceed the density of the underlying zone, therefore, a maximum of one dwelling unit per 7,200 square feet of lot area is allowed. Additionally, all development in the R-1-E zone must meet the development standards of the underlying zone. The proposed dwelling unit will be located in front of the existing dwelling. The attached two-car garage will be side-loaded. The proposed unit will be located 25 feet from the front property line, five feet from the western (side) property line, and 25 feet from the eastern (side) property line to provide for adequate backup distance for the attached garage. Additionally, the proposed dwelling will be located 36 feet from the existing dwelling. The architectural style and materials of the existing and proposed dwellings will be complimentary. Staff supports the approval of the site plan. As proposed, the site plan meets the development standards of the R-1-E zone, including the underlying requirements of the R-1-7,200 zone. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site plan associated with Change of Zone approved in Resolution 2030 on August 14, Respectfully Submitted, Prepared by, Brad Johnson Development Services Manager Cecily Session-Goins Assistant Planner PC ATTACHMENTS: 1) PC Resolution No ) Official Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting on August 14, ) Project Plans (8½ x 11 Reductions) \\STORAGE\CH-Depts\Planning\Master Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\Staff Reports\1028 E. Lexington Ave..doc City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

30 ATTACHMENT 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2030

31 rl~~ RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONE R TO R-1- E. A. REQUEST 1. APPLICATION FOR: Change of Zone R , Single Family Residential District to R-1- E, Single Family Residential District for approximately 36 acres of land. 2. APPLICANT: C. Morris Fisher or Noel C. Welch. 3. LOCATIONs Property described as Lot 15, Tract and addressed as 1028 East Lexington Avenue. B. ACTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: Accordinq to the procedure as set forth in Section 570, Ordinance No. 1466, the Planning Commission has heard this change o zone request and hereby recommends the granting of this request for change of zone R to R-1- E, subject to the following conditions: 1. CONDITIONS: a. The Department of Building and Safety shall inspect the existing dwelling unit. If such structure cannot be made to comply with appropriate building codes, such structure shall be razed. b. A garage shall be constructed for the existing dwelling unit and located according to the provisions of the R-1- E District requirements. c. A time limit of one year shall be established and if the conditions are not met within this period of time the zoning on the property shall remain in R REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION: a. The property in question meets the intent and purpose of the R-1- E District. b. The opening of interior streets to this deep lot is physically impossible. APPROVED AND PASSED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST Q~~.. CHA MAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: hla.~wao S CRETARY OF PLANNING CONIMISSION ' APPROVE~,AS TO F RM C Y AT O PC 8/14/ 63

32

33

34 ATTACHMENT 2 EXCERPT FROM THE OFFICIAL MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON AUGUST 14, 1963

35 Minutes 8/l~ b/63 Page 19 Mr. E. J. Goulding, 1565 Vejar Strset, stated he is becoming moss and mare concerned with the lack of prime single family residential area, It was his opinion that this is a desirable area for higher priced homes which would be more beneficial to the City of Pomona than a parking lot. Se questioned whether ar not this applicant could qualify under the provisions of the public use permit application. Mr. Bruderlin stated that the Los Angeles County Fair Association is a non-profit arganizatioa leasing from- the County of Los Angeles, He pointed out that in the beginning the Fair Association owned a great deal of the land but as buildings are erected on the land they become the property of Los Angeles County. Discussion too3c place regarding the possibility of granting the public use permit for a limited time and revoking it after the fair is over. It was determined that it would be difficult to require the iag~rovementa sad then reverse the 8ecision at the sad of the time limit. Mr. French, Assistant City Engineer, stated that a bond csa be posted to gnaraatee all of these improvements for a certain period of time and could be phased out at the sad of this time limit. Mr. Bruderlin stated that eventually they would like to see double decked parking. but that 8 development of this kind is expensive. He further stated that the Fair Association pays approximately $1.000, Sa aalasiea t0 people is the immediate vicinity, MOTION FOR DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. ao29 Mr. 9~ilkittsoa believed that the point made that this would be a waste of good single family land was importanti he therefore moved that the Piaaning Cama-lasion recommend to the Council of the City of Pomona denial of this request for a public use permit to establish a parking lot for the Los Angeles County Pair Association on property described - as Lots li and 12 and portions Of Lots 8 atxl 13 of the E1 Pasaiso Tract and located southerly of La Verne Avenue between Felton Road and Fair Avenue, Los Angeles County Fair Association, applicant, far the reason ae stated. Mr. Stavros seconded the motion, MoTIaN CARRIED. C6ANGE OF ZONE Mr. Stayder located the area under discussion sad stated that R TO tbaia is a wide deep lot with an existing two story dwelling R-1-8, 1028 B< oa the rear portion of the lot. 8e indicated a street plan LEJCIITGTON. is the area and stated that it would be impossible to obtain FISI~R FOR access fsom a street to the rear portioa of the Yot. 1iBLCH, APPLICANT, Firri pointed out.that if the R-1- E zoaning is greeted. it did sot indicate approval of the suy~mitted plot plea. He stated that the site plan would need to be approved by the Planning Department befare bulldi.ag permits are issued. Mr. Lawrence reported that the Zoning Committee rec~meaded approval of this request, aub~ect to conditions which were Balled out. Mr. C. M. Fisher, representing the sppiieaat, stated that they intended to hide the existing dwelling and that ecoa~omically they could not move the existing dwelling. Ne believed it would be a problem to bring it up to code, and in all psobability the old c~tructure would remain and no farther improvamezsta would take place on the property.

36 There was no further caannents from the audience. Minutes 8/14/ 63 page 20 MOTION FOR Mr. Wilkinson moved that the Planning Conm-ission recasmnend the granting of this APPROVAL to the Council of the City of Panora R 1-' 7200 Single Family Reainone 0 request for change of dential District to R-1- E, Single Family Residential District RESOLUTION s l e n NO> 2030 p East Lexington Avenue, and addresaed as 1028 Tract C Morris Fisher for Noel C. Welsh, applicant, subject to the following conditionss a b c The Department of Building and Safety shall inspect e s be made to comply with appropria such structure shall be razed. l te bui 81ng nnot codea A garage shall be constructed for the existing dwelling unit and located according to the provisions of the R-1- E District requlrements A time limit of one year shall be established and if the conditions are not met within this period the zoning on the property shall~8hb0~ remain in R of time Reasons for the secamnendations a The property in question meets the intent and purpose of the R-1- E District. b. The opening of interior streets to this deep physically impossible. Air. Stavros seconded the motion. lot is MOTION CARRIED. CHANGE OF ZONE Mr. Snyder located the area under discussion and state=achacal R= to this lot has a depth of 210 feet end ie physically imp R-1- E, 301 & to develop a street to serve. the late which ass landtlocoked~ 353 E. FRANKLIN He presented a plot plan shaving proposed developmen AVENUE, vacant parcel of lan8 and stated that plot plans for the giggg,r, three lots will have to be approved by the Plaaaing Department gspplicant. before 'building permits are issued. Lawrence reported that the Zoning Committee recosamended Mr approval of this change of zone. Reasons were given. DISCUSSYON MOTION FOR APPROVAL. RESOLt3TYON NO> 2031 Discussion was held regarding an incorrect house number The correction was made appearing on the atlas sheet. and Mr, Bsown, the owner of the parcel, was assured that his house number would not be changed. Mr. Lawrence moved that the Planning Camnission recaumend a the granting of this f Pomon to the Council of the City o f Single Family Resi- zone R regneat fox change o dential District to R-1- E, Single Family Residential District of c a e pp il Addition t POmona Block C of a part of Ph lips C Morris t 2 and addressed as 301 sad 353 East Franklin Avenue, Fisher, applicant, for the following reasons: a. The three lots in question meet the intent sad purpose of the R-1- E District. b. The opening of interior streets to these deep lots is physically impossible. Mr. Stavros seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.

37 ATTACHMENT 3 PROJECT PLAN REDUCTIONS (8-1/2 X11 )

38

39

40

41 CITY OF POMONA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: September 14, 2016 TO: FROM: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Planning Division SUBJECT: Major Oak Tree Permit (MAJOTP ): An application for the removal of three Oak trees with a diameter greater than eight inches as measured 4.5 feet above the mean natural grade located on private property in the R-1-7,500 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached PC Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Major Oak Tree Permit (MAJOTP ), subject to conditions. PROJECT/APPLICANT INFORMATION Project Location: 1118 Loma Vista Street APN Information: Project Applicant: Property Owner: Jack Mosley Jack & Clemmie Mosley Trust City Council District: CC District # 6 Historic/CBD: Specific Plan: BACKGROUND N/A N/A On February 22, 2016, Code Compliance received notification from the City Street Sweeping company that the trees at and around 1118 Loma Vista Street were overgrown and needed to be trimmed so that the street sweeping vehicle could pass through. On March 18, 2016, Code Compliance verified there were overgrown Oak trees at 1118 Loma Vista Street. An Administrative Correction notice with a Minor Oak Tree Permit application was subsequently sent to the property owner. On May 27, 2016, upon site inspection by Code Compliance, it was determined that three Oak trees that front the property along Loma Vista Avenue were inappropriately and severely trimmed and were done so without the appropriate City permits City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

42 MAJOTP Loma Vista Street Page 2 of 6 (Minor Oak Tree Permit) (Attachment 5). The Planning Division determined that a Major Oak Tree Permit application would be due to irreparable damage. On June 8, 2016, the applicant and property owner, Mr. Jack Mosley, submitted a Major Oak Tree Permit application for the retroactive review of the three Oak trees that were trimmed without appropriate City permits. The subject site is located in the R-1-7,500 (Single-Family Residential) zone and is approximately 74,590 square feet in size and is developed with a 2,997 square foot single-family residence. PROJECT DESCRIPTION On June 8, 2016, the applicant submitted a Major Oak Tree Permit application for the retroactive review of the three Oak trees that were severely trimmed without appropriate City permits. Considering the background of this application, staff determined that a Major Oak Tree Permit application is necessary to remedy the situation in the best interest of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance and the current condition that the damaged Oak trees are in. There are three Oak trees affected (Attachment 3). The first two Oak trees sit to the west side of the property and driveway (Attachment 4). The tree to the far west has a diameter of approximately 18 ½ inches while the other tree has a diameter of approximately 14 inches. The City Arborist description of the severe trimming is that the two trees that were cut primarily from the street side, which now causes improper balance of the trees as the new growth of the tree will weigh heavily on the property side. The third tree, sits on the east side of the property and driveway (Attachment 4). The third tree has a diameter of 25 inches, was topped and over trimmed, as described by the City Arborist. SITE VISIT On August 22, 2016, the Planning Division conducted a site visit. During such site visit, staff observed that the three damaged Oak trees in question are situated on private property, close to the street, with overhead power lines running through the trees. It was also observed that there are no City street trees within the vicinity. The three Oak trees that were severely trimmed are located on the street facing side of a block wall along the frontage of the subject site. Staff observed that there were additional Oak trees on the site on the subject site behind the block wall. APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS Pursuant to Section D of the Pomona Zoning Ordinance (PZO) pertaining to Oak Tree Preservation, a permit is required for the trimming of an Oak tree within the City of Pomona (Minor Oak Tree Permit), or the removal/relocation of an Oak tree within the City of Pomona (Major Oak Tree Permit). A Major Oak Tree Permit is required for removal or relocation of an Oak tree whether such tree exists on private or public property. Application for a Major Oak Tree Permit is subject to City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

43 MAJOTP Loma Vista Street Page 3 of 6 review and recommendation by the City Arborist before final approval of an Oak tree permit by the Planning Commission. Pursuant to section d.6 of the PZO, a Major Oak Tree Permit for relocation or removal may only be approved after the Planning Commission has made the following findings: a. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated; b. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) is necessary as continued existence at the present location impedes the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject property to such an extent that: I.) Alternative development plans cannot achieve the same permitted density or the cost of such alternative would be prohibitive, or II.) Placement of the Oak tree(s) precludes the reasonable and efficient use of such property for a use otherwise authorized; c. The proposed trimming, cutting and pruning will be limited to the minimum necessary to promote the health of the tree and protect the public safety, and whenever possible trees should remain in place or be moved only the minimum distance necessary to preserve the health of the tree and protect the public safety; d. The Oak tree(s) proposed for relocation or removal interferes with utility services or streets and highways, either within or outside of the subject property, and no reasonable alternative to such interference exists other than the relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s); e. The condition of the Oak tree(s) proposed for removal with reference to seriously debilitating disease or danger of falling is such that it cannot be remedied through reasonable preservation procedures and practices; and f. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) will not be contrary to or in substantial conflict with the purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Permit process. City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

44 MAJOTP Loma Vista Street Page 4 of 6 SURROUNDING LAND USE INFORMATION Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Single Family Residential Residential Neighborhood R-1-7,500 North Single Family Residential Residential Neighborhood R-1-20,000 South Single Family Residential Residential Neighborhood R-1-7,500 East Single Family Residential Residential Neighborhood R-1-7,500 West Single Family Residential Residential Neighborhood R-1-7,500 ISSUES ANALYSIS Zoning Ordinance Compliance In light of the background, current state of the trees, and required findings, it is staff s opinion, that the three Oak trees that were severely trimmed should be removed and replaced either elsewhere on the site or the same number of trees be donated to the City as allowed by the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The removal is necessary because the trees are unbalanced and pose a danger of falling over. The aesthetic values of the trees have also been compromised. The three Oak trees are in close proximity to the overhead power lines, therefore, it would not be practical to re-plant Oak trees in the current location. As such, the removal of the damaged trees would meet the required findings of the Zoning Ordinance for a Major Oak Tree Permit. Removal of the trees would be consistent to the intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. It is the opinion of staff that the following findings can be made as follows: a. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated; Analysis: A condition of approval has been included which requires removal of the three damaged Oak trees to be replaced with another form of live vegetation appropriate with the surroundings, subject to Planning Division approval, be planted in its place to aid in potential soil erosion. b. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) is necessary as continued existence at the present location impedes the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject property to such an extent that: I.) Alternative development plans cannot achieve the same permitted density or the cost of such alternative would be prohibitive, or ii.) Placement of the Oak tree(s) precludes the reasonable and efficient use of such property for a use otherwise authorized; Analysis: There is no planned development or new use proposed for the site. City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

45 MAJOTP Loma Vista Street Page 5 of 6 c. The proposed trimming, cutting and pruning will be limited to the minimum necessary to promote the health of the tree and protect the public safety, and whenever possible trees should remain in place or be moved only the minimum distance necessary to preserve the health of the tree and protect the public safety. Analysis: The unpermitted trimming that has already occurred on the three affected trees. The trimming that took place was well beyond the minimum appropriate trimming. The trees are now overtopped, unbalanced, and present a danger of falling over, which has a potential to impact public safety. d. The Oak tree proposed for removal interferes with utility services or streets and highways, either within or outside of the subject property, and no reasonable alternative to such interference exists other than the relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s); Analysis: The Oak trees affected do interfere with utility services, as the three Oak trees are situated in close proximity to existing power lines. Rather than having the trees removed and replanted in the same location, staff finds it appropriate for the three trees to be either replaced within the subject site (away from the current location), or three trees donated to the City, as allowed by the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. e. The condition of the Oak tree proposed for removal with reference to seriously debilitating disease or danger of falling is such that it cannot be remedied through reasonable preservation procedures and practices. Analysis: The three severely trimmed Oak trees present a danger of falling due to their imbalance, to such degree that such could not be remedied through reasonable preservation procedures and practices, such as proper trimming. f. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) will not be contrary to or in substantial conflict with the purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Permit process. Analysis: The removal of the three severely trimmed Oak trees will not be contrary or in substantial conflict to the Oak Tree Permit process in that the current Major Oak Tree Permit application is for the retroactive review of the unpermitted tree trimming that took place. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A copy of the public hearing notice was published on September 1, 2016 in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and was sent to the owners and occupants of properties within a 400-foot radius of the subject site (Attachment 6). As of the date of preparation of this staff report, staff has not received any correspondence either for or against the request for removal of the oak trees. City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

46 MAJOTP Loma Vista Street Page 6 of 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS/DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section (Class 21 Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies), the proposed project described above hereby meets the guidelines for a Categorical Exemption. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. CONCLUSION During the retroactive review of the unpermitted trimming of three Oak trees with a diameter greater than eight inches as measured 4.5 feet above the mean natural grade, staff has determined that there is an immediate threat and danger of the three severely trimmed trees falling over due to the unbalanced and overtopped tree trimming. Also, due to the compromised aesthetic value of the trees, City staff has determined that the trees should be removed and either replaced elsewhere on the subject site, away from the overhead powerlines or be donated to the city or their monetary value may be paid to the City to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Development Services Manager, as a mitigation measure. Minimum 24-inch box Oak tree may be replaced on-site (1:1 Ratio) or the replacement trees may be donated. Any monies paid shall be used to purchase Oak trees for planting within the City in a location recommended by the City Arborist. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends Planning Commission adoption of the attached PC Resolution approving Major Oak Tree Permit (MAJOTP ), subject to conditions. Respectfully Submitted: Prepared By: Brad Johnson Development Services Manager Nancy Lee Associate Planner PC ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft PC Resolution 2) Vicinity Map & Aerial Photos 3) Aerial Site Plan 4) Aerial Close up view 5) Site Photographs 6) 400-foot Radius Map & Public Notice \\STORAGE\CH-Depts\Planning\Master Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\Staff Reports\Major Oak Tree\1118 Loma Vista St (MAJOTP ).doc City of Pomona Planning Division Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2016

47 Attachment 1 Draft PC Resolution

48 PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA APPROVING MAJOR OAK TREE PERMIT (MAJOTP ) FOR THE REMOVAL OF THREE OAK TREES WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN EIGHT INCHES AS MEASURED FROM 4.5 FEET ABOVE THE MEAN NATURAL GRADE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF POMONA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by Jack Mosley for the retroactive review of three severely trimmed oak trees located at 1118 Loma Vista Street in the R (Single-Family Residential) zoning district; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Oak Tree Preservation Program on March 5, 2007 under Ordinance 4076; WHEREAS, a Minor Oak Tree permit is required for trimming of one or more oaks on private property in the City of Pomona; WHEREAS, a Minor Oak Tree permit was not obtained by the property owner prior to the trimming of three Oak trees; WHEREAS, upon observation, it is staff s assessment that the three Oak trees were severely trimmed in that they are overtopped, unbalanced, and in danger of falling; WHEREAS, it is staff s assessment that the three severely trimmed Oak trees should be removed as a result of the unpermitted trimming, compromised aesthetic value, and due to their close proximity to the overhead power lines; WHEREAS, a Major Oak Tree Permit is required for removal or relocation of an oak tree on private property in the City of Pomona; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pomona has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on September 14, 2016 concerning Major Oak Tree Permit ; WHEREAS, the proposed project, as conditioned, meets all applicable findings and mitigation requirements of Section ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case as presented at the public hearing.

49 PC Resolution No Loma Vista Street (MAJOTP ) Page 2 of 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission exercising their independent judgment has determined that pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section (Class 21 Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies), the proposed project described above hereby meets the guidelines for a Categorical Exemption. SECTION 2. In any part, provision, or section of this resolution is determined by a court or other legal authority with jurisdiction over the subject matter of this resolution to be unenforceable or invalid, the remainder of the entirety of this resolution shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this resolution are severable. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission must make the findings listed below in order to grant Major Oak Tree Permit (MAJOTP ). Based upon a consideration of the whole record before it including, but not limited to, the staff report, public testimony received at the public hearing on this matter, and evidence made part of the public record, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: 1. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated; A condition of approval has been included which requires removal of the three damaged Oak trees to be replaced with another form of live vegetation appropriate with the surroundings, subject to Planning Division approval, be planted in its place to aid in potential soil erosion. 2. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) is necessary as continued existence at the present location impedes the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject property to such an extent that: i.) Alternative development plans cannot achieve the same permitted density or the cost of such alternative would be prohibitive, or ii.) Placement of the Oak tree(s) precludes the reasonable and efficient use of such property for a use otherwise authorized; There is no planned development or new use proposed for the site. 3. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) will not be contrary to or in substantial conflict with the purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Permit process.

50 PC Resolution No Loma Vista Street (MAJOTP ) Page 3 of 6 The unpermitted trimming that has already occurred on the three affected trees. The trimming that took place was well beyond the minimum appropriate trimming. The trees are now overtopped, unbalanced, and present a danger of falling over, which has a potential to impact public safety. 4. The Oak tree proposed for removal interferes with utility services or streets and highways, either within or outside of the subject property, and no reasonable alternative to such interference exists other than the relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s); The Oak trees affected do interfere with utility services, as the three Oak trees are situated in close proximity to existing power lines. Rather than having the trees removed and replanted in the same location, staff finds it appropriate for the three trees to be either replaced within the subject site (away from the current location), or three trees donated to the City, as allowed by the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. 5. The condition of the Oak tree proposed for removal with reference to seriously debilitating disease or danger of falling is such that it cannot be remedied through reasonable preservation procedures and practices. The three severely trimmed Oak trees present a danger of falling due to their imbalance, to such degree that such could not be remedied through reasonable preservation procedures and practices, such as proper trimming. 6. The proposed relocation or removal of the Oak tree(s) will not be contrary to or in substantial conflict with the purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Permit process. The removal of the three severely trimmed Oak trees will not be contrary or in substantial conflict to the Oak Tree Permit process in that the current Major Oak Tree Permit application is for the retroactive review of the unpermitted tree trimming that took place. SECTION 4. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Major Oak Tree Permit (MAJOTP ), subject to the following conditions: 1. The subject property shall be developed and/or used in a manner consistent with the project plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on September 14, 2016, and as illustrated in the stamped approved plans dated September 14, Any major modifications to the approved project plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as part of a modification to the approved plans. Any minor modifications that do not affect the overall intent of the approved project, may be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Manager. 2. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, law suits, writs of mandamus, and other

51 PC Resolution No Loma Vista Street (MAJOTP ) Page 4 of 6 actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures), (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the any action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or , or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In case of violation of any of the conditions of approval or City law, the property owner and tenant will be issued a Notice of Correction. If said violation is not remedied within a reasonable period of time and/or a subsequent violations of the conditions of approval and/or City law occurs within ninety days of any Notice of Correction, the property owner shall be held responsible to reimburse the City for all staff time directly attributable to enforcement of the conditions of approval and/or City law, including, but not limited to, revocation of the herein Major Oak Tree Permit. 3. Upon removal of the three damaged oak trees, another form of live vegetation, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division, shall be provided in the area between the back of curb to the existing block wall along the entire property frontage. 4. The three damaged Oak trees shall be removed and replaced with three 24-inch box California Coast Live Oak Trees (Quercus Agrifolia), as appropriate with the surroundings, on the subject property, subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Manager. 5. Should the applicant provide replacement trees on a one-to-one bases (the three damaged Oak trees) elsewhere on the subject site, the replacement shall be deemed appropriate by a certified arborist. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The replacements (California Coast Live Oak, minimum 24-inch box) shall be planted on site. 6. Should the applicant find that the appropriate planting location does not exist, the replacement trees, on a one-to-one basis, may be donated to the city or their monetary value may be paid to the City to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Any monies

52 PC Resolution No Loma Vista Street (MAJOTP ) Page 5 of 6 paid shall be used to purchase an Oak tree(s) for planting within the City in location(s) recommended by the City Arborist. 7. The approved Major Oak Tree Permit shall lapse and become void if the use authorized is not utilized within 30 days of the City s determination of the feasibility of relocation, based on the submitted report. The Development Services Manager may extend this period for 30 days upon receipt of a written request. 8. Written appeals may be filed with the Planning Division within ten (10) days of approval of Oak Tree Permit (MAJOTP ). 9. If the new replacement Oak trees die within one year of replanting on-site, they shall be replaced with 24-inch box California Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia) trees on the premises. If the replacement tree dies within one year of planting, it shall be replaced until a tree establishes itself and lives for a minimum of one year. 10. If the oak trees are replaced on the premises, the permittee shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection within seventy-two (72) hours of the completion of relocation. SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forward the original to the City Clerk. APPROVED AND PASSED THIS 14 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 CAROLYN HEMMING PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: BRAD JOHNSON PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY

53 PC Resolution No Loma Vista Street (MAJOTP ) Page 6 of 6 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ANDREW JARED ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF POMONA ) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: "Pursuant to Resolution No of the City of Pomona, the time in which judicial review of this action must be sought is governed by Sec C.C.P." \\STORAGE\CH-Depts\Planning\Master Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\RESOLUTIONS\1118 Loma Vista (MAJOTP ).doc

54 Attachment 2 Vicinity Map & Aerial Photos

55 1118 Loma Vista Street Vicinity Map Project Location

56 Attachment 3 Aerial Site Plan

57

58 Attachment 4 Aerial Close up view

59

60 Attachment 5 Site Photographs

61 Oak #1 & 2 Before:

62 Oak #1 & 2 Before:

63 Oak# 1 & 2 After:

64 Oak# 1 & 2 After:

65 Oak #3 Before:

66 Oak #3 After:

67 Attachment foot Radius Map & Public Hearing Notice

68

69