Loading...
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