HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2a: Resolution 6770: Single Resolution for design guidelines for all five Homeowners' Association areasSTAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: January 3, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Directory-
Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrat
SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT NO. TA 11 -03 TO CREATE A SINGLE
RESOLUTION THAT CONTAINS DESIGN GUIDELINES,
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES
FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ALL FIVE SINGLE - FAMILY HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION AREAS
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6770
SUMMARY
The proposed text amendment is for a new resolution that will consolidate the
development standards, design guidelines and design review processes of all five of the
current Homeowners' Association (HOA) resolutions into a new single resolution. The
five City- designated HOA areas are as follows, and are depicted on the map attached at
the back of Resolution No. 6770.
1) Arcadia Highlands Homeowners' Association — "Highlands"
2) Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association — "Upper Rancho"
3) Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association — "Oaks"
4) Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association — "Lower Rancho"
5) Santa Anita Village Community Association — "Village"
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Resolution No. 6770.
BACKGROUND
At the December 6, 2011 meeting, the City Council held a public hearing to consider a
Joint Resolution for the five HOAs. This public hearing followed three study sessions
which were held on July 19, September 20, and November 1, 2011. Many facets of the
Joint Resolution have been vetted and discussed over the course of the three study
sessions and the public hearing. At the December 6 meeting, the Council voted to close
the public hearing, but continue discussion on the item due to concern over drafting new
language for the Resolution at the dais. The attached Resolution (Attachment A)
incorporates the Council's decisions from December 6 and highlights the items that
were left unresolved. For reference, the December 6 Staff Report is included as
Attachment B.
DISCUSSION
The Council primarily focused on the following items at the public hearing: tree
protection, notification, and the process to consider "Short Form" applications. With
regard to tree protection, four of the five HOAs previously had language requiring review
of certain species of trees prior to their removal by an applicant. In addition to oak trees,
sycamore, magnolia, pine, and redwood trees were listed as requiring HOA approval
prior to their removal if they were 6" in diameter at breast height (DBH) or larger. The
Joint Resolution recommended standardizing this language for all HOAs. The Council
voted to remove this provision from the Resolution, and leave only the language that
refers the removal of any Oak tree to the Development Services Department Staff. This
can be seen in strikeout on page 5 of the Resolution (Section 4M) and also on page 9
under the Short Review process (Section 5D).
With regard to notification areas, the HOAs recommended a new notification area that
focuses on the streetscape and those adjoining properties that could be impacted by the
project. The notification area includes two parcels on either side of the subject parcel,
five parcels across the street, and three parcels behind the subject parcel. The actual
lots notified can vary based on topography or the unique conditions of the property in
question. The Council discussed this idea, heard testimony from the public on this item,
and considered other options such as a larger radius for projects. The Council ultimately
voted to retain the recommended notification area as proposed by the HOAs.
The Council also discussed the options for processing of "Short Form" applications.
These are applications for improvements that are minor in nature and should not require
a public meeting. The Council considered an option that would make this process
administrative with no required notification, and a second option proposed by the HOAs
which would allow the ARB Chair or designee to determine the "affected neighbors" on
a case by case basis depending on the project. In this second option, there would not
be an established notification area for the short review. This alternative provides the
applicant the option of obtaining signatures (the current practice) OR notifying the
"affected neighbors" and waiting a 10 day notification period. After discussion, the
Council voted to incorporate the administrative process with no required notification,
and this is shown in the Draft Resolution. There is one important addition by staff to the
language that was approved on December 6. We have added a time limit for the Short
Form Review process. This has been discussed with the HOA representatives and is
similar to the 10 day limit in the current Resolutions. This allows a 10 day review
process for Short Form applications once they are deemed complete. The Council -
approved Short Form Process, along with the time limit change, can be seen in the
Resolution on Pages 8 and 9 (Section 5D).
The final issue that was left undecided at the December 6 meeting was the issue of
whether the HOAs should have review authority over landscaping and hardscape. The
HOAs wish to review these elements in street yards as part of the Short Form process
HOA Resolution No. 6770 — Staff Report
January 3, 2012 — Page 2
or as part of the Regular Review of a new home, addition, etc. Members of the Council
expressed some reservations with allowing the HOAs to include landscaping and
hardscape into their review authority but no decision was made on the matter. Within
the draft Resolution, staff has highlighted the areas that make mention of landscape and
hardscape review (five different locations on pgs. 2, 5 and 9). If the Council wishes to
leave this review authority intact, no changes are necessary. If the Council wishes to
eliminate this authority, the highlighted areas can be removed from the Resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no possibility that the text amendments will
have a significant effect on the environment under Section 15305 of the CEQA
Guidelines as minor alterations in land use limitations.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 6770, creating a single resolution that contains design guidelines,
development standards, and processing procedures for construction in all five single -
family Homeowners Association areas.
Approved By: L P
Donald Penman, City Manager
Attachment A: Resolution No. 6770, Map and Legal Descriptions
Attachment B: December 6, 2011 Staff Report
Attachment C: Correspondence Received
HOA Resolution No. 6770 — Staff Report
January 3, 2012 — Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 6770
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE
AREAS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby repeals Resolution Nos. 5286, 5287,
5288, 5289, and 5290 and Ordinance No. 1832, and adopts this Resolution pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2285.
SECTION 2 In accordance with the Arcadia General Plan directive to protect
and preserve the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious
design, and to implement Arcadia's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines
applicable to the real property within the five Single-Family Homeowners' Associations
that are zoned "D" as Architectural Design area, Architectural Review Boards are
established for each Association and are hereinafter referred to as the "ARBs'°. The five
Homeowners' Associations and their Architectural Design Zones are:
Arcadia Highlands Home Owners Association — "Highlands"
Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association — "Upper Rancho"
Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association — "Oaks"
Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association — "Lower Rancho"
Santa Anita Village Community Association of Arcadia — "Village"
The boundaries for each Association are depicted in Exhibit "A." The ARB for
each area is governed by the corresponding Homeowners' Association Board for that
area.
SECTION 3. In order to promote and maintain the quality single-family
residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and
architectural character of such residential environments in those portions of the City in
which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the
purposes set forth in Section 7 there are hereby established the following regulations
and procedures in which said associations may exercise plan review authority.
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1-3-12
Page 1 of 17
IDRA11--1 1;?:
SECTION 4: It is determined that each building or structure and its landscaping
and hardscape on properties within each area should exhibit a consistent and cohesive
architectural style, and be harmonious and compatible with other neighborhood
structures in architectural style, scale, visual massing, height, width and length, and
setbacks in relationship to site contours and architectural elements such as texture,
color and building materials. To promote harmony and compatibility is not to promote
sameness, uniformity, a specific architectural style, or a certain time period. It is
acknowledged that architecture (and neighborhoods in general) evolve and change over
time and this will be considered through the review process.
The following standards and conditions are hereby imposed upon all properties
within said areas pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and
all those in ownership or control of property within said areas are subject to this
Resolution
A. SITE PLANNING — 1. Natural amenities such as views, and other
f4 fir. features unique to the site should be preserved and incorporated into
development proposals.
2. The location, configuration, and design of new buildings and structures, or
the alteration or enlargement of existing structures, should be visually harmonious with
their sites and compatible with the character and quality of the surroundings.
3. The height and bulk of proposed dwellings and structures on the site should
be in scale and in proportion with the height and bulk of dwellings and structures on
surrounding sites. Alternatively, projects should incorporate design measures to
adequately mitigate scale differences.
4. The design of a new house should provide effective and varied open space
around the residence.
B. STREETSCAPE — The developed subject property, when viewed from the
street, should blend and be harmonious with the other structures and landscaping on
the street. This includes and is not limited to setbacks, structural mass and scale,
height, roof forms, facades, entries, building materials and everything that can be seen
from the street. Each neighborhood or street has an established streetscape that
defines its character. Streetscape characteristics should be considered by new projects.
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1-3-12
Page 2 of 17
11JR/1,11 1 3 12
C. FLOOR AREA - The space contained within the boundaries of the property,
including any open porch, open entry, balcony, covered patio, trellis, or garage, whether
or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, shall NOT be considered in computing the
square footage contained in any such building as measured from the outer faces of the
exterior walls in computing the required minimum floor area of a dwelling.
Village - 1,200 square feet of ground floor area if 1 story in height, or 1,300
square feet of floor area if 2 stories in height, at least 900 square feet of which must be
on the ground floor.
Lower Rancho - 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if 1 story and not less
than 1,000 square feet on ground floor if 11/2 or 2 stories
Upper Rancho - 2,500 square feet of ground floor area. Attached covered
porch, balcony or garage shall be counted at .5.
Highlands - 1,600 square feet if 1 story and not less than 1,200 square feet on
ground floor if 11/2 or 2 stories.
Oaks - 2,000 square feet of ground floor area, except 1,800 square feet in Tracts
14656, 13544 & 10617, in which no one-family dwelling shall be erected or permitted
which contains less than 1,800 square feet of ground floor area.
D. FRONT YARD SETBACKS - If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the
minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of
the subject property, the ARB shall have the authority to require a front yard setback for
the subject property equal to at least an average of the two adjacent front yards.
Village - Underlying Zoning
Lower Rancho - Underlying Zoning
Upper Rancho - Minimum 50 feet
Highlands - Underlying Zoning
Oaks - Minimum sixty-five (65) feet from the front property line, except that Tract
13544 shall be not less than sixty (60) feet, Tracts 13345 & 11013 shall not be less than
fifty-five (55) feet, and Tract 14656 shall not be less than fifty (50) feet.
E. SIDE YARD SETBACKS
Village - 10% of lot frontage, and not less than 5 feet
Lower Rancho - 10% of the lot frontage, and not less than 10 feet
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1-3-12
Page 3 of 17
Upper Rancho — Minimum 15 feet
Highlands — 10% of lot frontage, and not Tess than 6 feet
Oaks — 10% of lot frontage, and not less than 10 feet
F. REAR YARD SETBACKS
Village — Minimum 25 feet
Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning
Upper Rancho — Minimum 40 feet
Highlands — Underlying Zoning
Oaks — Minimum 35 feet
G. CORNER LOT SETBACKS (STREET SIDE)
Village — Underlying Zoning
Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning
Upper Rancho — Underlying Zoning
Highlands — Minimum 15 feet from side street for Tracts 10725, 13367, 14626,
15285 & 16920.
Oaks — On a corner lot, any detached garage shall be located a minimum of
twenty (20) feet, at any point, from the side street property line.
H. FRONT OF DWELLING — For all HOAs, any dwelling on the lot should face
the front lot line. Exceptions for good cause may be granted through the review
process.
I. GARAGES — No carports allowed.
Village & Lower Rancho — Garages shall not dominate the front elevation, and
should be set back from the front facade or located in the back yard
Upper Rancho — No garage door shall be allowed to face the public right -of -way
within the front 150 feet of the property. No garage door shall be closer to the street
than the dwelling (Lots 1 through 20 of Tract No. 13184 shall be excepted). Corner lots
shall be evaluated on a case -by -case basis.
Highlands — Underlying Zoning
Oaks — A detached garage shall not be located less than 150 feet from the front
property line, except for Tract 11013 which shall be 140 feet and Tracts 13345, 14656 &
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1 -3 -12
Page 4 of 17
13544 which shall be 125 feet, and in no case shall the garage be closer to the front
property line than the main dwelling. Front facing garages are strongly discouraged.
J. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS - Materials used on the exterior of any
structure, including without limitation, roofing, and walls or fences greater than 2 feet
above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with the materials of other
structures on the same lot and with the other structures in the neighborhood.
K. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE - The appearance of any structure,
including roofs, walls or fences shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing,
walls or fences in the neighborhood, inclusive of landscape and hardscape.
L. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD - The
impacts on adjacent properties shall be addressed, including impacts on privacy and
views. First story and second story elements should be designed and articulated to
reasonably address these issues, and windows and balconies shall be located to
reasonably protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards.
M. TREES - City Planning staff must approve the removal of any Oak Tree or
construction of any improvements under the drip line of Oak Trees.
No 4
fir
pet
-kJ
- -.4
-
--ort-the-
411-94441
$
4r4- ms
4- 4
4ti
%Tr
- • 4
N. ANIMALS - Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules,
poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept.
SECTION 5. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than 2 feet above the
lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the
ARB.
Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or
fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be
submitted to the ARB.
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 - 1-3-12
Page 5 of 17
13544 which shall be 125 feet, and in no case shall the garage be closer to the front
property line than the main dwelling. Front facing garages are strongly discouraged.
J. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS - Materials used on the exterior of any
structure, including without limitation, roofing, and walls or fences greater than 2 feet
above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with the materials of other
structures on the same lot and with the other structures in the neighborhood.
K. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE - The appearance of any structure,
including roofs, walls or fences shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing,
walls or fences in the neighborhood, inclusive of landscape and hardscape.
L. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD - The
impacts on adjacent properties shall be addressed, including impacts on privacy and
views. First story and second story elements should be designed and articulated to
reasonably address these issues, and windows and balconies shall be located to
reasonably protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards.
M. TREES - City Planning staff must approve the removal of any Oak Tree or
construction of any improvements under the drip line of Oak Trees.
No 4
fir
pet
-kJ
- -.4
-
--ort-the-
411-94441
$
4r4- ms
4- 4
4ti
%Tr
- • 4
N. ANIMALS - Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules,
poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept.
SECTION 5. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than 2 feet above the
lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the
ARB.
Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or
fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be
submitted to the ARB.
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 - 1-3-12
Page 5 of 17
No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in
exact conformance with the plans approved by the ARB; however, any fence or wall
between adjacent properties not within the front building setback or street side setback
area is subject only to review by the City.
Specific requirements of the ARB for proper consideration of an application are
listed on the Short Review or Regular Review Applications.
The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of
work inside a building that does not substantially change the external appearance of the
building.
A. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD — The ARB shall be empowered to
transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following
requirements exist:
1. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in the applicable
area described in Section 1.
2. The organization has by-laws adopted that authorize the establishment of
the ARB.
3. Said by-laws provide that only property owners can be appointed to and
serve on the ARB.
4. Owners have been appointed to the ARB in accordance with the by-laws.
5. A copy of the by-laws and any amendments thereto has been filed with the
City Clerk.
6. The ARB shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said
records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request.
7. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, actions, and decisions
of the ARB shall be maintained by the ARB, in accordance with the City's records
retention policies.
8. The ARB's decision on a Regular Review Process shall be accompanied by
specific findings, based upon a reference to supporting facts, setting forth the actions
and decisions.
9. Only ARB members present at the meeting can participate in making the
decision.
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1-3-12
Page 6 of 17
10. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire
membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall
render the decision.
11. A copy of the ARB's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant
within 7 working days of the ARB's decision.
12. All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public in accordance with the
Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). All aspects of the Brown Act shall
be adhered to by members of the ARB. This includes, but is not limited to proper
posting of meeting agendas, noticing requirements, no discussion of matters outside of
public meetings, etc.
B. POWERS OF THE ARB — Pursuant to Section 3 and Sections 4A through
4N, and through the specified review process, the ARB shall have the power to:
1. Determine the compatibility with the neighborhood of the mass, scale, design
and appearance of the proposed project.
2. Determine and approve appropriate setbacks.
3. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible with the
neighborhood.
4. Determine the impact of the proposed project on adjacent properties.
5. Subject to compliance or consistency with the City's Municipal Code, any of
the conditions set forth in Sections 4A through 4N may be made less restrictive by the
ARB if the ARB determines that such action will foster the appropriate development of a
lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the
neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this
Resolution.
6. The ARB shall have the power to establish requirements concerning project
applications and procedures for review for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject
to review and approval of the City. Copies of such requirements shall be kept on file
with the Planning Department.
C. NOTIFICATION STANDARDS FOR REVIEW PROCESS — For the purpose
of conducting design review, required notification shall be deemed to include at least the
two parcels on each side of the parcel subject to plan approval (subject parcel), the five
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1 -3 -12
Page 7 of 17
11)f,'IA1-11 I 23,, 1 2
parcels facing the subject parcel, and the three parcels to the rear of the subject parcel.
Unusually situated parcels, those where a second-story addition or modification is
involved, or where the slope of the terrain might impact additional neighbors, may
require additional parcels to be part of the required parcels to be notified, and this is to
be determined by the ARB Chair or designee. The required notification shall not include
properties outside of the HOA area or commercially-zoned properties. An example of
the required area of notification is set forth below, although the required notification may
vary case-by-case:
4-- Street-4.
ve ve r
A z _A
r ri.
A 4 4 A
Subject Parcel
Street
/ r
A v A A A
Required Notification Area
Parcels included in "Required Notification Area" as related to Subject Parcel
D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE
1. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single-story
remodel or addition where ($4-he---.
Ow '
:Far AO) the design is
compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and
neighborhood; and (00) whefe—the design is in harmony with the streetscape of the
neighborhood. The ARB Chair or designee shall have the authority to approve the
following specific Short Review Process Items-in
• Single-story remodels or additions
• Detached accessory structures — new, additions to, and/or remodels
• Fences and/or walls in and/or facing (i.e., visible from) front and street side
yards
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1-3-12
Page 8 of 17
• Hardscape, landscaping and structural elements in front and street side
yards, including without limitation, swimming pools, spas, fountains and other water
features
* Fences, lights, and other features related to tennis courts, sports courts or
other significant paved features
• Mechanical equipment
^-11140 4es-as-tifitik.,",^^414.144;-.-^"-4 f:
• Roofing
2. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the
consideration of a Short Review Process application. Whsen=the---Af
-tff-mart,m
-4e-4441-
-
.2 4
4,4
te
The-
"
-
44410-ARB--
".•
4', 'WV"
;.• ^
4
ti 1hi
loft
-deems-
;
16- rh Lv tI
b
--Ghalf-of
0-44
-
4a
se
ptaris,
3. If the ARB Chair or designee determines that the proposed project is not a
cohesive design, not in harmony with the neighborhood, or might have an adverse
impact on the neighborhood, he/she may require that the application be processed
under the Regular Review Process procedure.
4; The ARB Chair or designee shall render a decision on a Short Review
Process Item within 10 working days from the date a cornplete application filed with
the ARB Chair or designee; failure to take action in said time shall he deemed an
approval of the plans, at the end of the 10 working-day period,
E. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE
The Regular Review Process shall be used by the ARB for review of (1) any new
home construction, (2) any new or expansion of a second story, (3) any significant
change in architectural style of an existing building, and (4) all projects that are not
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 - 1-3-12
Page 9 of 17
irJRAf. I. 'fr2
eligible to be processed by the above Short Form Review procedure as determined by
the ARB Chair or designee.
1. The ARB is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the
consideration of a Regular Review Process application.
2. The applicant shall provide to the ARB all documents required by the
application.
3. Notice of the ARB's meeting shall be deposited in the mail by the ARB Chair
or designee, postage prepaid by the applicant, to the applicant and to all property
owners within the required notification area of the subject property, not less than 10
calendar days before the date of such meeting.
4. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire
membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall
render such decision.
5. The ARB shall render its decision on a Regular Review Process application
within 30 working days from the date a complete application is filed with the ARB; failure
to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the
30 working-day period.
F. EXPIRATION OF ARB'S APPROVAL — If for a period of 1 year from the date
of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the ARB, has not begun
construction (as evidenced by clearing and grading and/or the installation of a new
foundation and/or by installation of new materials on a structure that is being
remodeled) or has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall
become null and void and of no effect. Such project may be resubmitted to the ARB for
renewed approval; however, the ARB shall review the project as if it had not been
previously approved in accordance with the current standards in effect.
G. LIMIT ON ARB'S POWER — The ARB shall not have the power to modify any
regulations in the Municipal Code. The ARB may, however, make a recommendation
regarding modifying such regulations to the City staff, department, commission or board
that will be considering any such modification request.
SECTION 6. Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning
Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1-3-12
Page 10 of 17
DRAF1 1-3-12
within 7 calendar days of the ARB's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal
fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City
Council. Planning Commission decisions on ARB cases may be appealed to the City
Council.
Upon receipt in proper form of a completed appeal from the ARB's decision, such
appeal shall be processed by Planning Services in accordance with the same
procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee, except noticing shall
be consistent with ARB noticing.
A. STANDARDS FOR ARB DECISIONS AND APPEALS — The ARB and any
body hearing an appeal from the ARB's decision shall be guided by the following
principles:
1. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so
exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external
features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent
necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility
acceptable to the ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is
excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood.
2. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and
proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles
to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood.
3. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof,
can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and
neighborhood.
4. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of
properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable.
SECTION 7. The City Council finds and determines that the public health,
safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It
is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth
herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the
purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and
harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1-3-12
Page 11 of 17
LkeA F. I 3 .1 2
aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect
property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and
unattractiveness, all of which can have a negative impact on the environment of the
community, affecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of
Arcadia.
It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is
consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to
maintain the City's and use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure
perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to
an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living.
All findings and statements of purpose in related resolutions which preexisted
this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the
rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference.
SECTION 8. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase,
or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it would have
adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section,
subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared
invalid.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2012.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770 — 1-3-12
Page 12 of 17
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: December 6, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT NO. TA 11 -03 TO CREATE A SINGLE
RESOLUTION THAT CONTAINS DESIGN GUIDELINES,
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES
FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ALL FIVE SINGLE - FAMILY HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION AREAS
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6770
SUMMARY
The proposed text amendment is for a new resolution that will consolidate the
development standards, design guidelines and design review processes of all five of the
current Homeowners' Association (HOA) resolutions into a new single resolution. The
five City- designated HOA areas are as follows, and are depicted on the map attached at
the back of Resolution No. 6770.
1) Arcadia Highlands Homeowners' Association — "Highlands"
2) Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association — "Upper Rancho"
3) Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association — "Oaks"
4) Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association — "Lower Rancho"
5) Santa Anita Village Community Association — "Village"
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Resolution No. 6770.
BACKGROUND
In 1971, the City Council adopted ordinances and resolutions to add the Architectural
Design Overlay ( "D ") zoning to the five areas that had formed single - family
homeowners' associations and to provide for design review in place of the conditions,
covenants and restrictions (CC &Rs) regarding design guidelines that are separate from
the City's regulations. The resolutions governing the HOAs were last amended in 1986,
and the regulations within those resolutions have been successful in providing guidance
for applicants and homeowners in the planning and development of new homes and
additions since that time. Each of the five HOAs is interested in the continued protection
of the architectural character and quality of life within their respective neighborhoods,
and the City enjoys an excellent relationship with the HOAs in the reviewing and
processing of applications and projects. Each HOA has an Architectural Review Board
(ARB) that is tasked with reviewing all proposals in accordance with their guidelines to
ensure compatibility. These ARBs conduct the official design review for projects in the
HOA areas with City Planning Services being responsible for plan check review in
regards to zoning code compliance.
It has been apparent to all five HOAs for some time that their guidelines are in need of
updating, and in reviewing the 1986 resolutions, it was realized that there are many
similarities in the five resolutions. As a result, the five HOAs have agreed that it would
be more efficient for all affected parties; the HOAs and ARBs, the homeowners,
developers, and the City to have a single Resolution that contains the regulations and
development standards for all five HOA areas, and a uniform set of design review
processes.
On May 10, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the
proposed new resolution. The Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of the
joint resolution to the City Council.
The City Council held study sessions on the joint resolution on July 19, September 20,
and November 1. During the course of these three study sessions, the Council asked
numerous questions and heard feedback from both HOA representatives and members
of the local development community. The Council gave consideration to important
aspects of the resolution such as the extent of authority granted to the HOAs, floor area,
landscaping and hardscape, tree retention and removal, setbacks, notification of
neighbors, and processing of design review cases. The new, consolidated joint
Resolution No. 6770 is the result of nearly two years of collaboration and effort between
the HOAs and City staff, and it incorporates direction from the Council received during
the three study sessions held.
DISCUSSION
The new consolidated resolution reorganizes the provisions of the five existing
resolutions, and includes revisions to the design guidelines. The HOAs identified areas
within the text of their current resolutions that needed to be updated, clarified, and /or
made more specific to enable them to conduct their design reviews more efficiently.
Moreover, all five HOAs will now be operating under one set of guidelines and
standards, which will be helpful to applicants, the staff, and the ARBs. It is important to
note that the stated purpose of the Architectural Review Boards is the same as it has
been since the 1980's, which is as follows:
"In order to promote and maintain the quality single- family residential
environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and
architectural character of such residential environments there hereby
is established the following regulations and procedures..."
HOA Resolution No. 6770 — Staff Report
December 6, 2011 — Page 2
and the regulations within those resolutions have been successful in providing guidance
for applicants and homeowners in the planning and development of new homes and
additions since that time. Each of the five HOAs is interested in the continued protection
of the architectural character and quality of life within their respective neighborhoods,
and the City enjoys an excellent relationship with the HOAs in the reviewing and
processing of applications and projects. Each HOA has an Architectural Review Board
(ARB) that is tasked with reviewing all proposals in accordance with their guidelines to
ensure compatibility. These ARBs conduct the official design review for projects in the
HOA areas with City Planning Services being responsible for plan check review in
regards to zoning code compliance.
It has been apparent to all five HOAs for some time that their guidelines are in need of
updating, and in reviewing the 1986 resolutions, it was realized that there are many
similarities in the five resolutions. As a result, the five HOAs have agreed that it would
be more efficient for all affected parties; the HOAs and ARBs, the homeowners,
developers, and the City to have a single Resolution that contains the regulations and
development standards for all five HOA areas, and a uniform set of design review
processes.
On May 10, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the
proposed new resolution. The Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of the
joint resolution to the City Council.
The City Council held study sessions on the joint resolution on July 19, September 20,
and November 1. During the course of these three study sessions, the Council asked
numerous questions and heard feedback from both HOA representatives and members
of the local development community. The Council gave consideration to important
aspects of the resolution such as the extent of authority granted to the HOAs, floor area,
landscaping and hardscape, tree retention and removal, setbacks, notification of
neighbors, and processing of design review cases. The new, consolidated joint
Resolution No. 6770 is the result of nearly two years of collaboration and effort between
the HOAs and City staff, and it incorporates direction from the Council received during
the three study sessions held.
DISCUSSION
The new consolidated resolution reorganizes the provisions of the five existing
resolutions, and includes revisions to the design guidelines. The HOAs identified areas
within the text of their current resolutions that needed to be updated, clarified, and /or
made more specific to enable them to conduct their design reviews more efficiently.
Moreover, all five HOAs will now be operating under one set of guidelines and
standards, which will be helpful to applicants, the staff, and the ARBs. It is important to
note that the stated purpose of the Architectural Review Boards is the same as it has
been since the 1980's, which is as follows:
"In order to promote and maintain the quality single- family residential
environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and
architectural character of such residential environments there hereby
is established the following regulations and procedures..."
HOA Resolution No. 6770 — Staff Report
December 6, 2011 — Page 2
Despite the fact that the overall goals and purpose for the resolution has not changed,
there are a number of areas where language has been updated and revised. Some of
the major areas of change and /or discussion are as follows:
1. Site Planning and Streetscape (Sections 4A and B) — There is new language in the
Resolution that relates to the consideration of site planning through the design
review process and the preservation of the "Streetscape." The primary goal with
these guidelines is to reinforce that the overall appearance of the site and its context
can be as important as the actual architectural design of the home. With regard to
site planning, the HOAs wish to ensure that natural features be taken into
consideration in the design of new homes and additions and that the existing site
and surroundings be considered as an integral part of design. Streetscape
guidelines spell out the importance of considering how all that is visible from the
street, including fences, landscaping and hardscape, impacts the character of the
street.
2. Privacy and Views (Section 4L) — A new home or addition should be carefully
designed with respect for the affect on adjacent properties and the neighborhood,
including impacts on privacy and views. This new guideline is to ensure that a new
home or addition is designed so that certain elements, such as second -story
windows and balconies will be situated so as to reasonably protect the privacy and
views of surrounding homes and yards. Staff has incorporated this type of review
into the City's design review process.
3. Trees (Section 4M) — There was much discussion through the Council study
sessions on whether the HOAs should protect more species of trees than the City
and, if so, what types of trees should be protected at what size. The City currently
has an Ordinance that requires a permit to remove an Oak tree. This is the only tree
that requires this level of review by the City. Several of the HOAs currently have a
list of protected trees other than oaks and, through this Resoluton, all five HOAs will
continue to require review and approval of all oak, sycamore, magnolia, pine, and
redwood trees that exceed 6" in diameter at breast height (DBH). At the Council's
direction, staff contacted several arborists and several neighboring cities to see at
what size various trees are protected. The most common size for protection proved
to be 6 ", especially for oak trees. For other trees, an increase to 8" at DBH would
also be appropriate, but staff recommends retaining the 6" limitation for consistency.
4. Notification Areas and Neighbor Sign -off (Section 5C.) — The HOAs had
expressed some concerns about the limited 100 -foot radius currently used to notify
neighbors of projects. The new Resolution contains a notification area that focuses
on the streetscape and those adjoining properties that could be impacted by the
project. The notification area includes two parcels on either side of the subject
parcel, five parcels across the street, and three parcels behind the subject parcel.
The actual lots notified can vary based on topography or the unique conditions of the
property in question. In addition, the new resolution will require notification of the
residents within this area for all projects being completed through the administrative
or "short form" process. However, an applicant will no longer need to obtain
signatures of approval from his /her adjoining neighbors. This new notification
HOA Resolution No. 6770 — Staff Report
December 6, 2011 — Page 3
Despite the fact that the overall goals and purpose for the resolution has not changed,
there are a number of areas where language has been updated and revised. Some of
the major areas of change and /or discussion are as follows:
1. Site Planning and Streetscape (Sections 4A and B) — There is new language in the
Resolution that relates to the consideration of site planning through the design
review process and the preservation of the "Streetscape." The primary goal with
these guidelines is to reinforce that the overall appearance of the site and its context
can be as important as the actual architectural design of the home. With regard to
site planning, the HOAs wish to ensure that natural features be taken into
consideration in the design of new homes and additions and that the existing site
and surroundings be considered as an integral part of design. Streetscape
guidelines spell out the importance of considering how all that is visible from the
street, including fences, landscaping and hardscape, impacts the character of the
street.
2. Privacy and Views (Section 4L) — A new home or addition should be carefully
designed with respect for the affect on adjacent properties and the neighborhood,
including impacts on privacy and views. This new guideline is to ensure that a new
home or addition is designed so that certain elements, such as second -story
windows and balconies will be situated so as to reasonably protect the privacy and
views of surrounding homes and yards. Staff has incorporated this type of review
into the City's design review process.
3. Trees (Section 4M) — There was much discussion through the Council study
sessions on whether the HOAs should protect more species of trees than the City
and, if so, what types of trees should be protected at what size. The City currently
has an Ordinance that requires a permit to remove an Oak tree. This is the only tree
that requires this level of review by the City. Several of the HOAs currently have a
list of protected trees other than oaks and, through this Resoluton, all five HOAs will
continue to require review and approval of all oak, sycamore, magnolia, pine, and
redwood trees that exceed 6" in diameter at breast height (DBH). At the Council's
direction, staff contacted several arborists and several neighboring cities to see at
what size various trees are protected. The most common size for protection proved
to be 6 ", especially for oak trees. For other trees, an increase to 8" at DBH would
also be appropriate, but staff recommends retaining the 6" limitation for consistency.
4. Notification Areas and Neighbor Sign -off (Section 5C.) — The HOAs had
expressed some concerns about the limited 100 -foot radius currently used to notify
neighbors of projects. The new Resolution contains a notification area that focuses
on the streetscape and those adjoining properties that could be impacted by the
project. The notification area includes two parcels on either side of the subject
parcel, five parcels across the street, and three parcels behind the subject parcel.
The actual lots notified can vary based on topography or the unique conditions of the
property in question. In addition, the new resolution will require notification of the
residents within this area for all projects being completed through the administrative
or "short form" process. However, an applicant will no longer need to obtain
signatures of approval from his /her adjoining neighbors. This new notification
HOA Resolution No. 6770 — Staff Report
December 6, 2011 — Page 3
process will allow neighbors to voice concerns on both short and long review
processes, but it does not require their sign off.
Once the draft Resolution was released to the public, HOA representatives
contacted staff to say that this notification process was not what was intended. As it
is written, notification would be required for ALL short review projects, even small
ones such as mechanical equipment or very minor additions. The HOAs reason that
the 10 day timeframe for notice is too long and cumbersome for projects like this. In
response to these concerns, we have attached two alternatives for the short review
process for Council consideration. Attachment B is an alternative developed by staff
that would make ALL short review projects administrative. We discussed this option
at the final study session but it was not selected as the preferred option. This
alternative would remove the need for notification for all projects that qualify as short
review. However, the ARB Chair or designee would still have the ability to call a
project up for a hearing with the ARB. Attachment C is a second alternative with
language submitted by HOA representatives that provides a hybrid process.
Notification would be required but the ARB Chair or designee would determine the
"affected neighbors" on a case by case basis depending on the project. There would
not be an established notification area for the short review. This alternative provides
the applicant the option of obtaining signatures (the current practice) OR notifying
the affected property owners and waiting the 10 day notification period. The HOA
representatives support this alternative. Both of the alternatives will be discussed in
greater detail at the hearing.
5. Short Review vs. Regular Review (Sections 5D and E) — The Short and Regular
Review procedures have been amended to clearly define the different scopes of
projects under each category. The Short Review will remain an administrative
process (following a notification of neighbors — see above for options) in which the
ARB Chairperson or designee reviews and acts on smaller projects, such as single -
story remodels or additions, or other minor improvements to a property. A list of
project types eligible for the Short Review process has been included in the
proposed Resolution. The Regular Review process will still require a public hearing
with notice sent to the owners of the properties in the new notification area, and is to
include all new homes, second -story additions, and any project not eligible for the
Short Review process. Both processes specify that decisions must be rendered only
by the Chairperson, designee, or those ARB members that considered the
applications. The Planning Commission and City Council will continue to function as
appellate bodies to the ARB decisions. The proposed Resolution standardizes the
processes for all five HOAs.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no possibility that the text amendments will
have a significant effect on the environment under Section 15305 of the CEQA
Guidelines as minor alterations in land use limitations.
HOA Resolution No. 6770 — Staff Report
December 6, 2011 — Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 6770, creating a single resolution that contains design guidelines,
development standards, and processing procedures for construction in all five single -
family Homeowners Association areas.
Approved By:
Donald Penman, City Manager
Attachment A: Resolution No. 6770, Map and Legal Descriptions
Attachment B: Alternative to Short Review process (All administrative)
Attachment C: Alternative to Short Review process (HOA proposal)
HOA Resolution No. 6770 — Staff Report
December 6, 2011 — Page 5
Arcadia City Council
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91007
December 18, 2011
Re: Resolution No. 6770
Architectural Design Guidelines, Recommendations & HOAs
Re: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 Council General Meeting subject on Home Owner Associations, Architectural
Design Review Board, short review signature sign -offs, controlled changes (e.g., landscaping, mechanical add -
ons, structural codes, etc.). A short review signature sign -off keeps property owners informed as well as alert
the applicant to code restrictions. Without aggressive, strict code enforcement, runaway construction is subject
to potential abuse and non - compliance vis -a -vis the CC &R and R –O Regulations.
The operative words are notably "Character" and "Harmony" of the neighborhood. Asst. City Manager
Jason Kruckeberg's comments came close to this description. If the new construction does not meet the FAR,
setback, maximum height restrictions, size & massing, building codes, street & landscaping considerations, etc.,
then that structure will negatively impact the aesthetic architecture of the existing and neighboring homes within
a given radius. There must be a balanced consideration of how adjacent owners want their property values to be
affected —how they would want their quality of view, air space, security, and privacy to not be compromised.
Holding the applicant homeowner to comply with code is not necessarily government control or loss of freedom
per se (as one council member logically disputed with the cutting down of private trees or property rights vs.
laissez faire). However, with public interest comes a civic spirit of confoiiuity and enforcement of a well -
designed, balanced appearance and appreciation of property values for the good of the community's quality of
living. In a figurative sense, a municipal code is a stop sign to prevent a property owner from putting a 30+ foot
neon message board in their own back or front yard.
A new builder or tear -down owner may have every right to blueprint the interior of their new house to their own
taste; but the exterior public domain view has an equal right to enjoy the `character and harmony' of their own
residential investments in a milieu free of garish designs that distract from the sight of a common environment.
This is not subject to governmental First Amendment infringement, but is actually for the protection of existing
property owners who chose to live in Arcadia because of its carefully planned development without having to
appeal the changes foisted upon them (based on previously adopted resolutions passed in 1986).
Arcadia is commonly known as a "Community of Homes" (not a `City of Domes'). New 5,000+ sq. ft.
mansions are being built blocking sunlight and air space with a brazen insistence to dismiss the seclusion of
other homeowners. Sometimes neighborhood Architectural Review Boards (ARB) appear more pro - builder
than pro- neighbor in approving design changes and allowances and less concerned with preserving the heritage
of the single -story family residences (SFR). New construction by spider web real estate investors seem to be
compromising the rights of the vicinage for financial gain without consideration of how contiguous landowners
may be adversely affected.
This historical ambiance has been previously `grandfathered': "[to] protect and maintain the quality single -
family residential environment of the City of Arcadia and to protect the property values and architectural
character.... so that 'buildings, structures and landscaping within said area will be `harmonious'....
"Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the
structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the
neighborhood" (Arcadia City Council Resolution No. 5287). Ibid. 1986
1_ttp: / /www.ci.arcadia.caus /flocs /Lower rancho
hupiliwww.ci.arcadia.ca.us/clocs/1134131722011rancho Santa sanity residents a_pp2 -17_i 1.pdf
...continued
November 15, 2005 General Meeting Archive (see attachments).
Attached please review my recommendations and suggestions for SFR Architectural Design Review with a
proposed written plan of action and amendments to the CC &R and R —O Regulations. This was archived with
the Arcadia staff reports 11 -15 -2005 (when I publicly addressed the city council six years ago).
Updated Suggestions for Resolution
Arcadia simply must take an aggressive policy of stringent building code enforcement (stiffened with larger
financial pocketbook penalties for code violation).
• Approved site plans inspected and finalized by Development Services and the Planning Commission
(carefully scrutinized for site ratios and form -based zoning codes) would govern abidance and fees
levied by the Commission to minimize any adverse impact.
• Severe penalties would be exacted (including corrective/ reconstructive breaches at applicant/builder
expense) for failing to abide by the architecturally approved design rules or "improper" allowances or
waivers to unilaterally benefit the applicant's structural edifice.
• Perhaps, the five HOAs should be centralized under a NEW Independent "City- Wide" Architectural
Review Board. If approved, the proposed guidelines would require that all single family homes in
Arcadia (including those not in a homeowner's association area) go through an Architectural Design
Review process administered by the City for compliance and uniformity.
• From the Arcadia Patch.com: "One possible solution, although this is admittedly a big step, is for the
Council to approve so- called "form- based" zoning codes, which more or less dictate the size and
shape of buildings, so they are conformable to their neighbors. Uniformity of style, while desirable in
many cases, turns out to be less important than uniformity of SIZE and MASSING. "
http __ / /arcadia.patch.c,om /ar tic, les /f`ixe, dilemma -on- woodruff= scrape ®or -save
The answer for less government oversight and freedom from being controlled is for citizens to take ownership of
their own problem- solving and create a positive vision of self - government as the architects of the future in an
aesthetically planned and beautiful community of homes in Arcadia. I have more ideas and am willing to
discuss. Would appreciate your feedback. Please contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
R. W. Thee
926 Encanto Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007 -6103
Cc:
Gary A. Kovacic, Mayor
Robert C. Harbicht, Mayor Pro Tem
Peter Amundson, Council Member
Roger Chandler, Council Member
Mickey Segal, Council Member
Don Penman, City Manager
Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager
Development Services /Planning Commission
ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS:
Gary Rovacic, Mayor/Agency Chair
Robert Harbicht, Mayor Pro Tem/Agency Vice Chair
Peter Amundson, Council/Agency Member
Roger Chandler, Council/Agency Member
Mickey Segal, Council/Agency Member
REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE
READING IN FULL
PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation to the City from Elisa Clifford of Southern California Edison.
b. Presentation of "Believe in Arcadia. Volunteerl'' Award to "Soldiers Angels"
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
To speak on a public hearing item, it is requested that a "public comments" card be completed
noting the agenda item number be submitted to the City C lerkiAgency Secretary prior to the start of
the public hearing. Separate and apart from the applicant (who may speak longer in the discretion
of the City Council) speakers shall be limited to five (5) minutes per person. The applicant may
additionally submit rebuttal comments, in the discretion of the City Council.
You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge in court any action taken by
the City CounciVRedevelopment Agency regarding any Public Hearing item, you may be limited
to raising only those issues and objections you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 6770 creating a single resolution that contains design
guidelines, development standards, and processing procedures for construction in all
five single family Homeowners' Association areas.
Recommended Action: Adopt
b. Adopt Resolution No, 6806 establishing and/or adjusting various fees for City
services,
Recommended Action: Adopt
c. Adopt Resolution No. 6805 approving Architectural Design Review No 2005-026
and Resolution No 6562 regarding the Phase lb Expansion (The Promenade) of the
Westfield Santa Anita Mall at 400 South Baldwin Avenue to increase the restaurant
space from 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet.
Recommended Action: Adopt
Any writings or datum ents provided tc a FF, diordy of the City Council regaro'ing any item on this agenda hall be se ade available for public
inspection in the City CierWs office located at 240 W_ Huntington Drive, Arcadia, Catifomia; during norm al business hours_
Arcadia City Council
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91007
Re: SFR Architectural Design Review / Recommendations
November 15, 2005
Please adopt a moratorium on building mammoth mansions (in excess of 3,000 mass sq. ft.) in the City of Arcadia vis -a -vis
the current kinship of homes. They are out of scale & residential context with their neighborhoods. The moratorium would
allow time for the city to amend its zoning laws regulating the size and shape of acceptable architectural design.
My mother and father have lived & raised a family in their beautiful single -story, award - winning ranch -style home over 50
years in a very desirable neighborhood. I grew up in their house and attended Hugo Reid Elementary, Foothill Jr. High, and
graduated from Arcadia High School. I am a local civic volunteer and plan on retiring in Arcadia.
"Mansionization" Neither in `Harmony Nor Character' with Arcadia Neighborhoods
In many sections of our city, these mansions are neither in "harmony" nor in "character" with the CC &R and R —O
Regulations of the neighborhood. Local neighborhood Architectural Review Boards (ARB) appear more pro - builder than
pro - neighbor in approving design changes and allowances and less concerned with preserving the heritage of the single -story
family residences (SFR). Just drive by the corner of Holly and Norman with a "boarding house" for sale containing 9
bedrooms plus a "pool house" with a kitchenette, bathroom and bedroom add -on. Other mega- manors have under - ground and
dual -wing double garages in the front setback. Am wondering, how could this have passed regulations?
Less than 3 days after (07/22/05) the Public Works Services slurry- sealed Encanto Drive, the front street surface (including
ours) was damaged with heavy construction equipment. Careless construction and runaway regulations and "permits" have
become too excessive and harmful to the image and value of the community.
There must be a balanced consideration of how adjacent neighbors want their property values to be affected —how they
would want their quality of view, air space, security, and privacy not be compromised.
"Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as
the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood" (Arcadia City Council
Resolution No. 5287).
Arcadia must take an aggressive policy of code enforcement (stiffened with larger financial pocketbook penalties for code
violation) under Municipal Code amendments with a NEW Independent "City- Wide" Architectural Review Board. If
approved, the proposed guidelines would require that all single family homes in Arcadia (including those not in a homeowner's
association area) go through an Architectural Design Review process administered by the City.
Attached please find recommendations and suggestions for amendment changes for SFR Architectural Design Review.
have more ideas and am willing to discuss. Would appreciate your feedback. Please contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
R. W. THEE
926 Encanto Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007 -6103
Cc: Commissioner David Olson — Planning Commission
Don Penman — Assistant City Manager / Development Services Director
Corkran W. Nicholson — Planning Services Manager
Donna Butler — Community Development Administrator
Pat Malloy — Director Public Works Services
...see attachment
Arcadia City Council
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91007
Re: SFR Architectural Design Review / Recommendations
November 15, 2005
Please adopt a moratorium on building mammoth mansions (in excess of 3,000 mass sq. ft.) in the City of Arcadia vis -a -vis
the current kinship of homes. They are out of scale & residential context with their neighborhoods. The moratorium would
allow time for the city to amend its zoning laws regulating the size and shape of acceptable architectural design.
My mother and father have lived & raised a family in their beautiful single -story, award - winning ranch -style home over 50
years in a very desirable neighborhood. I grew up in their house and attended Hugo Reid Elementary, Foothill Jr. High, and
graduated from Arcadia High School. I am a local civic volunteer and plan on retiring in Arcadia.
"Mansionization" Neither in `Harmony Nor Character' with Arcadia Neighborhoods
In many sections of our city, these mansions are neither in "harmony" nor in "character" with the CC &R and R —O
Regulations of the neighborhood. Local neighborhood Architectural Review Boards (ARB) appear more pro - builder than
pro - neighbor in approving design changes and allowances and less concerned with preserving the heritage of the single -story
family residences (SFR). Just drive by the corner of Holly and Norman with a "boarding house" for sale containing 9
bedrooms plus a "pool house" with a kitchenette, bathroom and bedroom add -on. Other mega- manors have under - ground and
dual -wing double garages in the front setback. Am wondering, how could this have passed regulations?
Less than 3 days after (07/22/05) the Public Works Services slurry- sealed Encanto Drive, the front street surface (including
ours) was damaged with heavy construction equipment. Careless construction and runaway regulations and "permits" have
become too excessive and harmful to the image and value of the community.
There must be a balanced consideration of how adjacent neighbors want their property values to be affected —how they
would want their quality of view, air space, security, and privacy not be compromised.
"Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as
the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood" (Arcadia City Council
Resolution No. 5287).
Arcadia must take an aggressive policy of code enforcement (stiffened with larger financial pocketbook penalties for code
violation) under Municipal Code amendments with a NEW Independent "City- Wide" Architectural Review Board. If
approved, the proposed guidelines would require that all single family homes in Arcadia (including those not in a homeowner's
association area) go through an Architectural Design Review process administered by the City.
Attached please find recommendations and suggestions for amendment changes for SFR Architectural Design Review.
have more ideas and am willing to discuss. Would appreciate your feedback. Please contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
R. W. THEE
926 Encanto Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007 -6103
Cc: Commissioner David Olson — Planning Commission
Don Penman — Assistant City Manager / Development Services Director
Corkran W. Nicholson — Planning Services Manager
Donna Butler — Community Development Administrator
Pat Malloy — Director Public Works Services
...see attachment
Arcadia City Council
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91007
Re: SFR Architectural Design Review / Recommendations
November 15, 2005
Please adopt a moratorium on building mammoth mansions (in excess of 3,000 mass sq. ft.) in the City of Arcadia vis -a -vis
the current kinship of homes. They are out of scale & residential context with their neighborhoods. The moratorium would
allow time for the city to amend its zoning laws regulating the size and shape of acceptable architectural design.
My mother and father have lived & raised a family in their beautiful single -story, award - winning ranch -style home over 50
years in a very desirable neighborhood. I grew up in their house and attended Hugo Reid Elementary, Foothill Jr. High, and
graduated from Arcadia High School. I am a local civic volunteer and plan on retiring in Arcadia.
"Mansionization" Neither in `Harmony Nor Character' with Arcadia Neighborhoods
In many sections of our city, these mansions are neither in "harmony" nor in "character" with the CC &R and R —O
Regulations of the neighborhood. Local neighborhood Architectural Review Boards (ARB) appear more pro - builder than
pro - neighbor in approving design changes and allowances and less concerned with preserving the heritage of the single -story
family residences (SFR). Just drive by the corner of Holly and Norman with a "boarding house" for sale containing 9
bedrooms plus a "pool house" with a kitchenette, bathroom and bedroom add -on. Other mega- manors have under - ground and
dual -wing double garages in the front setback. Am wondering, how could this have passed regulations?
Less than 3 days after (07/22/05) the Public Works Services slurry- sealed Encanto Drive, the front street surface (including
ours) was damaged with heavy construction equipment. Careless construction and runaway regulations and "permits" have
become too excessive and harmful to the image and value of the community.
There must be a balanced consideration of how adjacent neighbors want their property values to be affected —how they
would want their quality of view, air space, security, and privacy not be compromised.
"Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as
the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood" (Arcadia City Council
Resolution No. 5287).
Arcadia must take an aggressive policy of code enforcement (stiffened with larger financial pocketbook penalties for code
violation) under Municipal Code amendments with a NEW Independent "City- Wide" Architectural Review Board. If
approved, the proposed guidelines would require that all single family homes in Arcadia (including those not in a homeowner's
association area) go through an Architectural Design Review process administered by the City.
Attached please find recommendations and suggestions for amendment changes for SFR Architectural Design Review.
have more ideas and am willing to discuss. Would appreciate your feedback. Please contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
R. W. THEE
926 Encanto Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007 -6103
Cc: Commissioner David Olson — Planning Commission
Don Penman — Assistant City Manager / Development Services Director
Corkran W. Nicholson — Planning Services Manager
Donna Butler — Community Development Administrator
Pat Malloy — Director Public Works Services
...see attachment
Arcadia City Council
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91007
Re: SFR Architectural Design Review / Recommendations
November 15, 2005
Please adopt a moratorium on building mammoth mansions (in excess of 3,000 mass sq. ft.) in the City of Arcadia vis -a -vis
the current kinship of homes. They are out of scale & residential context with their neighborhoods. The moratorium would
allow time for the city to amend its zoning laws regulating the size and shape of acceptable architectural design.
My mother and father have lived & raised a family in their beautiful single -story, award - winning ranch -style home over 50
years in a very desirable neighborhood. I grew up in their house and attended Hugo Reid Elementary, Foothill Jr. High, and
graduated from Arcadia High School. I am a local civic volunteer and plan on retiring in Arcadia.
"Mansionization" Neither in `Harmony Nor Character' with Arcadia Neighborhoods
In many sections of our city, these mansions are neither in "harmony" nor in "character" with the CC &R and R —O
Regulations of the neighborhood. Local neighborhood Architectural Review Boards (ARB) appear more pro - builder than
pro - neighbor in approving design changes and allowances and less concerned with preserving the heritage of the single -story
family residences (SFR). Just drive by the corner of Holly and Norman with a "boarding house" for sale containing 9
bedrooms plus a "pool house" with a kitchenette, bathroom and bedroom add -on. Other mega- manors have under - ground and
dual -wing double garages in the front setback. Am wondering, how could this have passed regulations?
Less than 3 days after (07/22/05) the Public Works Services slurry- sealed Encanto Drive, the front street surface (including
ours) was damaged with heavy construction equipment. Careless construction and runaway regulations and "permits" have
become too excessive and harmful to the image and value of the community.
There must be a balanced consideration of how adjacent neighbors want their property values to be affected —how they
would want their quality of view, air space, security, and privacy not be compromised.
"Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as
the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood" (Arcadia City Council
Resolution No. 5287).
Arcadia must take an aggressive policy of code enforcement (stiffened with larger financial pocketbook penalties for code
violation) under Municipal Code amendments with a NEW Independent "City- Wide" Architectural Review Board. If
approved, the proposed guidelines would require that all single family homes in Arcadia (including those not in a homeowner's
association area) go through an Architectural Design Review process administered by the City.
Attached please find recommendations and suggestions for amendment changes for SFR Architectural Design Review.
have more ideas and am willing to discuss. Would appreciate your feedback. Please contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
R. W. THEE
926 Encanto Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007 -6103
Cc: Commissioner David Olson — Planning Commission
Don Penman — Assistant City Manager / Development Services Director
Corkran W. Nicholson — Planning Services Manager
Donna Butler — Community Development Administrator
Pat Malloy — Director Public Works Services
...see attachment
SFR Architectural Design Review / Proposed Limits — R. W. THEE November 15, 2005 (updated)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PLANNING COMMISSION:
Propose a CODE AMENDMENT to adopt a PRIMARY "CITY- WIDE" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD with
AUTHORITATIVE CENTRAL POWER of DESIGN REVIEW, FINAL DECISION, & COMPLIANCE to
EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE & EXAMINE REGULATIONS:
1. Any site plan floor area ration (FAR), building size /height/mass /density restrictions with street and side yard setback
limits with stricter enforcement rations. FAR not to exceed a maximum 25% permitted (R —O Regulations 9252.2.9.1).
1 a. REDUCE maximum building height from 30 feet to 25 feet (including the ration of the second story to the first story)
irrespective of lot width.
2. 2nd story "intrusive" side window views blocking existing neighbors' airspace, sunlight, view, and aesthetic privilege to be
elevated from the bottom of the window at a minimum of six (6) feet from 2nd floor level and be permanently locked
and closed with an opaque or frosted surface.
2a. NO bay windows permitted on any 2nd story structure to lessen involuntary invasion of contiguous neighboring
privacy with seclusion landscaping (e.g. "Italian Cypress trees) as part of the proposed site plan at new builder's expense.
3. "There shall be a side yard border on each side of every building of not less than ten (10) feet or ten percent (10 %) of
the lot width as measured at the front property line, whichever is greater." (R —O Regulations 9251.2.3).
4. Limit number of bathrooms under one roof attached to each bedroom/bungalow / "library" / "game room" to prevent
speculative investment turnover for resale by transit ownership.
4a. "Boarding House" — Prohibit two or more rooms from being rented to individuals under separate rental agreements or
leases, either written or oral, whether or not an owner, agent or rental manager is the residence (including "Accessory Living
Quarters /Guest House ").
4b. Owner shall consent to right of access by Code Enforcement to determine unrelated multi - family occupancy vs. single
family residence to avoid the appearance of a boarding house and/or clandestine home -based businesses operating without a
permit. (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.10.3).
5. Increase parking and circular driveway restrictions with code enforcement to upgrade fines for more than three (3)
cars parked in an overnight 3AM — 7AM* front yard or circular driveway ticketed violations at $100 per event times each
additional evening (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.14.1).
5a. Eliminate circular driveways from any new construction (other than those already "grandfathered ")
5b. BAN ALL OVERNIGHT STREET PARKING. Otherwise, up to a maximum of two (2) limited street permits for
overnight 3AM -7AM* "Class C" vehicle (under 6,000 lbs. — NO RV/Motor Home/Bus/Boat/Trailer/Truck/Motorcycle)
parking at $500 per year each licensed vehicle (revenue generated to the city street maintenance) with such permits
restricted to the owner(s) own front property line only —NOT in front of any contiguous neighbor property line within
500 feet. Temporary overnight parking permits valid up to a maximum of two weeks every twelve (12) months. All
vehicles which qualify for a permit must be moved at least once every 72 hours and vehicles exceeding 7 feet in height or
width are ineligible for permit (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.14.1 Motor Vehicle Limitations — Requirements)
5c. *3AM -7AM (expand time limit to allow for city street sweeper completion of duties and trash container placement for
disposal and pick -up).
5d. "Below grade or subterranean parking spaces shall not be permitted" (R —O Regulations 9251.2.6).
6. No loud "boom box" music nor electrical, digital, manual, vocal disturbance which would create a noisy, raucous or
impulsive sound or noise within ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE or within 500 of a residence between hours limited to
8AM -5PM and thereafter (with all construction banned on Sundays and holidays).
SFR Architectural Design Review / Proposed Limits — R. W. THEE November 15, 2005 (updated)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PLANNING COMMISSION:
Propose a CODE AMENDMENT to adopt a PRIMARY "CITY- WIDE" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD with
AUTHORITATIVE CENTRAL POWER of DESIGN REVIEW, FINAL DECISION, & COMPLIANCE to
EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE & EXAMINE REGULATIONS:
1. Any site plan floor area ration (FAR), building size /height/mass /density restrictions with street and side yard setback
limits with stricter enforcement rations. FAR not to exceed a maximum 25% permitted (R —O Regulations 9252.2.9.1).
1 a. REDUCE maximum building height from 30 feet to 25 feet (including the ration of the second story to the first story)
irrespective of lot width.
2. 2nd story "intrusive" side window views blocking existing neighbors' airspace, sunlight, view, and aesthetic privilege to be
elevated from the bottom of the window at a minimum of six (6) feet from 2nd floor level and be permanently locked
and closed with an opaque or frosted surface.
2a. NO bay windows permitted on any 2nd story structure to lessen involuntary invasion of contiguous neighboring
privacy with seclusion landscaping (e.g. "Italian Cypress trees) as part of the proposed site plan at new builder's expense.
3. "There shall be a side yard border on each side of every building of not less than ten (10) feet or ten percent (10 %) of
the lot width as measured at the front property line, whichever is greater." (R —O Regulations 9251.2.3).
4. Limit number of bathrooms under one roof attached to each bedroom/bungalow / "library" / "game room" to prevent
speculative investment turnover for resale by transit ownership.
4a. "Boarding House" — Prohibit two or more rooms from being rented to individuals under separate rental agreements or
leases, either written or oral, whether or not an owner, agent or rental manager is the residence (including "Accessory Living
Quarters /Guest House ").
4b. Owner shall consent to right of access by Code Enforcement to determine unrelated multi - family occupancy vs. single
family residence to avoid the appearance of a boarding house and/or clandestine home -based businesses operating without a
permit. (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.10.3).
5. Increase parking and circular driveway restrictions with code enforcement to upgrade fines for more than three (3)
cars parked in an overnight 3AM — 7AM* front yard or circular driveway ticketed violations at $100 per event times each
additional evening (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.14.1).
5a. Eliminate circular driveways from any new construction (other than those already "grandfathered ")
5b. BAN ALL OVERNIGHT STREET PARKING. Otherwise, up to a maximum of two (2) limited street permits for
overnight 3AM -7AM* "Class C" vehicle (under 6,000 lbs. — NO RV/Motor Home/Bus/Boat/Trailer/Truck/Motorcycle)
parking at $500 per year each licensed vehicle (revenue generated to the city street maintenance) with such permits
restricted to the owner(s) own front property line only —NOT in front of any contiguous neighbor property line within
500 feet. Temporary overnight parking permits valid up to a maximum of two weeks every twelve (12) months. All
vehicles which qualify for a permit must be moved at least once every 72 hours and vehicles exceeding 7 feet in height or
width are ineligible for permit (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.14.1 Motor Vehicle Limitations — Requirements)
5c. *3AM -7AM (expand time limit to allow for city street sweeper completion of duties and trash container placement for
disposal and pick -up).
5d. "Below grade or subterranean parking spaces shall not be permitted" (R —O Regulations 9251.2.6).
6. No loud "boom box" music nor electrical, digital, manual, vocal disturbance which would create a noisy, raucous or
impulsive sound or noise within ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE or within 500 of a residence between hours limited to
8AM -5PM and thereafter (with all construction banned on Sundays and holidays).
SFR Architectural Design Review / Proposed Limits — R. W. THEE November 15, 2005 (updated)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PLANNING COMMISSION:
Propose a CODE AMENDMENT to adopt a PRIMARY "CITY- WIDE" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD with
AUTHORITATIVE CENTRAL POWER of DESIGN REVIEW, FINAL DECISION, & COMPLIANCE to
EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE & EXAMINE REGULATIONS:
1. Any site plan floor area ration (FAR), building size /height/mass /density restrictions with street and side yard setback
limits with stricter enforcement rations. FAR not to exceed a maximum 25% permitted (R —O Regulations 9252.2.9.1).
1 a. REDUCE maximum building height from 30 feet to 25 feet (including the ration of the second story to the first story)
irrespective of lot width.
2. 2nd story "intrusive" side window views blocking existing neighbors' airspace, sunlight, view, and aesthetic privilege to be
elevated from the bottom of the window at a minimum of six (6) feet from 2nd floor level and be permanently locked
and closed with an opaque or frosted surface.
2a. NO bay windows permitted on any 2nd story structure to lessen involuntary invasion of contiguous neighboring
privacy with seclusion landscaping (e.g. "Italian Cypress trees) as part of the proposed site plan at new builder's expense.
3. "There shall be a side yard border on each side of every building of not less than ten (10) feet or ten percent (10 %) of
the lot width as measured at the front property line, whichever is greater." (R —O Regulations 9251.2.3).
4. Limit number of bathrooms under one roof attached to each bedroom/bungalow / "library" / "game room" to prevent
speculative investment turnover for resale by transit ownership.
4a. "Boarding House" — Prohibit two or more rooms from being rented to individuals under separate rental agreements or
leases, either written or oral, whether or not an owner, agent or rental manager is the residence (including "Accessory Living
Quarters /Guest House ").
4b. Owner shall consent to right of access by Code Enforcement to determine unrelated multi - family occupancy vs. single
family residence to avoid the appearance of a boarding house and/or clandestine home -based businesses operating without a
permit. (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.10.3).
5. Increase parking and circular driveway restrictions with code enforcement to upgrade fines for more than three (3)
cars parked in an overnight 3AM — 7AM* front yard or circular driveway ticketed violations at $100 per event times each
additional evening (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.14.1).
5a. Eliminate circular driveways from any new construction (other than those already "grandfathered ")
5b. BAN ALL OVERNIGHT STREET PARKING. Otherwise, up to a maximum of two (2) limited street permits for
overnight 3AM -7AM* "Class C" vehicle (under 6,000 lbs. — NO RV/Motor Home/Bus/Boat/Trailer/Truck/Motorcycle)
parking at $500 per year each licensed vehicle (revenue generated to the city street maintenance) with such permits
restricted to the owner(s) own front property line only —NOT in front of any contiguous neighbor property line within
500 feet. Temporary overnight parking permits valid up to a maximum of two weeks every twelve (12) months. All
vehicles which qualify for a permit must be moved at least once every 72 hours and vehicles exceeding 7 feet in height or
width are ineligible for permit (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.14.1 Motor Vehicle Limitations — Requirements)
5c. *3AM -7AM (expand time limit to allow for city street sweeper completion of duties and trash container placement for
disposal and pick -up).
5d. "Below grade or subterranean parking spaces shall not be permitted" (R —O Regulations 9251.2.6).
6. No loud "boom box" music nor electrical, digital, manual, vocal disturbance which would create a noisy, raucous or
impulsive sound or noise within ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE or within 500 of a residence between hours limited to
8AM -5PM and thereafter (with all construction banned on Sundays and holidays).
SFR Architectural Design Review / Proposed Limits — R. W. THEE November 15, 2005 (updated)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PLANNING COMMISSION:
Propose a CODE AMENDMENT to adopt a PRIMARY "CITY- WIDE" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD with
AUTHORITATIVE CENTRAL POWER of DESIGN REVIEW, FINAL DECISION, & COMPLIANCE to
EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE & EXAMINE REGULATIONS:
1. Any site plan floor area ration (FAR), building size /height/mass /density restrictions with street and side yard setback
limits with stricter enforcement rations. FAR not to exceed a maximum 25% permitted (R —O Regulations 9252.2.9.1).
1 a. REDUCE maximum building height from 30 feet to 25 feet (including the ration of the second story to the first story)
irrespective of lot width.
2. 2nd story "intrusive" side window views blocking existing neighbors' airspace, sunlight, view, and aesthetic privilege to be
elevated from the bottom of the window at a minimum of six (6) feet from 2nd floor level and be permanently locked
and closed with an opaque or frosted surface.
2a. NO bay windows permitted on any 2nd story structure to lessen involuntary invasion of contiguous neighboring
privacy with seclusion landscaping (e.g. "Italian Cypress trees) as part of the proposed site plan at new builder's expense.
3. "There shall be a side yard border on each side of every building of not less than ten (10) feet or ten percent (10 %) of
the lot width as measured at the front property line, whichever is greater." (R —O Regulations 9251.2.3).
4. Limit number of bathrooms under one roof attached to each bedroom/bungalow / "library" / "game room" to prevent
speculative investment turnover for resale by transit ownership.
4a. "Boarding House" — Prohibit two or more rooms from being rented to individuals under separate rental agreements or
leases, either written or oral, whether or not an owner, agent or rental manager is the residence (including "Accessory Living
Quarters /Guest House ").
4b. Owner shall consent to right of access by Code Enforcement to determine unrelated multi - family occupancy vs. single
family residence to avoid the appearance of a boarding house and/or clandestine home -based businesses operating without a
permit. (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.10.3).
5. Increase parking and circular driveway restrictions with code enforcement to upgrade fines for more than three (3)
cars parked in an overnight 3AM — 7AM* front yard or circular driveway ticketed violations at $100 per event times each
additional evening (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.14.1).
5a. Eliminate circular driveways from any new construction (other than those already "grandfathered ")
5b. BAN ALL OVERNIGHT STREET PARKING. Otherwise, up to a maximum of two (2) limited street permits for
overnight 3AM -7AM* "Class C" vehicle (under 6,000 lbs. — NO RV/Motor Home/Bus/Boat/Trailer/Truck/Motorcycle)
parking at $500 per year each licensed vehicle (revenue generated to the city street maintenance) with such permits
restricted to the owner(s) own front property line only —NOT in front of any contiguous neighbor property line within
500 feet. Temporary overnight parking permits valid up to a maximum of two weeks every twelve (12) months. All
vehicles which qualify for a permit must be moved at least once every 72 hours and vehicles exceeding 7 feet in height or
width are ineligible for permit (ref: R —O Regulations 9251.2.14.1 Motor Vehicle Limitations — Requirements)
5c. *3AM -7AM (expand time limit to allow for city street sweeper completion of duties and trash container placement for
disposal and pick -up).
5d. "Below grade or subterranean parking spaces shall not be permitted" (R —O Regulations 9251.2.6).
6. No loud "boom box" music nor electrical, digital, manual, vocal disturbance which would create a noisy, raucous or
impulsive sound or noise within ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE or within 500 of a residence between hours limited to
8AM -5PM and thereafter (with all construction banned on Sundays and holidays).
SFR Architectural Design Review / Proposed Limits — R. W. THEE November 15, 2005 (updated)
6a. Any controlled resonance not to exceed the ambient noise level by more than five (5) decibels from the work site
during construction, renovation, or repair.
7. The owner and /or his designated foreman /manager shall be responsible and held accountable that no trash or
construction debris is littered into other neighbors' yards and ensure front area (within 500 feet of neighboring
residences) has complete street clean -up at the end of each project day.
8. No work crew trucks or cars shall blind -block or park within twenty-five (25) feet on either side of a contiguous
neighbor's driveway, which would un- safely obstruct the vehicular neighbor's exiting view (both egress and ingress)
from their driveway against potential on- coming traffic or invisible hazards (e.g., children on bicycles, dog walkers,
pedestrian traffic, etc.)
9. Basketball net and stanchions (either moveable or fixed) must be setback thirty (30) feet from the front -most curb and
not in the street to eliminate injury and liability to the city.
10. Owner/Builder shall be held responsible for any earth - moving demolition equipment functioning with any conntinous
heavy and /or pounding or packing ground disturbance, causing structural cracks in surrounding foundations, neighbor pool
tiles and surfaces, or any obvious appearance of negligent damage to city streets and contiguous property, slurry- seals,
power lines (phone, cable, electric), water mains, sewer and gas lines, public works, and/or ANY part of neighbor's
property (including driveways /fences /walls, etc.) with immediate repair or be fined $100 per day with resolution and
determination by City Code Enforcement.
11. Prior to any local Home Owners' Association ARB final decision to authorize a proposed architectural design/site plan,
ALL contiguous property owners by majority (within 500 feet) shall retain the right of "sign -off" within a ten (10)
working day appeal period (incorporated into the full and formal review) to dispute their local ARB vote and retain the
option to petition a final agreement from an independent "CITY- WIDE" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
under the jurisdiction of Development & Planning Services in concert with and arbitration from the Arcadia City Council.
12. Any filing fee and costs shall be absorbed by new owner/builder to control non - conforming site plan
RESOLUTION FOR PROPOSED LIMITS
• Adopt a moratorium on any further massive modifications and building in excess of 3,000 sq. ft. as out of
"character and harmony" with existing neighborhoods, until the Municipal Code can be amended and applied for
acceptable design review.
• Create an Independent, Fair & Impartial "CITY- WIDE" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD administered
by the Development Services Department for ALL single family homes (including those without Homeowner
Associations) under the jurisdiction of the City with Final Decision - Making Power of Design Review and
compliance, size, height, setback, and FAR restriction.
• Implement all aforesaid recommendations through the passage of an Amendment to the Municipal Code that
establishes design guidelines and standards for all single family residences, as well as require anyone proposing
exterior changes or alterations to their home to comply with Code amendments.
• Stiffen and increase penalties, fees, and fines to have a significant impact on preventing Code abuse.
• Setup a Code Enforcement (easy -to- remember) phone number available to residents to confidentially report
violations for investigation (e.g., 1- 800 -ARC -CODE — if available).
• Actively solicit more community volunteers and citizen neighborhood watch dog committees (at televised City
Council Meetings) to get involved and assist Arcadia Code Enforcement in ensuring compliance with any
updated/adopted regulations and amendments.
• Allow the Residents to Voice their Visions for Arcadia to become its Architects in an Aesthetically Planned and
Beautiful Community of Homes.
Written & Submitted by: R.W. THEE 1 926 Encanto Drivel Arcadia, CA 91007 -6103