No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a: Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a new home at 1101 San Carlos Rd.Development Services Department DATE: July 3, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director.51 -- K-­ By.- Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA OAKS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF A NEW HOME AT 1101 SAN CARLOS ROAD. Recommendation: Approve the appeal to overturn the Planning Commission decision, and conditionally approve the proposed design. HOA 12-01, MA 12-22, and THE 12-15 1101 San Carlos Road July 3, 2012 — Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the appeal to overturn the PlannirfIll Commission decision, and approve the proposed design, Modification No, MA 12-2 and Oak Tree Encroachm ent Permit No. TRE 12-15, subject to the following conditio of approval: The proposed design shall be revised to provide a minimum 35'-0" setback from the southerly street side property line and the revised design shall be subject to approval by Planning Services. 2. The applicant shall comply with all of the recommendations listed in the May 5, 2012, report from Certified Arborist, Mr. Michael Crane. 3. A certified arborist shall provide a written follow-up report to Planning Services to verify fulfillment of the conditions of approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. FAVTPT� City Manager Attachments: Petition from ARB Photo Display from Mr. Riordan Emails Io the Honorable members- of the,,, City CouncH As propeft)v owners and neighbors [Mrig in the, gantz-. Anita Oaks, we-- submit, this petition in strong opposition to the, above appe.&I for the fol(owing reasons-, As per Resolutton 6770 adopted by the City Council on January, 3, 2012, Therefore, we the undersigned r ly request that the GI CouncH deny the appeal for 1101 San Carlos and uphold the Planning Commissfon's denial. Print Name Print Address Signatue Sign�� r D ate 'z fop 1101�2c--,Oz� jq00 V, CO CO L 'C d/o 6, - f z - I To ffie, IiGnors.blc- m Grit be� N,,, of ffie City COMMI As property owners, and neighbott, living in the Santa AnU Oaks vire subruff Oils P-GUtion IR, strong appositJon to tlw, abOvTa &PP for the folio-wing reasians Ax, per ResolUt'()n 'M adopted by ffwx Gity Gouncii Gn January 3, 2012, Therefore, we the undersigned respectfully request that the, City Council deny ft appeal for I 101 San Gatios and uphold the, Planning Commission's denlaL X00 O�qtO, -Wk I ya)o k1oLtI Print Address �Aa uKDO, M, R DY W z-161 J�O 0 4 To the Honorabla mkernbere of the, Gitir Council, As, property owners and neighbors, Hving In the Santpa- Anitat 0 Fks, we submit this petitlon In strong opposition to the above appeal lot- the fallowing reasons. As per Resolution 16770 adopted by the City Council on January 3, 2D,12, Therefore, we the undersigned respecffully request that the City, Gouncil deny the appeal for I 101 San Carlos and uphold the Planning Commission's denial, To the Hon Grabie members'.. of the, ejoy Councit, As propert r ownone and neighbors fiving in the Santa Anita Oaks, we eubmit this petition in strong opposition to the above, appeal, for the following reasons. k5, PGr Resolution 6770 adopted by t City G on January 3. 2012, Therefore, we the undersigned respeeffully request that the City CGuncil deny the appeal for 110i San Carlos and uphold the Planning Commission's denial. T'o the, Honorable nwrnbens, of the City Gouncil As pro pertIf ownGrcs and nGfghbars- living in the Santz, Anita, Oak-15-,, WG submit this petition in strong opposition to the above appeal for the following reasons.- AS PGr' Resolution 6770 adopted by the City Couneff an Januaq! 3, 2DI2, Therefore, we the undersigned respecffully request that the City Council deny the appeal for I 101 San Carlos and uphold the Planning Commission's denlaI. To the H c n G ra b, I o m e, m bG ne o f the, G fty C G To the Honamble me-mbom of the Gfty Council As property ownem. and neighbom, living In, the Santa, Anita., Oaks, we submft this petitlon In strong opposMon to the above appeal for the followIng reasons., As, per Resoluflon, 6,770 adopted by the City Council on January 3, 2012 ti i,o ete Honar we meraboms of ffie city' Council As propaity owners and nelghboms living in the Santa Anita Oaks, W6 submit this pefiflon in Wong opposition to ffia above appGal for, tha, following reasons, A. -e , pet Resolution 6770 adopted by th - cfty Councif on January 3, 2,0 Therefore, we the undersigned respectfuliy request-, that the CItyF Council deny the appeal for fIGI San Carlos and uphold the Planning Commission's denial. Print Name, Print Addre-%s Signature Date 7ti , 15F, K �Uk�- I' AteAd,X, ev FJ 6111f �10 /-At rti Go -L 9 O CC ti St cl m ' 4 - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK - - ` Froro: Rochelle Duffy Semt: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:40 PM Tot City Council Ernai| S0lbjecU Appeal to build mansion 8t11O1Carlos Road To: Arcadia City Council MoznbmzG As 8 long time resident in the Santa Anita Oaks, ] have c0Dle|0 appreciate and respect the integrity of our z8noh-o1v]e based honzou. To me, our neighbozhoocy8 architectural design would be best adhered to as u ��aiocio' expression ofu particular period 0f construction aS well 88iaVzovatiOn. Adjoinilig neighborhoods such oo Bungalow Heaven in Pasadena have established guidelines toporsorvo their neighborhood integrity. the litutial desipred ch8I8c[Cl0f0OTC0 i SCrVCSUS well. l| reflects our sense 0f balance, style, and respect for Santa Anita -Oaks as u oouoznuzi1v. D reinforces the Cib/sinobn of city ofbeautiful homes. Beauty is rooted in balance, proportionality, corn0]czoeu1mni1y. The rncooilydcSigoed hozor at ] l0l Sun Carlos Road does not hoznzooizuTvi[h its neighbors, 1. am onueo)boz of the Smz a/\oite /\R.B and T fully support its u1teoqpi 10 keep our neighborhood's existing character. This d8O8 not mean that two story h0DUeS can't be built. It Gi lyIDe8D8 to construct homes that Jonot disrupt [be existing compatibility. Again, I fully support the ARB's arid City Planlung Commission's decision to deny the current proposed design at 1101 San Carlos Road. Respectfully, Rochelle Duffy PH.D. 6IO Gloria Road Arcadia, Ca9lO0d From: June Drente Sent: Thursday, June 14,ZUll3:U9yM To: City Council Email SmbjecU Arcadia City Council Members | live sd801 Gloria Rd, and have been here for 44years. Please don't overturn the Santa Anita Oaks ARB and City Council Planning Commission decision which denied approval of this overly large building at 1i01 San Carlos Rd, From San Carlos west b> Baldwin, the lots are smaller and the homes built there and in which | live have been commensurate with that size, still |d AivinOuaafee|ingofopenneaa� o not want tobe crowded inbyon85O0 square foot building. VVe have several such mistakes already, such aaG01 Hampton. | appeal io you aamy elected representative tubeonmyside, Deny the appeal. Yours truly T0nn DnBnte0 , \ ---Orgina|kAeSsage --- ' From: Hank Vozniok Sent: Thursday, June 14,2D113:17PK4 To: City Council Email Subject: Appeal for building on 1101 San Carlos Gentlemen of the Arcadia City Council, VVe live in the Santa Anita Oaks onGloria Rd., and have for 4Syears. VVe believe the huge bui|din� proposed ~ simply overwhelms the homes beside h.Ve would not want such evo| uni nou sbuUdinQbes!deus,andworstyeton both sides, We would be era of house dwelling. ' This kind of "trash and re-bui\d" projects jack up the Our own children and. grandchildren can't afford to live here. We are being forced out of the City that we settled in nearly 50-years ago by the developers, VVe|ooktoyouOnthe[hyLoundLaSoure}c(tedr*presentatives,toconcernyuurse|fvvkhtheneedsofthecurrent residents. Sincerely Jean and Hank Voznick From., Robert Jackson Seot: Thursday, June 14,2O123:54PM To- City Council Email SubJect, Appeal @ 11,01 San Carlos Arcadia City Council K4embees | live at 562 G|nhe Rd and have been here for 35 yeao. Please don't overturn the Santa Anita OaksAK8 and the City Planning Commission decision which denied approval of this large building at J.103. San Carlos Rd. VVe have mode these mistakesin the past let's riot repeat them. I appeal to you as my elected representative to be on rny side. Deny this appeal. Youo Robert Jackson Frorti Rudy Megaro [Laa i ItQL-riai dfni ra h-00 . _co 111] Sent, Thursday, June 14, 2,012 4:38 PM To, City Council Email Subject, Appeal to build mansion at 1101 San Carlos Road We are residents of the Santa Anita Oaks, and have lived at 611 Gloria Road for 39 years. The environmental beauty and architectura balance of our community is n of vital i I iportance to us, Therfore we are strongly opposed to the appeal to allow the building of a i-,narision at 1101 San Carlos Road. We strongly support the AP-B and City Planning Conunislon decision to deny approval of rriansionization on the San Carlos property. The AR-B and the City Pla,,ing Conu-nisuin have spent considerable time and effort in developing and maintaining a very effective process for balancing the needs of individuals, our connnunity and the city. Their work represents our interets. Accordingly. we stronglg urge you,our elected representatives, to also represent our interests and deny the appeal to inansionize. Yours truly. Dolores and Rudy Megaro Froni� Sandra Wallick [mailto:wallick,4Ca�yahoo.corn] Sent. Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:22 PM To� City Council Email Subject, Proposed addition at: 1101 San Carlos Dear City Council- Jay & Sandra Wallick Concerned residents of the Oaks �~ Fromm� Suzanne Barnes Semt: Thursday, June 14/2O12B:36PM Ya: City Council Ennai| ,Szubject: Appeal for building on 1101 San Carlos Gentlemen of the. Arcadia City Council, We have lived in the Santa Anita ouka on oaoria au for 40 years. We believe the enormous house proposed a fco 1101 San Carlos is not consistent with our commuoity in mass 'and scale. zt orezvuezma the adjacent homes and we ccrmiozr would not want this home next to us much zcoo on both sides of our home. This kind of "tare -down and re -build" project increase the nziocu of the homes but becomes prohibitive for much of the next generation iunzvuioy our children and srnoacuizaieu The ae.ezoeeza are attemmtdus' once aexiu' to overbuild in this area we are aoxius you, the City co"uca' our elected zepzeaco,ptivca to oouoiucr our cvorazoo and put a atcm to Lue building of homes that representatives, not consistent with the m000 aua scale of the neighborhood Sincerely suzanne. and Reginald earnes Message---- From: Wilcox' Alison 7 l Sent: Saturday, Dune 26, 2012 2:37 PM To: City Council. Email Subject: San Carlos home Dear City Z am writing to express my significant concerns square foot ' home on San Carlos and ArboIada. As a homeowner, that no desire to watch such a monstrosity develop. Particularly given the other three corners. Please uphold the planning commissions it is simply ridiculous given the adjacent homes. And the lot size for your, consideration. Best, Alison WiIcox Alison Wilcox MD FS[[T Associate Prof of Radiology US[ Keck School of Medicine 626-833-7847 cell 323-409-2280 office about the proposed 10k lives on ArboIade, Z have the ranch style homes on denial of this building. . Thank you in advance Frorn, Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good morning Mr, Tsao, Mary Buttice Monday, June 18, 2012 9:04 AM Dominic Lazzaretto; Jason Kruckeberg; 'Jim and Margaret ALTRIU; Lisa Floe FW: Please read: Letter from 24 year residence of Arcadia J!"101 San Carlos - Comparative Mass.jpg; Suggested Points Re 110,1,1<n Carlos.doc Thank you for contacting our office. Your email has-been forwarded Sincerely, Mary BUttice Executive Assistant City Manager's Office City of Arcadia 626-574--5401 cc: Mayor ancl,,eflty Council rrom, Harry Tsao [mailto:harrytsao@gmail.corn] Sent. Saturday, June 16, 2012 8:06 PM To. City Council Email Subject Please read: Letter from 24 year residence of Arcadia Dear City Councilmernbers, e Mayor and City Council. I am writing as a person who has lived ill Arcadia for 24 years, a residence with multiple properties in Santa Anita. Oaks. I am likely on the other side of spectrum in regards to the property at 1 101 San Carlos. *' For full disclosure, I do not know the owner of that property, nor do I know the builder." First and foremost, you will probably see a large number of residence showing up at the public bearing on Tuesday, protesting the size of the proposed property at 11.01 San Carlos. I am appalled by the action of Mary Dougherty who has used her privilege as the President of the Association to email all residence in the area to support a point of view that is not supported by everyone in the neighborhood, (see her email to the residence in the area, spoon feeding people with what they should communicate to City Council). It is truly remarkable how wrong her actions arc. I have zero objection to the size of the building as long as it complies with code. I am completely on board with consistent setback, even a consistent design or architectural style, but we are in nq�sffl�on Lq_gLiestioll the size rules and regR1a1j2RL Times change, and I prefer our community to be progressive; we should not build a. box around our neighborhood and not accept change. According to the census bureau, in the 1950s, 2 % of american families have 3 or more cars. In 2000, 19% of families have 3 or more cars. Back in the 1950s, very few homes had three car garages and people probably cried about others building "too many garages" which is not harnionlotis with their connnurl][Y5 but how many homes in Arcadia don thave 3 car garage now? Bigger homes area sign of the tin-ic and the transitional periods is when you see inconsistencies (as what we can see in South Arcadia). However, in another 50 years, the vast majority of all small homes will likely be replaced by bigger homes, resulting in another harmonious and cODSIStellt look. Those who do not wish to grow and progress with the community always have a choice to move. I sincerely hope the City Councilraembers will see that openness is the way to go to build a vibrant society. City, State, and the Federal government are always looking for wealthy immigrants and we stand in the I ni -ants in the world, You have the right to enforce borne sizes epicenter of attracting some of the richest in-ri igi based on city regulations and I sincerely hope that you not bend to the Associations who has no right over home sizes. Word spreads quickly, and when Arcadia turns into a city that's known to be unfriendly to new constructions, development will come to a screeching halt and it will be hard to reverse. I will be on a flight back from Washington D.C. on Tuesday. I was invited to a meeting at the White House - with Senior Obarna Administration to discuss ways to ignite business and entrepreneurship in Los Angeles, However, when I received the email from Mary, I was shocked at how wrong people are thinking in my own backyard. Please think about the next 10-20 years, and not what a few residence complaining about mansions in then- neighborhood. Regards, Hairy - --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mary Dougherty <11LarYL0).bd.0G-.P—et1 Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:54 PM Subject: Protect Property In the Santa Anita. Oaks & Arcadia To: tear y c�bdog.—net ATTENTION SANTA ANITA OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS 9 Others Concerned About the Building 0 inappropriately Sized Houses 7;833 Q.FT. HOUSE - PLUS 2,025 SQ.FT, ADDITIONS (Total nearly 10,000 square feet on a 26,400 square foot lot) PROPOSED AT' 1101 SAN CARLOS On April 19, 2012 the Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review Board unanimously denied this proposal stating that the proposal does not meet the requirements of Resolution 6770. Property owners at the hearing were against this project due to its massiveness and incompatibility with other homes in the neighborhood. The applicant appealed to the Planning Commission. On May 22,2012 the Commission gpheld the ARB decision and denied the appeal. THE APPLICANT SEAS NOW APPEALED THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE DATE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING IS TUESDAY, JUNE 19,2012, AT 7:00 PM AT THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER. As you who were at the Planning Commission hearing observed, the direct impact of so many property owners speaking against this proposal did impress the Commission and resulted in a denial of the appeal. Builders and speculators who want to "maximize square footage for profit" should not be allowed to erect inappropriate mansions. Mansionization has deteriorated South Arcadia to unsightliness and loss of the feeling of a community of homes. We cannot allow this in the Oaks, Participate and speak up at the meeting. Lets show our support and demand that we have a say in what goes in our neighborhoods. You are strongly urged to attend and to speak during the public hearing. If for some reason you cannot attend, please email your concerns or comments to the City Council at crt coun�cilc�i.arca�dia.ca�-us Send yoUrr email by Tuesday noon to assure its inclusion in information given to Councilmembers. Attached ar-e some suggested points vou mav wish il. Mary E. Dougherty, President Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association Mary Dougherty 1110 Rodeo Road Arcadia, CA 91006 f52_6) 355-1�71 -_ _ marry ALbdog.net Harry Tsao parr 'l.co , f!,ma m Check out my Lovelt Collections at lit 1p -. /Jo yeit. comj iarry This email and any attachments may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments) by others is strictly prohibited. If you. arc not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachinems. puggg E w x4' j1. OEM t x ag t y t ( 1 �3 Y tr a h r ob IIA yit _ 1 k£ Y € a In speaking or writing to the Council, keep your comments succinct and to the point you are trying to make. Don't try to cover everything. [Jere are a few things 3Lo u Lo c u Ld, San Carlos Street is a gateway to a section of the Oaks and this corner house is an important contributor to the streetscape of the neighborhood. The mass and scale of this house should not overwhelm the other houses on the street. The Resolution notes that 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. Thus this proposed house should be rejected and the appeal denied. This entryway to The Oaks should contain appropriate massing that is compatible with the neighboring houses. The staff report incorrectly Galls the existing house a two-story residence. It is a one-story house of 2,592 square feet. The proposed development is for 7,833 sq. ft. of living area, 1,028 sq. ft. of porches, 339 sq. ft. outdoor BBQ, and 956 sq. ft. three-car attached garage for a whopping 10, 156 sq. ft. project that is totally out of proportion to its neighbors. There has been no finding that the ARB was at fault for doing something that it was not authorized to do, nor for not doing something that it was required to do, so the ARB decision should stand, and the City Council should reject the appeal from the Planning Commission's deon. Staff's assertion that while the new residence is substantially larger than the existing homes on the adjacent properties, it is not as what is allowed by the zoning regulations and could end up being smaller than what might be built next door, is a specious argument. It tends to imply that the maximum square footage is the goal; whereas the residents have said that Mansionization or the inappropriate building of large homes is of prime concern. In considering streetscape, no structure should overwhelm its neighbors in mass, and scale. The proposed house is 3 times larger than the average of the 33 other homes in the San Carlos neighborhood. The City Council wrestled with the Joint Resolution of all five Homeowner Associations for over a year before adopting it in January. Now the City Council has an obligation to uphold its recently adopted Resolution, support the conclusions of its own Planning Commission and deny the applicant's appeal. The Planning Commission affirmed the Santa Anita Oaks rejection of the plans. What would make Councilrnembers even consider overturning their own Commission's decision? After a year of deliberation, the Council adopted the Resolution on which the ARB made its decision. City Councilrnembers now have an obligation to Support the Resolution even if individually they disagree with some provisions of it; anything less is irresponsible governance! Frorm: Judy Hermann Sent., SatUnjaKJVne 16/ 2012 9�12 PM To: City Council Email Sub�ect,. 1101 SAN CARLOS Dear Sirs. T8Dlu resident of/\rcodia� / live a1 I58 Elkins Place, Arcadia. l will not bc able tou1Lozd, the meeting Tuesday, J tine lq. Tanz concerned about the proposed plans o{the home ai]]0} San Curlog� The drawings T}iev;edOf|h� huge horncappears out 0f place with neighboring v� hoc000. It dwarfs neighboring hornou. The home i8to large for the TO1 size, It is hard to ino o that this bozDo would be o single family residence. I onz aware that the A-i-cl-d flcYien/ Board Ofthe ()al-,u, and the /1k/ PlannIng C0000iomjOu joutod these plans. I understand that an appeal to the city council may bctuade�Il�e{����llod��pc�ua�� for this bonze 10 be built. Please azg�pori the Af{�� and your Pl Connziooionx` decisions and deny the Judy Hermann Frmmm/ Janice Corey Sent: Sunday, June 17, 20122:34PM To: City Council Email Subject, Inappropriate Size of Proposed House Structure Attention: Planning Commission ) would like to make sorne comments regarding the proposed new house at 110I San Carlos, Applicant appealed to the planning commission and on May 22 2012, the commission upheld the ARB decision and denied the appeal. The existing one story house structure is 2590 square ft.; the proposed new development is 7833 square ft. of living area plus porches, barbeque area, and a 3 car garage, thus it becomes a 10,156 square ft, project. No Structure should overwhelm its neighbors in mass and scale. The proposed house is three times larger than the average of the S3 other hVnnesiD the the San Carlos neighborhood. | feel that since the city council has given the ARB the responsibility for determining the appropriateness Of design ofproposed development within the oaks, that the original decision should be upheld as well aothe appeal! ` Janice Corey - _ I-- romm. Sent, Sunday, June 17, 2012 5:55 PM To: City Council Email Skibfect, R£: San Carlos property VVe think the decision of the Architectural Review Board of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowner Association and the Planning Commission should baupheld and th We appneo|a1e tufthoirdeci�iona that the ARB and Planning Commission have kept the best interests // o�u/�xr/uum .."""a.".°.°.".~. regarding remodeling and hope the City Council members Would defer k> their good judgement. Shelly ROOlO Fromm; Scott Cunningham seat: Monday, June 18, 20128:38AM To� City Council Email Subject. Proposed building at 1101 San Carlos Road Dear Arcadia City Council members: K4y name isunnin8hamand||keat1428Canne|kaPlace. our fanni}y moved tn Arcadia inZUO7 and over the Kathy ' past3O years ve have also lived in Chicago |L Falls Church VA, Danbury CT, Bellevue WA, Ridgefield CT, and McLean VA, so| feel | bring a bit (!)ofan outsider's perspective on this subject. Having seen oversized, inappropriately situated houses on small lots, I feel very strongly that a towering, 7800 sq. ft. building will overwhelm San Carlos and seriously i t \h builder's needtomaximizehousesizeinorde/torecouphis|and detrucifrorn the neighborhood. | can appreciate e a costs |cana|soappreciate�eop|p'sdesiretomaximizetheirinvmstment return orto indulge thernsc|vesbybuilding � have attractive neighborhood their "dream" house. But, the people who also |k/e on the street are entitled o ' not dominatedby one structure. Given the e|dedvpopulation in north A�adia,there vviUbemam� many teordovvnsin the years toconne,sn11OlSan Carlos is not an isolated issue. Most replacement houses will probably be 2-story (which | personally think is fine). K4uso| is building very attractive 2-story prairie-style home on my block, and we all feel it is a great addition 10 CarmeUta Place, But these replacement houses will need to be designed with features and scale so they follow the ARB rules and blend in with existing homes. i lie Santa Anita Oaks ARB and Arcadia's Planning Commission both felt that 1101 Sari Carlos, as currently designed, should not bebui|t |ftheCity�ound|aUomothi�tohappen,�wmu|dnoton|ycausehanntutheexistingneighborhood, ' N1 house with but seta truly precedent for future: a homeowner could tear . ' ' architectunereviewboards |�incere|yhopethe no oversight m homeowners' associations' � Arcadia City COUnCil Will Support Our neighborhoods and not allow this to happen. Thank you for your consideration. ' -- FrmMm. Julie Yuan-Lim Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:54 PM To� City Council Email Subject, Reg, 11.01 San Carlos' development To my dear Arcadia City Council members, My name is Julie Lim. I arn here to urge you (and hoping)that you would reject the development on 1101 San Carlos'. | have lived in the northern Arcadia in the past 1Oyears. | appreciate the beautiful tree line street during nny walk and bike around our northern neighborhood areas. There is something to say about the charms and traditional architectural characters that are just unique, beautiful and priceless. As someone who came from Taiwan, this is the kind of charms that we seek in the U.S. that just doesn't exist in Asia. VVe all know about the sprawl in the Los Angeles, it's very hard 1ofind these kind of traditional architectural character gems and streetscape in the Southern California. This is something truly special that | believe, asan Arcadian, we should try topreserve. Like our neighbor South Pasadena, vve should dothe sameio preserve and protect our city's from losing its priceless charm! As a proud homeowner myself, I understand the importance of the rights of homeownership and building one's dream home. At the same time, I also understand the importance of protecting the architectural characters of the neighborhood. This is another reason why the city had place resolutions by giving Architectural Review Board (ARB) the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of design for new developments. Around the area of the Santa Anita Oak, there just isn't any house/structure that is in the magnitude of over 10,000 square feet | truly believe this is a development that would open the flood gate to allow greedy developers to come into our city - building enormous monster homes. Asaresult, it will destroy our northern Arcadia neighborhood's charms and characters forever. T hiS project has been rejected by both the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the City's Planning Commission — which they are the gate keepers to protect and preserve our Arcadian's priceless architecture characters. | hope You would do the same to affirm ARB and City Planning Commission's decision to not allow the San Carlos' project to move forward until they revvork of the project with the 4R8. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Julie Lim Fromm, Jesse ChaU [MaL1tw*e -b Sent. MoAdoy, ]OA2 IU/ 2012 5:54 PM Tm: City Council Email Sub5,ect-: Public hearing -]une 19/ 7pm (1101 San Carlos St. Arcadia) Dear Councilmen, I live on 80 W. Orange Grove Ave,, and my name is Jesse Chau. Earlier I received this email from my local association (Santa Anita Oaks) regarding a house plan for 1101 San Carlos St., Arcadia. rnywU��asiceUyagreew�hthed�c�ionmyassoc��on and c�ydepa�n�entnnade. VVe think this house istoo Me and big (mansionized) homeowner and someone who had experience of building a in respect to its lot and the neighborhood. However, as house and working di the with the HOA and city government, I believe you bear the responsibility ofmore than just approve or disapprove building plans that homeowners submit. I think HOA and the city departments must clearly and reasonably state its reasons when deny a p|an. And when do so, word such as "mansionization" should follow by its definition as to a ratio (grass vs. building area) or something predefined other than simply judged by human visualization. �se on b d th size The reason is that all neighbors at Mansionizotiona|soc�nnc�bejudgeU the ' some point might have the ' desire to upgrade their houses to something bigger A single story house sits next to ours doesn't mean it will forever be this look, Obtaining signatures ers will do its fin� The HOA and the city should respect the decision fronnthesurrounU|ngUomaown ' neighboring homeowners make. . I also think that the HOA or the city departments should pair up with a architectural firm which homeowners can seek assistance or consult with bo get his plan approved upon being denied. The firm would act asa bridge between the HOA, city and homeowners. Homeowners often don't have any clue asto what style/look the HOA isseeking, Homeowners are not like HOA members who has the opportunities to see many house plans or the knowledge and background. Homeowners only know one thing ' that is to build the dream house he/she likes. It is easily someone goes back and forth many, many times to finally get his plan approved or never has the chance, And before that happens, he is not only unable to move back to his new house nor knowing when to expect his house built, he also suffers the burden financially of paying two ormore mortgages. In conclusion, wcdoagree with the decision you mode but please assist him tngo through the process till he gets his plan approved. Thank You for listening my comment and your time, eSn:Chau. 88W.Orari�e(�r0ve��ve,, Arcadia, Ca. 91006 From S-bil ley Chi fjLiailto., hLi le ind@ ,L- --y ,!�h�—_QL L Sent", Monday, June 181 2012 6:56 PN To: City Council En 7 a # Subject., Proposed house on 1 101 San Carlos Dear council members, I any a homeowner in the Oaks at 1215 Oaklawt? Rd. 1will not be able to attend the city council meeting regal-ding the large house that Is proposed at 1101 San Carlos, but I wanted to email you to voice my concern. My husband and I/ and n7any of our neighbors, disapprove of the excessively large house that is being proposed. In foct, I would be surprised If ANYONE in the Oaks area would be in favor of such a hulking house right at the entrance to our comInunity. What Is even more upsetting is that not only did we fight t h _ght ffils In our own h'0A and there e appeal to the Planning Gon7misslon, but now we have to tight it again at the City Council level a.s If the HOA did not even exist, If the city council decides to allow this owner to build AGAINST the wishes of the community, it not only undermines the HOA and Panning C-ol-nn7ission, but the entire, democratic nature of our society as well, Thank you for your attention on this matter, Best regards Shirley Chi, MD. Center for Advanced Dermatology, Inc, 301 W. Huntington Dr, Sulto 21-5 Al-caoia, CA 91007 Phone: (626) 446-4663 llvww, centerforadvanceddermat&Qy, con) From: Keppie Sullivan [mailto:ksullivanpausdr)et] Set-it., Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:34 AM To., City Council Email 5ubject- - concerns (for tonight's meeting) Dear City Council, Dave and I have lived in our Santa Anita Oaks home for 29 years and raised our three children here. Over the years, we have seen plans for extremely large houses and even fought against some of them to try and keep the neighborhood attractive and liveable for ALL the neighbors who live here. The home that is being proposed at 1101 San Carlos is neither compatible nor attractive in its massiveness. It will completely obliterate all green space on the lot and dwarf- the neighboring homes. Years ago when a large home was being proposed next door to our home at Oaklawn Rd, we went to the City Council meeting to express our concerns and Charlie Gilb mentioned that the scale of this home was too big for the lot saying: "it looks like me sitting on a toadstool!" We have never forgotten the wisdom of the City Council then and hope that you are similarly wise. Where does it end? How can the future buyers of these monster homes ever afford them. We will be, instead of a community of homes, a community of empty, rotting mansions that no one can afford to take care of and live in! thank, you for considering my request to deny this appeal, which� has already been denied by the SAOaks ARB and the Planning Commission, Keppie Sullivan From- Mike Wang [mailtowan �mike�31a�hQQ.Mml SentE Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:27 PM Toe City Council Email SubjecL, July 19 hearing on Appeal of ARB and Planning Commission Decision TO: Members of the City Council I ain a 25-year resident of Acadia and live in the Highlands area. I watched with interest your discussion concerning the appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks ARB and Planning Commission decision. You are to be corny - for the mam-ier in which you conducted the council meeting and the level of discussion, Messrs. Segal and Harbicht in particular voiced well-reasoned decisions that, while in opposition to each other, crystallized some of the key issues that were raised in the hearing. I thought the council's action to postpone the final decision was correct. I think the debate could have been improved by: 1) reminding the audience and participants of an old adage expressed in the US Senate some time ago, "you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". Staff is responsible for providing such information. 2) Council use of a staff-prepared and accurate rendering of the PLOT PLAN and elevations with reference to the difference between adherence to City code and guidelines. In my opinion, it seemed clear that the ARB representative became an advocate of the position rather than the decision. It became evident that it was more important to have their decision "affirmed" rather than getting to the "right" decision. Mr Harbict and Mr. Segal in many ways were both right. Our system of governance only works if the governed and the government understand their roles and their responsibilities. To me, many fogot that dynamic - and hence the ability to harmonize competing views was lost. I hope that, in the end, consensus can be reached But. failing that, the indivdual's right to develop their land in the way that they choose, must be given deference. Thank you for the opportunity. Mike Wang O --. O60L-9Y5 (9L9)xe.., N409-9YY (9Z4)leJ. ` T Q � ! n fi.,uu. id Ielluapl�oy c ONI 1vN011VNi13.1.N1 OVANVS y�i 3t Ct et:tr:c:tC �t f£? _ s F. }\ .3 W# H - a S i 8 'M en i5 s 1 a k q u � U Le' IND ® w z z U n C w x ' «n fn `U a�9 �� � t°d LID, 8 Jh e s S - c w � i 502 - H € ul C MCI 6 n£p Y (7 EYC i I 'k' � 3�� E` G 5= Y2 i Gr f - 0 k. gout e Ge5 g 3 .� oil 8e. =t r x $ c �� ".gv sag €s IS } o , a r d r e r R � vg sB {�6 fi a 3�es� � Ft w F § W C7 e��L �' plus; � �� �g¢ In d xp �S ! o Qa so�ziv.� ��S p W A4 I 46'ZYL M.OS.OL.ION w OD 0(fi >1 9t l M Lis k CN� I "fir ow 8 T a@ I � I Ili volvlovoolv y Sll 16 vo "1Y 0. la "ID SSZ o riuld C18 SC°t2 VO NVS M fTL i3i JtitifitV i0Rt1 s ' e "1NI` VNIN IHNNa. I. NI e� l kIw0, " " " � V ILI, �____.�..— _�d..�._ 060['964 I9Z9)xeJ�OTOB OTT I6Z9)1�1 - -� k1ry y, f'S i,.�r� >q}.y r ° a RuluuEld Ielluol,isay �' - " '(3d SO \kHH�JO �VV IWC.bS N a30 � C3 I J iisnOH AIIINV 90U tl rSeu-es 3 55 NN ox ,s s t�� u I IL._J L L_JI o O r____- _ -_ -_I IL- JIL - -1- 1 I `l__J _ L_ .Y Iloa- \t - � ilu - I I ' U 1 4 u• orz -- - - �� - - - - -- — L- 1 —- -- - - - -Yi � ZIT ,r 'W S' °8 Y00"-,9S V �Y ��e9IZJ 9 e1l1,�i1 e 5'3 ;;'Z V o 1V PPV J4lv 0O060UtL69V �,IPe�V'00 f' tl9Z) d j d J� h r,�l.luela l�o��l�ls•�a M SCgMM NVS M1, 'ONE WN011MAINI ° & H 3snOH AINVi BIONI Ins o14� -------- — --------- is w I 3 - -- - > I G o I CL CL i 4a^ ci LL v S n'—. Vn ON] IVN011MGINI O VoMovomv 'Mi SOIUVO NVS 606 RsnOH AINVJBIOMS O.L-V N19) - - M- (M) M 'ON1 IVNOIIVNHBINI OVANVS +�I- � z NM LL) milil"m '018 so-MV0 N W 4'alONIS asnOH,kjjYMV. zl T i ,121 z 0 LU -j ui w w vo,vi(3vovv ou SO'lz:lvo NVS MI '3NIIVHOIIVN831Hl 3snOHk'lMVJ TIONM ME! z 0 p w -j w w 0 ml, of �. Development Services Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: �, ,`Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Directoe" By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator,,,-, Prepared By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner d NUMNIVA BACKGROUND The subject property is a 26,_400 square foot lot. An aerial photo and photos of the subject property are attached. The subject property currently contains a 2,592 square- foot, one-story residence with an attached, two-car garage, a detached, two-car carport, and a swimming pool. On March 1, 2012, Mr. Robert Tong submitted architectural design concept plans to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for a 7,833 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence at 1101 San Carlos Road. On March 23, 2012, ARB Members Mr. Vince Vargas and Mr. Loren Brodhead met with Mr. Tong and provided comments on the HOA 12 -01, MA 12 -22, and THE 12-15 1101 San Carlos Road Jane 19, 2012 — Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION HOA 12-01, MA 12-22, and THE 12-15 1101 San Carlos Road June 19, 2012 — Page 4 of 5 there are no plans envisioned to widen Foothill Boulevard. Furthermore, the requester-4 setback is greater than that of the existing house, and of the setback of the residen across San Carlos Road to the east. However, due to the setbacks of the neighbori properties to the west that front on Foothill Boulevard, the street side yard setba should be consistent with the minimum front yard setback requirement of 35'-0". Prior to demolition the contractor and consulting arborist shall meet on site to make sure the protective fences are properly placed and installed, and to review the tree protection plan. Maintain the protective fences throughout the completion of the project. No staging of materials, or equipment, or washing-out is to occur within the fenced protected zones. All demolition, excavation, or grading within the driplines of the protected oak trees shall be done with hand tools and monitored by a consulting, certified arborist. Vegetation removal and ground preparation near Tree #1 shall be done with hanii tools and no rototilling or significant soil cultivation is to occur. * Supplemental irrigation will be required during construction. Monthly monitoring visits by a consulting, certified arborist shall include soil moisture evaluation. * The best management practices referenced in the arborist's report shall be utilized to protect the subject oak trees. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This project, a new, single-family residence in a residential zone, is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sectior 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. HOA 12-01, MA 12-22, and THE 12-15 1101 San Carlos Road June 19, 2012 — Page 5 of 5 FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have no significant fiscal impact on the City. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the appeal to overturn the Planning Commission decision, and approve the proposed design, Modification No. MA 12-22, and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 12-15, subject to the following conditions of approval: The proposed design shall be revised to provide a minimum 35-0" setback from the southerly street side property line and the revised design shall be subject to approval by Planning Services. 2. The applicant shall comply with all of the recommendations listed in the May 5, 2012, report from Certified Arborist, Mr. Michael Crane. 3. A certified arborist shall provide a written follow-up report to Planning Services to verify fulfillment of the conditions of approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ME=* Dominic Lazzareft# City Manager 101 San Carlos Road HOA 12-01 STREET VIEW FROM FOOTHILL BLVD TO SUBJECT PROPERTY I M � :� !i - �lill ��111�M!lff-4 RELOCATED INFRONT OF LIVING RM.- 4 vrn -ne v� v ao¢ s gal yes z j V VtQVs1JV l e[ Id I'nap N t j Y tr H !! -� � M x U His PI SS� � 5 ^! �x x �i out � sz r� 4's �'� o t fr'rr3�r 1 m s d x 6;ps as Y t �' � 5� � � gaa.4 sss:, b �� � a ���m��a� yen � �re � +�,.� e '�€�� .r_ list �� a �6: &y. � a �aNip 4t a x rf$ s5 3'nt ��� � ,/ 4 <. Q Lr nsk s� a-rZ �, E &'° - is m ._�. t 5 4 c s� 1M MA ¢x as L 1 f e azC��a Ln •' et a f� � g r s I x ant q z' a k ego � Y � � i�r e � � ��. d � � € �� �a Y U I � � z 4 t..j � e � 1 �� sk sz � ,,, ° LL H i I to a t r' y S� a Y SAM! ONE ud � � Ci s x I ray LU f iz a c �,L4�3 =F� C I gone - � §k�� "N wb�p �Y j y�'..ywy € 1 vi eciu'- d (J �GY� ea 3t,�AbFuaa �� i�ggE ey�� Impu k j amp o 0:11 �k 1 rile ��3�'4'�� � � C � _ o z o w w w f- z (" D oo i — 4p S617uVJ MV�S �6 E OOp0L6 b 91 .l —zl rn -rK.e ` j L_ € IN d y Ra*o oinks it 'y��,'J_ is _1 n f g � _ o z o w w w f- z (" D oo o.urst 1 z 1 's rle nr( )Int i '. b S'Il OOl bJ T" t ✓a5 L v°� vlovoNv o f VH c�iwxa�t i (WAM CiQF� �E 1Vt 7 i 7F ( �£ ol e ` t ���,o-t .✓ � t — �� t wun lm 5 t —YS�S . —_ ..___ -f I I I ! z„ _ 11 1 ____ wYl _TW91 I L_ J L_ J L_ CD I i I IL_J L_Ji__ 1 I ✓___._p_ �'�II I I W 1 .- I 1 1 li t I I I I I � I - "� •� , .� — I I I o [l I°a Id I III I I i, I I I 6 t 1 j ya fI 77. I L � li; F� ' I � OtlOt'9fV 19G9� l °9Y�8H VI9LO) A V,) V V J Vl �-q V V 3C! V 8V I v),Nv _ ma...ti g nawsh�w� -� �� ��n f ; — 1 I I FF - - -- — - -- q I t_ 4 u'. v -- .T- - -- - ------ -- - —I - Lll o I a II e a lie, " -- -- =19� T � 'd 11 0 z LU a.e I � i -_ Jttiinit%f�01J.VF�233J.hloz;; x ��1o�7` II .......... 7 'n k ^ 9 1 IA �luu y lI AAF�C- ta: �'� JC}�i��i''.� 1�V�'r I"�LG W 3 ! x O L 6u _. 3sno€I ),,iiI&� � M I'I I( 3 Jt i ii I F I� �a tr = 1 \ li' 11 if r �I I oll, ARM MIM oil I LU z 0 w U. 4-- 'ON SOINVO NVS 10" ?c,,r!0lH A-HIA oil It 011ILY M-L I ull. All L LH lit Fe'l 41 m VD VICIV06II/ cl, �ci S, c -i u V l41 VS 0 0 H IN i � I �4 P-( u '4, (m) xv ll f On) :-131 I'll �11 (gzg) �Xl I ZZ'g—t"t (",Z,)) "i'.31 �01 6 v 3 'OK'luvlv Kv�� I IUVO 90016 VD I ' " KvS v OV , jzfv 5L, 16 VI ' I 'OE Id a I _4 4111 j 509, HAWO � I,,, ��Tl L�AM OU S0,111VI) NIVS, [of I � I � J, I" I V1 ,'SV' 1100111) "Ki, I I A�'flOfl AlINIVA 'Fl9mis 8' J'J, i � I �4 P-( u '4, ,zn 3� e V F ffi I L H 0 -,j P L-1 El I E L -21 F= I El F--'] Ej F�l D S EF? I L--1 El ) Flo 0 O't 00 Is C.) i � I �4 P-( u '4, ,zn i � I �4 P-( u '4, 3� F 6 i � I �4 P-( u '4, F �Jr FILE NO. 1101 SC DATE SUBMITTED: 4/19/12 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD(COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1101 SAN CARLOS RD. B. PROPERTYOWNER: HOURING BAGHDADLAIN ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT): 82 W.PALM DRIVE, ARCADIA, CA 91007 C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, provide a written explanation for each check). The proposed construction materials ARE , ARE NOT, compatible with the existing materials, because N/A 2. The proposed materials WILL, WILL NOT, have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because N/A rr/ 3. The proposed projec QORNER IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of way, because IS LOT V""4. The proposed projec IS S NOT, significantly visible from the adjoining properties, because Or— HEIGH ND SCALE DIFFERENCES 5. The elements of the structure's design ARE, ARE NOT, consistent with the existing building's design, because N/A 1/ 6. The proposed project IS IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvemen s on other properties in the neighborhood, because _ ISAMi+— DUE TO MASS, SCALE AND COMPATIBILITY ISSUES V 7. The location of the proposed projec IL , WILL NOT, be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacen perty and neighborhood, because W*rL — COMPATIBLITY ISSUES 8. The proposed project's setbacks DO, DO NOT, provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because N/A ✓9. OTHER FINDINGS: OVERALL THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN RESOLUTION 6770 IN REGARDS TO MASS, SCALE, COMPATIBILITY, AND STREETSCAPE ISSUES D. ACTION: APPROVAL: APPROVAL subject to the following condition(s):_ DENIAL: PROPOSAL IS DENIED E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION: 04/19/12 F. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBERS) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION: LOREN BRODHEAD , GARY DORN, JESSICA LOUIE, RAY RIORDAN, VINCE VARGAS G. REPRESENTING: THE SANTA ANITA OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. H. APPEALS Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements, fees and procedures. Said' appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Offices, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, within seven (7) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval. shall become null and void and of no effect. i i +f W , � D � OC - �o ' J 1 mac, � a i w W Q ,J Cl) a o TM i ?roc �Q In i In . -.:... ,....,�. Feu P T h tlA Y -Olt � �. k q` 3 •� : :per{ ~ ~ � , Y r 4a�: .t1 sir ,t • ,t: ti' °. S` ..wig^ S Ju 4 "I r. rt j4, ;'��.�Ira j ,, 1 „ �,, .. ~� �.� 2�� � � . . . � 2 \�� »2� : . � . . , �� -�. � �_� � � � �� . �� .� � � \\ .. �. � y \,\ a y y .: . . � >. . . . . . � � . � . . ?.d 7� yi » � d 2 ` � \ .� d ?� � <� { ƒ� . . � »^ �. ��.\ � \ .. � �� � / \ \� � \ � ° �: ` w «� ° ? ~� ^° w ?d y. a v .� � . . a : J � . . ?d ^ ©� .d \� \� \� \� ��w� \ \���.� /��� . .d \<\ a2 <� � \ :^ � . <\ � � � 2yd22 «.\\2\� � ~ SANTA ANITA OAKS STREET ADDRESS MASS COMPARISON House Number Street Name Structure I Mass 1100 San Carlos Rd 3,215 1101 San Carlos Rd 2,592 1111 San Carlos Rd, 2,497 1112 San Carlos Rd 2,723 1120 San Carlos Rd 3,111 1121 San Carlos Rd 2,630 1131 San Carlos Rd 2,565 1201 San Carlos Rd 3,197 1215 San Carlos Rd 2,039 1223 San Carlos Rd 4,415 1231 San Carlos Rd 3,223 1111 San Carlos Rd 3,926 1304 San Carlos Rd 2,431 1309 San Carlos Rd 3,055 1310 San Carlos Rd 3,124 1315 San Carlos Rd 2,653 1318 San Carlos Rd 3,101 1321 San Carlos Rd 2,289 1326 San Carlos Rd 1,847 1329 San Carlos Rd 5,351 1334 San Carlos Rd 2,600 1335 San Carlos Rd 2,596 1344 San Carlos Rd 3,264 1400 San Carlos Rd 2,842 1409 San Carlos Rd 2,845 1410 San Carlos Rd 2,759 1419 San Carlos Rd 5,465 1420 San Carlos Rd 3,009 1427 San Carlos Rd 2,720 1428 San Carlos Rd 2,068 1433 San Carlos Rd 2,593 1434 San Carlos Rd 2,629 1440 San Carlos Rd 2,035 1441 San Carlos Rd 2,916 1445 San Carlos Rd 2,883 1446 San Carlos Rd 2,379 Average: 2,933 - - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK - - COPY OF EMAIL RECEIVED BY ARB CHAIRMAN REGARDING PUBLIC HEARING —1101 SAN CARLOS DATED 4/17/12 Dear Loren, We have reviewed the renderings for the proposed house on San Carlos and Foothill and would like to comment to you. The proposed home is clearly not consistent in mass and scale to the established homes in The Santa Anita Oaks. There are many large homes built in The Oaks the last ten years that are consistent in mass and scale to the existing homes. We hope the Architectural Review Board and numerous Arcadia residents can present our concerns in opposition to the mansionization of our lovely city. Thank you, Suzanne M. Barnes 44 year resident of 557 Gloria Road 626.355.3882 I are. 1 From: Shirley Chi To: lbrodhead @earthlink.net Date: 4/18/2012 10:08:52 PM Subject: Proposed house on 1101 San Carlos Dear Loren, I am a homeowner in the Oaks at 1215 Oaklawn Rd. I will not be able to attend the public meeting regarding the large house that is proposed at 1101 San Carlos, but I wanted to email you to voice my concern. My husband and I, and many of our neighbors, disapprove of the excessively large house that is being proposed. We feel that the plans should be returned to the architect and that a home with a footprint no larger than about 3500 sq ft should be built in that size lot. I would be surprised if ANYONE in the Oaks area would be in favor of such a hulking house right at the entrance to our community. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Best regards Shirley Chi, M.D. Center for Advanced Dermatology, Inc. 301 W. Huntington Dr., Suite 215 Arcadia, CA 91007 Phone: (626) 446 -4663 www. centerforadvanceddermatology .com file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator \Local Settings \Temp \ELPD3.tmp 4/19/2012 agV. From: Rich Harmel To: lrodhead @earthlink.net Date: 4/18/2012 7:33:24 PM Subject: Proposed Additions at 1101 San Carlos Road, Arcadia Mr. Brodhead, We live up the street from the location where the proposed 7,833 square foot home would be located at the corner of Foothill Blvd and San Carlos Road. The sheer size of such a structure, combined also with what I understand to be an additional 2,133 square feet of other additions, is out of character for our neighborhood relative to other properties in terms of style, size and, frankly, sheer bulk. Additionally, allowing such a sizable structure to be built in the Oaks would potentially encourage other speculative projects of this type and size in our neighborhood, resulting negatively in our neighborhood's character and charm and overall appeal. Please consider our position on this matter during tomorrow's meeting at City Hall as this proposal is deliberated. Thank You, Rich and Dianne Harmel. 1407 Oaklawn Place Arcadia, CA 91006 626- 355 -0198 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator \Local Settings \Temp \0210D160- 8BE1... 4/19/2012 i COPY OF EMAIL RECEIVED BY ARB MEMBER REGARDING PUBLIC HEARING — 1101 SAN CARLOS DATED 4/17/12 Vince, I have gone to look at the land on San Carlos many times. I have had, in hand, the information that was sent to us. I have even talked to some of the neighbors on the block. This is just another effort to change the look of the Oaks. The home that is proposed is way too large. My property is an acre with a wide frontage. That home would look ridiculous on my property. There seems to be no halting of the invasion of our neighborhood. This is not good "change." For some reason, these developers seem to think they can railroad anything through the city they deem profitable. I am totally against the development of this property. What happened to remodeling existing property? This is illegal in San Marino, Pasadena, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, etc. Why it is happening here? Our city looks like a bunch of mismatches now. We are a laughingstock. I cannot attend Thursday evening, but I will support you in any way that I can. Linda Semain From: Michael Stewart To: lbrodhead @earthlink.net Date: 4/18/2012 2:51:12 PM Subject: 1101 San Carlos Hi this note is concerning the proposed new construction at 1101 San Carlos Rd. It is our opinion that the size and bulk is too large and we would not like to see this type of residence in this neighborhood. Sincerely, Maurice and Berverly Stewart 1212 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia file://C:\Documents and Settings \HP_Administrator \Local Settings \Temp \9CE7B4C8- D54... 4/19/2012 THOMAS PATMCH BECK April 17, 2012 Mr. Loren Brodhead 261 Arbolada Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Re: 1101 San Carlos Road Arcadia Dear Mr. Brodhead: I will not be able to attend the Architectural Review Board Hearing on April 19, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. I have a previous commitment with Methodist Hospital that begins at the same time. I have visited the site of this proposed construction and walked the general area to observe possible impact on adjoining neighbors. I have also carefully reviewed the submitted plans. First, I do not believe that the proposed square footage, 7,833 square feet, is inappropriate given that the lot is 27,412 square feet. My home at 236 Hacienda has approximately the same square footage and approximately the same size lot. Of course, all of the homes in the Oaks were at one time between 2,500 and 3,500 square feet. Modern homes are now approximately the square footage of the proposed construction at 1101 San Carlos Road. Second, the revised front elevation is superior to the initial proposal and is quite attractive. In summary, this proposed new single - family dwelling would be a wonderful addition to the Oaks. I am casting my vote in favor of this proposed construction. Very truly yours, Dictated by not read, sent in writer's absence to avoid delay THOMAS PATRICK BECK TPB /ddr P.S. Enclosed is an article from the April 16, 2012, Pasadena Star News. SANTA ANITA OAKS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES APRIL 19, 2012 7:00 PM In attendance (ARB) Loren Brodhead, Interim Chairman Vince Vargas Ray Riordon Gary Dorn Jessica Louie Applicant Houring Baghdadlain Owner Robert Tong Architect Location 1101 San Carlos Rd Arcadia, CA 91006 Purpose: To review proposed structure at above address. Others in attendance: Approximately 14 neighbors living in the Santa Oaks 2 Baghdadlain daughters A presentation regarding the project was given by Robert Tong. In addition several neighbors asked questions of Robert Tong and Houring Baghdadlain. Of the neighbors who spoke, (approximately 7) there was not one who was in favor of the project. The main reasons for objecting was the massiveness of the project along with the belief that it was not compatible with other homes in the vicinity. Letters /e -mails addressed to the board were read. Five were against the project, one was in favor. A vote of the ARB members present was taken. All five voted against the project. The main reasons were excessive mass, not harmonious with other homes in the neighborhood and incompatibility with homes in the vicinity. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM Respectfully submitted, Loren Brodhead Interim Chairman 4 -23 -2012 SANYAO IN' cNATIONAL INC. RESIDENT IAL PLANNING 255 E. Santa Clara St. 9 200 Tel (626) 446-8048 Arcadia, CA 91006, U.S.A fax (626) 446 -7090 Email. sanyao888 @aol com April 26, 2012 City of Arcadia Planning Department 240 W Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 RE: 1101 San Carlos Road, Arcadia, CA `. Dear Mr. Jim Kasama, I am writing this letter to appeal the San Anita Oaks Association's decision for denial of architectural design review of 1101 San Carlos Road, Arcadia, CA. The denial is based on ARB's findings (see Attached Architectural Review Board Findings and Actions).File No: 1101 SC. I do not agree with the ARB's decision in the findings. This proposed house is designed based on both the Arcadia design guidelines for single family residence and Resolution No. 6770 which was approved and adopted by the City. In fact, this proposed residence is significantly smaller in size than the maximum allowed per City code requirement. Sincerely, Robert Tong, Appficant President/ SANYOA International, Inc. APR 5 2012 ofe.eiri' No. lo-,;966 piar rise 6,01vices City of Arcadia �`,. .L 2a_ I Sy,! iifiMMMIII f� •k �- z' - ... t+� "mot ` 4 t y t �l[ F� tFi P` iC R I r< 'p!o sd t a.: v w s sy. m ,? i .3 't y � y 'w , AYy 4� a .L 2a_ I Sy,! iifiMMMIII f� •k �- z' - ... t+� "mot ` 4 t y t �l[ F� tFi P` iC R I r< 'p!o sd t a.: v w s sy. m ,? i 41 a a� oa� o� �b Cd 0 .0 404 Ord cad � b uIV a Cd `d Cd P. 5 a0 b wa vo, 0 cd Cd oCd 4j e-q Teel�a 4 4J 0 .i y 0 t? :O a a. "4J Cd a � o ,o a a erg a a� Cd Cd Q' 0 rV sly w-Vo N-�IS' q � U V lz Al v zl s � �l s •s h, L Q •d � r o � rV sly w-Vo N-�IS' - - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK - - Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1101 San Carlos Road Arcadia 91006 Prepared For: Robert Tong Sanyao International, Inc. 255 E. Santa Clara Street, #200 Arcadia, CA 91006 Tel: (626) 446 -8048 Fax: (626) 446 -7090 Email: Sanyao888 @aol.com Prepared By: Michael Crane Arbor Care, Inc. P.O. Box 51122 Pasadena, CA 91115 Tel: (626) 737 -4007 Fax: (626) 737 -4007 Email: info @arborcareinc.net May 2012 in Table of Contents Summary of Data .................. ............................... 1 Background and Purpose of Report ... ............................... 1 Project Location, Description and Tree Ordinance ....................... 2 Observations & Analysis ............ ............................... 4 Individual Protected Trees- encroachments and impacts ....... 4 Protected Tree Evaluation Matrix ........................ 5 Findings..... .................... ............................... 6 Further Recommendations .. ........ ............................... 6 Appendix A - Photos ................ ............................... 7 Appendix B — Construction Impact Guideline ........................... 9 Author's Certifications .............. ............................... 15 Certification of Performance ........... ............................... 16 Topographic Site Plan ......... ............................... Pocket at back Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 SUMMARY OF DATA Total number of live Protected Trees on property including street trees located in the adjacent public right -of -way area ..................... Total number of off -site Protected Trees with canopies (driplines) encroaching onto the property ................................... Total number of dead or nearly dead Protected Trees on site ........... 0 Total number of live Protected Trees to be preserved ................... 2 Total number of live protected trees to be removed .................... 0 Total number of protected trees to be relocated to on -site locations ....... 0 Total number of protected trees to be impacted by construction within dripline (encroached) .......................... 2 Total number of live protected trees with no dripline encroachments ...... 0 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE I was retained by the Architect and Project Manager, Mr. Robert Tong, of Sanyao International, Inc. Arcadia to be the consulting arborist for the planned redevelopment of the property located at 1101 San Carlos Rd., Arcadia. There is a Protected Tree located on site and one encroaching over the property from the neighboring property. The proposed construction may impact the trees and this report will serve to both notify the City of Arcadia Planning Department of the extent of the potential impacts as well as to inform the builder of the proper protection measures which must be taken in order to preserve it. As part of my preparation for this report I made a site visit to the property on May 4, 2012. I met with Mr. Tong at that time to view and discuss the proposed construction plans as they relate to the preservation of the Protected Tree. 1 A. Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 PROJECT LOCATION, DESCRIPTION & TREE ORDINANCE i r #rvrr J,Oe- The property is located at 1101 San Carlos Road in the City of Arcadia. It is at the northwest corner of Foothill Blvd and San Carlos Rd. Above map courtesy of Mopquest. com. The property consists of a single family residence which appears to be in fair condition. The existing residence will be demolished and a new home built in its place. The footprint of the new home will larger than that of the existing house and will be two stories. The home's footprint will not encroach within the dripline and pruning of the live crown will not be required to accommodate the design of the roofline. The landscape on the property is in poor condition and will be redesigned. A block wall fence will be constructed within the dripline of the off -site Protected Tree but will not encroach within the Tree Protected Zone (TPZ) which is calculated from the trunk diameter. A wrought iron fence set on concrete pilasters will be built within the street tree oak, but this too will not encroach within the determine TPZ. Irrigation, landscape lighting and new plants will be installed near the tree as well. Aerial view on the next page (courtesy of Google maps) shows the approximate property lines and locations of Protected Trees. Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 C� .......,..r.... _..�... � __ _.jam: This aerial view (courtesy of Google Maps) has been illustrated to show the approximate boundary lines (orange). The driplines of the Protected Trees are outlined in yellow. City of Arcadia. Tree Ordinance and Santa Anita Oaks Homeowner's Association Resolution On January 21, 1992 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1962 recognizing oak trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources and establishing criteria for the preservation of oak trees. The regulations (Chapter 7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code) provide that the following oak trees shall not be removed, relocated, damaged, or have their protected zones encroached upon unless an Oak Tree Permit is granted. Engelmann Oaks (Quercus engelmannii) or Coast Live Oak, California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) which have a trunk diameter larger than four (4) inches measured at a point four and one half (4 %2) feet above the crown root, or, two (2) or more trunks measuring three (3) inches each or greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one half (4 %2) feet above the crown root. Any other living oak tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve (12) inches measured at a point four and one half (41/2) feet above the crown root, or, two (2) or more trunks measuring ten (10) inches each or greater in diameter measured a t a point four and one half (41/2) feet above the crown root. 3 Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS Refer to Site Plan located in pocket at back of this report, matrix on page 5, and Photos in Appendix A, page 7 Individual Protected Trees- encroachments and impacts Tree # 1: Engelmann oak - 18" DBH: Located in the front yard right -of -way setback area. Encroachments will be from landscape elements such as irrigation, lighting, etc.; The use of drip type irrigation will eliminate the requirement of excavation and all irrigation and lighting wires can be routed well clear of the trunk. Existing groundcover ivy growing on the root collar and trunk will be removed and drought tolerant plants appropriate for use under native oaks will be installed. Existing low block walls with continuous footings will remain near the tree and a wrought iron fence set on concrete pilasters will be built ten feet from the trunk but beyond the existing walls. The wrought iron fence is expected to cause little or no impact and all potential impacts will occur from clearing of the existing vegetation and landscape renovations, but impacts can be minimized to a tolerable 1 No significant roots are expected to be encountered and no pruning of the live crown is required. Tree # 2: Engelmann oak - 32" DBH: Located off -site on the property directly to the north Encroachment will occur from the construction of a new property line fence. The property line fence will be built as a block wall with a continuous footing and will come as close as 20 feet from the trunk. This distance is well beyond a typical TPZ which can be determined by multiplying the trunk diameter by five if excavation is to occur on only one side which will be the case for this project. Using this formula an adequate TPZ is the area 14 feet from the trunk. No significant roots are expected to be encountered and no pruning of the live crown is required. M �SN a� o a 0 rn U 44 N � y U 134 9 O O F b" 1 Id o o p ° O a� 2 a� -d orb c O, B o n c c� O u 3b gM� 0 79 V .�> o Z o� r'' W .�a�`b � c� W 'cl U O a o p °� VI G 4. N aa3N.cs w cn X I— g Q LL H Q LL ck C Fu - u C 0 a u W 0 0 LJ `i W �W 0 O a PC A e� as z PC CO A dA W Ln pape wl eq ol s400i le.m}oni }s }ueogiu6lS z z Z z panowaa aq o} o v 0 v w Q ssew poi 10 % paIewllsg ui painseew) Nuns; }o aseq o 0 ui Q(1991 Kw04 u011eneoxa 10 juwod isesolo r' N w an000 Ipm uolWneoxa 99J4 10 sapls }o jagwnN r (segoul ul painseew) }no Q IR zo}. pailnbai ise6jel 10 �a4awela Z z �Z Ix z u W %OC •. ce J lin °f 0 •. •. ON a6e1lo j esiedS -J Z Ailne0 Nunjl x caj Noegala walsulelN Noegala 6iMl z a v 6ululloaa aelloo }oob paling X I s c9 ti4awwAS c14 � A4lwjoiuoo /s314a4jsay Nt � Qz cc uIleaH M M (4991) peaads M �46iaH r°� Lo � N (paNuni4! }inw) H84 Nunjl 00 M N 5 y W cca EE ca E Wo Wco co N39wnN 33HI a u W 0 0 LJ `i W �W 0 O a PC A e� as z PC CO A dA W Ln Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 FINDINGS As with many construction projects, soil compaction is the most preventable impact that will need to be monitored in order to provide reliable protection and long -term preservation of the tree. Roots are distributed in the top several inches of soil. It is important to keep in mind that they require air just as much as they require water and nutrients for proper growth and survival. Compaction of the pore or air space in the soil eliminates the soil's structure and it's conduciveness for root growth. To prevent unnecessary soil compaction a protective fence must be installed around the Protected Tree before any demolition occurs. The goal is to enclose the largest possible amount of space underneath the tree so that the heavy equipment required for demolition and construction can be routed away from root zone. The recommended fence placement is drawn in a dashed line on the Site Plan of this report. Refer to the Construction Impacts and Guidelines provided in Appendix B for important general preservation measures concerning the different elements of this project. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS • Prior to demolition the contractor and consulting arborist shall meet on site to make sure the fence is properly placed and installed and to review the goals for the tree protection plan. The location of the protective fence is drawn with a dashed line on the Site Plan included in this report. • Maintain the fence throughout the completion of the project. No staging of materials or equipment or washing -out is to occur within the fenced protected zone. • All demolition, excavation or grading within the dripline of the Protected Tree shall be done with hand tools and monitored by the consulting arborist. Note that the dripline is larger than the fenced protection zone. • Vegetation removal and ground preparation near Tree #1 shall be done with hand tools and no rototilling or significant soil cultivation is to occur. • Supplemental irrigation will be required during construction. Monthly monitoring visits by the consultant will include soil moisture evaluation • Refer to Protected Tree Construction Impact Guidelines in Appendix B of this report for detailed information regarding the best management practices for tree preservation. 0 Ar Y� t� r 4� t Y� a ABOVE: Tree #2, Engelmann oak located on the neighboring property directly to the north. block wall fence with a continuous footing will be built on the property line to replace the existing chain link and wood fence. within 20 feet of the trunk which is tolerable to the tree Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 12 Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 APPENDIX B - Protected Tree Construction Impact Guidelines Size and Distribution of Tree Roots — Taken from Arboriculture, Inte rg ated Management of Landscape Trees Shrubs and Vines. Harris, R.W., Clark, J.W., Matheny N.P. Prentice Hall 2004. Roots of most plants, including large trees, grow primarily in the top meter (3 ft) of soil (see figure below). Most plants concentrate the majority of their small absorbing roots in the upper 150 mm (6 in.) of soil if the surface is protected by a mulch or forest litter. In the absence of a protective mulch, exposed bare soil can become so hot near the surface that roots do not grow in the upper 200 to 250 mm (8 to 10 in.). Under forest and many landscape situations, however, soil near the surface is most favorable for root growth. In addition, roots tend to grow at about the same soil depth regardless of the slope of the soil surface. Although root growth is greatly influenced by soil conditions, individual roots seem to have an inherent guidance mechanism. Large roots with vigorous tips usually grow horizontally. Similar roots lateral to the large roots grow at many angles to the vertical, and some grow up into the surface soil. However, few roots in a root system actually grow down. Depth I D 1 2 3 6 In metbrs 0 O's 1.0 1.5 FIGURE In mature tress, the taproot is either lost or reduced in sine. The vast majority of the root system is composed ofhorizcintaliy 4rithted lateral roots. 9 J Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 The importance of soil Soil supports and anchors tree roots and provides water, minerals and oxygen. Furthermore, soil is a habitat for soil microorganisms that enhance root function. A soil's ability to sustain tree growth is largely determined by its texture, structure (bulk density), organic matter, water and mineral content, salinity, aeration, and soil - microbe abundance and diversity. Soil physical properties Soil texture — the relative proportion of sand, silt and clay, is important because it affects water — and nutrient - holding capacity, drainage and aeration (gaseous diffusion). Soil structure is the arrangement of individual soil particles into clumps (aggregates). The net result is the formulation of larger voids between the aggregates which serve as channels for gaseous diffusion, movement of water and root penetration. Unfortunately, soil aggregates are readily destroyed by activities that compact the soil (increase bulk density). When this occurs, gaseous exchange, permeability, drainage and root growth are restricted. The influence of the organic matter content of soil properties is quiet significant. Its decomposition by soil organisms releases substances that bind soil particles into larger granules, which improves both soil aeration, and drainage. In essence, the breakdown of organic matter improves water — and nutrient - holding capacity and reduces bulk density. Furthermore, it is the primary source of nitrogen and a major source of nitrogen and a major source of phosphorus and sulfur. Without organic matter soil organisms could not survive and most biochemical processes in the soil would cease. Soil aeration, the movement and the availability of oxygen, is determined by both soil texture and structure. In general, compacted and finer soils, due to a higher proportion of small pore spaces (micropores), tend to drain slowly and hold less air than coarser, sandy, or well - structured find soils. Water retained in the small pores displaces oxygen and inhibits gaseous diffusion. The availability of soil water is largely determined by the size of the pore spaces between the soil particles and the larger aggregates in which water is held. Most of the water in the larger pore spaces drains readily due to gravitational forces. A relatively thin film of water, which is readily available to plant roots, remains following drainage. Much of water held within the smaller pore spaces resists uptake by plant roots because it is held tightly on the soil surfaces. Plant roots require an adequate supply of oxygen for development. Injury or dysfunction results when oxygen availability drops below a critical level. Root respiration is the first process to be restricted, followed by disruptions in growth, metabolism, nutrient and water uptake, and photosynthesis. Furthermore, the accumulation of high levels of carbon dioxide, produced by the roots during respiration can also impair root function. Reduced soil aeration resulting from soil compaction, flooding, excess irrigation, or 10 Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 impervious pavement favors the development of crown rot (Phytophthora root disease). It also inhibits mycorrhizal fungi that enhance water and nutrient uptake and resist root pathogens. The forest floor under a canopy in most undeveloped forests and woodland settings is typically covered by a layer of fallen leaves and other woody debris. It is usually cool, shady, well- aerated, and relatively moist — conditions that favor normal root growth. When the natural leaf litter is removed and when a tree's lower canopy is pruned up to provide clearance, the absorbing roots in the upper few inches of the soil experience higher soil temperatures and increased desiccation due to direct�exposure to sunlight. Minimizing the Effects of Construction and Development on Tree Root Systems Activities that injure roots or adversely affect the root zone should be avoided or kept as far from the trunk as possible. Design changes or alternative building practices that avoid or minimize construction - related impacts should be considered and proposed when applicable. Soil Compaction Soils are intentionally compacted under structures, sidewalks, reads, parking areas, and load- bearing fill to prevent subsidence, and to prevent soil movement on slopes. Although unintentional, soil within the root zone of trees is often compacted by unrestricted foot traffic, parking of vehicles, operation of heavy equipment, and during installation of fill. Compaction destroys the soil's natural porosity by eliminating much of the air space contained within it. It leaves the soil hardm impenetrable and largely unfavorable for root growth. The soil's natural porosity, which allows for water movement and storage, gaseous exchange, and root penetration, is greatly reduced. Consequently, root growth and tree health suffer. Soil compaction is best managed by preventing it. Bulk density is used to describe a soil's porosity, or the amount of space between soil particles and aggregates. High bulk densities indicate a low percentage of total pore space. Pavement Paving over the root systems of trees is another serious problem because it reduces the gaseous diffusion and soil moisture. Most paving materials are relatively impervious to water penetration and typically divert water away from a tree's root zone. Cracks and expansion joints do, though, allow for some water infiltration into the soil below. Of greater concern, is the loss of roots from excavation to achieve the required grade, and the necessary compaction to prevent subsidence. Once the soil surface is compacted, a base material is then added and compacted as well. With that done, the surface can then be paved. Thus, pavement within the root zones of trees can damage roots and create unfavorable soil conditions. One alternative to minimize pavement impacts is to consider placing the pavement on the natural grade over a layer of minimally compacted base 11 Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 material. To reduce sub -grade compaction, consider using reinforced concrete or asphalt over a goetextile blanket to help stabilize the soil. On -grade patios or paving that covers more than one -third of the tree protection zone (TPZ) should be constructed using permeable materials that allow aeration and water penetration. Soil inder permeable surfaces should not be compacted to more than 80 percent. Excavation and root pruning Excavation within the root zones of trees should be avoided as much as possible. The extent of root pruning (selective) or cutting (non - selective) should be based on the species growth characteristics and adaptive traits, environmental conditions, age, health, crown size, density, live crown ration and structural condition of the tree. The timing of the root pruning or cutting is another important consideration. Moderate to severe root loss during droughts or particularly hot periods can cause serious water - deficit injury or death. When root pruning/ cutting is unavoidable, roots should be pruned or cut as far from the trunk as possible. Cutting roots on more than one side of a tree should also be avoided. Root cutting extending more than half -way around a tree should generally be no closer than about 10 times the trunk diameter. Recommended distances range from as little as 6 times trunk diameter (DBH) for young trees to 12 times trunk diameter for mature trees. The size of the TPZ should, however, be increased for over mature and declining trees and species that are sensitive to root loss. The minimum distance from the trunk that roots can be cut on one side of the tree without destabilizing it, is a distance equal to about three times the diameter (DBH) of the trunk. Roots severed within that distance provide little or no structural support. Root pruning or cutting distances from the trunk should be greater for trees that lean and/ or those growing on shallow or wet soil. In cases where the proposed grading will adversely affect trees designated for retention, special attention should be given to proper root pruning and post - construction care for injured trees. Where structural footings are required for foundations, retaining walls, etc., and roots larger than 2 inches in diameter will be impacted, consider design changes or alternative building methods. When excavation within 5 times trunk diameter is unavoidable, roots greater than 1 '/2 inches in diameter should be located prior to excavation and then pruned to avoid unnecessary damage. Hand - digging or use of a hydraulic or pneumatic soil excavation tool is the least disruptive way to locate roots for pruning. Although mechanical root pruners make clean cuts, they are non - selective. A backhoe bucket, dozer blade or trencher will typically pull, rip or shatter the larger root, causing additional damage toward the tree. Once the roots that interfere with the structure being built, e.g., foundations, footings, retaining wall, curbs, etc., are exposed, they should then be cut perpendicular to their long axis using a hand -saw, `carbide- tipped chainsaw' or sharp ax, depending on size. Roots that are pruned in this manner typically regenerate new roots from near the cut. Roots exposed by excavation should be protected from exposure to 12 Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 sun and desiccation. Exposed roots that can not be covered with soil by the end of the day should be covered with moistened burlap or similar material. Roots can generally be cut in a non - selective manner when excavating near of beyond the dripline. Ripped, splintered or fractured portions of roots however, should be re -cut. The damaged portion should be removed using sharp tools. The cut should be flat across the root with the adjacent bark intact. Wound dressings should not be applied to pruned or damaged roots except when recommended for disease, insect or sprout control. The best approach to avoid water - deficit injury following root loss during the growing season is to provide ample irrigation. Irrigation should be considered prior to, during, and after root pruning. Watering schedules should also consider local soil conditions, climate, topography, time of year, species adaptability, extent of root pruning and tree health. If possible, irrigate the tree 7 to 10 days prior to excavation so that there is an adequate reservoir of soil water. Water can be delivered to large construction sites via water -tank trucks and applied directly to affected trees or stored nearby in plastic tanks. On relatively flat terrain, a 6 to 8 inch soil berm at the tree's dripline should be constructed to act as a watering basin. On steep terrain, soaker hoses should be used. They can be placed across the slope or spirally around the trunk, from about six feet away to the dripline. In addition, a two to four inch layer of wood chip mulch should be applied to as much of the root zone as possible to retard soil water loss. Pruning foliage to compensate for root loss is not supported by scientific research and likely to result in slower recovery. Fertilization to stimulate root growth is generally unwarranted and may be counterproductive. Trenching within the Tree Protection Zone Trenching for underground utilities should be routed around the TPZ. When this is unavoidable, trenching within the TPZ should be done by `hand' or using a pneumatic or hydraulic soil excavation tool, carefully working around larger roots. Roots larger than 1 '/2 inches in diameter should not be cut. Dig below these roots to route utilities or install drains. A combination of tools can also produce satisfactory results, for example, a skillful backhoe operator under the arborist's supervision can dig down several inches at a time and detect larger roots by `feel' (resistance). At that point, as assistant can expose the root and dig around it. In this manner, the backhoe can then continue extending the trench though the TPZ. Tunneling (boring) through the TPZ is the preferable alternative. For most large trees, tunneling depth should be at least 36 inches. Tunneling should begin at the edge of the TPZ, but no closer than a distance equal to one foot of clearance for each inch of tree DBH. Tunnels should also be offset to either side of the trunk. For trenching that extends only part way into TPZ, consider trenching radially to the tree trunk, as this is less harmful than tangential trenching. All trenches made within the TPZ should be backfilled as quickly as possible to prevent root and soil desiccation. 13 Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 Managing Root Injured Trees Root - prunded trees should be monitored for symptoms of water - deficit injury for a specified period following root pruning. Irrigation should be considered prior to, during, and after root pruning. Irrigation schedules should consider local soil conditions, climate, topography, time of year, species tolerance, extent of root pruning and tree health. Grade Change: Fill Soil Fill soil placed within the root zones of trees can have an adverse effect, particularly if the soil is compacted to support a structure or pavement. Soil compaction reduces aeration and water infiltration. Fill soil, die to textural changes, can also prevent water from penetrating the original soil layer below where the roots are. Furthermore, soil placed against the root crown and lower trunk can lead to root disease problems, especially if the soil near the trunk remains moist during the summer from irrigation. Alternatives to placing fills over roots zones shall be considered and proposed as appropriate. 14 Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 AUTHOR'S CURRENT CREDENTIALS They Amen( (w .`1)cw1v Ol ( Vilf)ritir� Michael Crane, RCA #440 We, ngr 31111'nwifiaw �OCIP.t" Of Z(dV>'CCUIt " C. �3oarb - Certifieb ;fflater Z(rbori!9t Viclza¢G 0 Crane 9ljaatne surtrssiullP co3nplefrD the requfren]ents s01 by 14r 2rbarim Crrtlfuauo] 0110TD of Mr Bnternaltonal iodetr of Blrburnulli rr. the abobe OHIO is liere6n retaaninib as an 36M alcarb- CMtBeb Blaster e"irLarisl (IS 1 !"trtrrbW 1u1tp MllArrkWUrr WE -06430 Nav a 2006 Dec 31 2012 �., J Jr r.lemenM f]ueen Gnule •uur ew�rriun BUr do DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION I pr LICENSING /CERTFICATION PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTROL ADVISER LICENSE DATE OF ISSUE VA LID THROUGH 01/01/2011 12/3112012 PCA 75893 ABCDEFG MICHAEL J CRANE PO BOX 51122 PASADENA CA 91115 15 Protected Tree Report: Survey, Encroachment and Protection Plan 1101 San Carlos Rd. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. May 2012 CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE I, Michael Crane, certify that: • I have personally inspected the tree(s) and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. • I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts. • My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. • No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. • My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party not upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of Horticulture in a full -time capacity for a period of more than 15 years. Signed:_ Registered Consulting Arborist #440; American Society of Consulting Arborist Board Certified Master Arborist WE 6643B; International Society of Arboriculture Licensed California Agricultural Pest Control Adviser #AA08269 r / (,��� Date: r morn Vk 16 May 5, 2012 �, 70�_�O_ `b S TAFF REPORT Development Services Department May 22, 2012 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 12 -01, Modification No. MA 12 -22, and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 12 -15 for a proposed 7,833 square -foot, two -story residence with a 956 square -foot, three -car, attached garage with workshop at 1101 San Carlos Road. SUMMARY This is an appeal by the designer, Mr. Robert Tong, to reconsider the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association's (HOA) Architectural Design Review Board (ARB) decision to deny the architectural design of a proposed 7,833 square -foot, two - story, single - family residence with a 956 square -foot attached three -car garage with workshop. The proposal also requires a zoning modification to allow a 29' -7" street side yard setback in lieu of a 50' -0" special setback from Foothill Blvd. (AMC Sec. 9320.30.2) and an Oak Tree Encroachment Permit for new landscaping and perimeter fences /walls to encroach upon two (2) oak trees (AMC Sec. 9703). The Development Services Department is recommending that the Planning Commission approve appeal no. HOA 12 -01, subject to the conditions of approval listed in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPELLANT: Mr. Robert Tong of Sanyao International LOCATION: 1101 San Carlos Road SITE AREA: 26,400 square -feet (0.6 acre) FRONTAGES: 219.85 feet along Foothill Blvd. 120 feet along San Carlos Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is improved with a 2,592 square -foot one -story, single - family residence that was constructed in 1956. The zoning is R -0, First One - Family. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 26,400 square -foot lot zoned R -O & D. An aerial photo of the area and photos of the subject property are attached. The subject property is currently improved with a 2,592 square -foot, two -story residence with an attached two -car garage, a detached two -car carport, and a swimming pool. On April 19, 2012, the ARB denied a design review for a new 7,833 square -foot, two -story residence. The ARB Findings and Action Report, and Minutes of the hearing are attached. The design review was denied based on findings that the overall proposal does not meet the design requirements as stated in the attached City Council Resolution No. 6770 in regards to mass, scale, compatibility, and streetscape. Mr. Robert Tong, the designer and his client, the property owner do not agree with the ARB's decision and filed an appeal on April 25, 2012. The appeal letter and its exhibits are attached. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on May 11, 2012 to the owners of those properties within the required notification area — see the attached notification area map. Notices were also sent to the Santa Anita Oaks HOA President and ARB Chairman. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a new single - family residence is categorically exempt per Section 15303 for new construction of small structures, and therefore, the notice was not published in a local newspaper. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB denial of the proposed two -story residence for the property at 1101 San Carlos Road. The proposed new residence will have 7,833 square feet of living area, 1,028 square -feet of porches, a 339 square -foot outdoor BBQ area, and a 956 square -foot, three -car, attached garage. As stated in the appeal letter, the appellant believes that the proposed two -story residence is designed in accordance with both the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines, and City Council Resolution No. 6770, which establishes the HOA's design review regulations, procedures and criteria. The appellant describes the proposed architectural style as Spanish Colonial Revival featuring a low -pitch (3.5:12) "Corona Del Mar Blend" concrete roof tile, a smooth stucco finish in "Heritage Beige ", small porches and balconies, wood HOA Appeal No. HOA 12 -01 1101 San Carlos Road May 22, 2012 — page 2 shutters, wood -frame windows and doors with aluminum cladding, and decorative wrought iron railings. Most of the existing mature trees will be preserved, including the proposed relocation of a 28" diameter olive tree in the front yard area. In addition, the proposed new landscaping includes three (3) 48" -box olive trees that will be planted in the front and street side yard areas, five (5) 36" -box Queen Palm and Forest Pansy Redbud trees, and seven (7) 24" -box Firewheel and Mediterranean Fan Palm trees. The ARB of the Santa Anita Oaks HOA states that the design of the proposed two -story house is excessive in mass, and is not harmonious with the other homes in the neighborhood and vicinity. The ARB presented its analysis at their public hearing on April 19, 2012. Their materials include a square- footage comparison of the houses on San Carlos Road, and three - dimensional modeling to illustrate the mass of the proposed new residence compared to the two adjacent homes. The materials show that the homes along San Carlos Road have an average size of 2,933 square feet, and the three - dimensional modeling shows that the proposed new house will be substantially larger than the adjacent homes. The ARB found the proposal to be inconsistent with the standards set forth in Resolution No. 6770. The ARB received six pieces of correspondence regarding the proposal. There were five objections to the project, and one statement in favor. Those that object to the proposal express concerns about the mass and bulk of the proposed new residence. The supporting statement said that the proposal is appropriate given the size of the lot. The supporter's home is also located in the Santa Anita Oaks area and has approximately the same square footage on approximately the same size lot. Santa Anita Oaks HOA Standards The Santa Anita Oaks HOA design standards are established in City Council Resolution No. 6770, which states the following: 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. HOA Appeal No. HOA 12 -01 1101 San Carlos Road May 22, 2012 — page 3 i The Resolution also sets forth standards and conditions that are to be imposed upon the properties in each of the HOAs. The following conditions are imposed pursuant to the City's zoning regulations: • SITE PLANNING. 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. 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. 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, fagades, 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. 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. For the Santa Anita Oaks HOA, 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. FRONT YARD. 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. The Santa Anita Oaks HOA requires a 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 • SIDE YARD. 10% of lot frontage, and not less than 10 feet. HOA Appeal No. HOA 12 -01 1101 San Carlos Road May 22, 2012 — page 4 • 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.. • 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. • 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 City Council Resolution No. 6770 also sets forth that any body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision shall be guided by the following principles: 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. • 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. 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. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. HOA Appeal No. HOA 12 -01 1101 San Carlos Road May 22, 2012 — page 5 Zoninq Regulations The City's zoning regulations allow the subject property to have two stories and an overall building height of 30 feet. The setback and lot coverage regulations are as follows: Front Yard: 55' -8" based on the average of the two adjacent lots and a 30- degree plane projected from ground level at the front property line Interior Side Yard: First floor: 13' -0" based on 10% of the lot width (North Side) Second floor: 26' -0" based on 20% of the lot width Street Side Yard: First floor: 25' -0" (South Side) Second floor: 26' -0" based on 20% of the lot width, and a 40- degree plane projected from the ground level at the street side property line Special Setback: 90' -0" from the centerline of Foothill Blvd. or 50' -0" from the street side property line Rear Yard: 35' -0" Lot Coverage: 9,240 square feet of ground area based on the maximum allowance of 35% for a two -story residence The zoning regulations allow for a much larger residence than the proposed design. The maximum 35% lot coverage limit for the subject 26,400 square -foot lot allows for about an 8,500 square -foot first floor, and potentially a second floor of nearly the same size, which could result in 15,000 square feet of living area. Concurrent with the appeal, the applicant is requesting a Modification for a 29' -7" street side yard setback in lieu of the 50' -0" special setback from Foothill Blvd. The intent of the special setback is to allow for potential street widening and to provide a consistent setback from the street. Engineering Services has reviewed the subject proposal and determined that the requested special setback encroachment is acceptable. There are no plans envisioned to widen Foothill Blvd. Furthermore, the proposed setback is greater than that of the existing house and of the setback of the residence across San Carlos Road to the east. However, due to the setbacks of the neighboring properties that front on Foothill Boulevard, it is staff's opinion that the street side yard setback should be consistent with the minimum front yard setback of 35' -0" to be consistent with any future new house on the adjacent property. A revised design should be presented to the Planning Commission with a 35' -0" street side yard setback for consideration at a future meeting. HOA Appeal No. HOA 12 -01 1101 San Carlos Road May 22, 2012 — page 6 Single- Family Design Guidelines The City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines are attached. Massing is discussed on page 9 and begins with the statement that, "The Zoning Code allows a certain building envelope for each site. Proper design is often needed to soften and refine that envelope" and is followed by these guidelines: 1. New dwellings and additions should be compatible in mass and scale to surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and with the natural site features. 2. Design elements such as eave overhangs, textured wall materials, recessed windows and door openings, ornamental details, and landscaping are encouraged for visual interest and to help reduce the impact of building scale. 3. All sides of a structure, including those that are not visible from the street, should have adequate wall and roof articulation to minimize the building's visual impact. 4. The building base should visually anchor the building by appearing more massive than the upper stories. 5. The upper story of a house should exhibit a lighter character than the base, possibly by reducing floor area and building mass. The second floor should generally step back from the ground floor. 6. Cantilevered forms are generally discouraged, particularly when they are used without aesthetic justification. 7. Building elements that emphasize a structure's verticality are generally discouraged. 8. On corner lots, wall planes facing the street should be varied and articulated into modules that reduce the overall massing and scale. Architectural projections or indentations should be provided to avoid an uninterrupted flat wall. 9. Incorporating trellises, pergolas, covered patios, and other similar features can help break up the mass of a large two -story structure and are encouraged, provided that they complement the architectural style of the house. While it is readily apparent that the proposed new residence will be substantially larger than the existing homes on the adjacent properties, it is not as large as what is allowed by the zoning regulations; and could end up being smaller than HOA Appeal No. HOA 12 -01 1101 San Carlos Road May 22, 2012 — page 7 a what might be built next door. And, in looking beyond the adjacent properties, there are several homes nearby that are larger. Staff finds that the proposed design is architecturally consistent with the City's design guidelines. Although the subject proposal is much larger than the adjacent homes, it incorporates appropriate modulation, such as refined porches and balconies. And, to protect the privacy of the neighbors, the north side of the second floor has only four (4) windows, and they are small openings of up to 2' by 3Y2' in size. Also, the proposed rear yard (west) setback is approximately 66'. The zoning requires only a 35' setback. A new house on this lot could be 31' closer to the westerly neighbor. Oak Tree Encroachment Permit There are no oak trees on the subject property; however, there are two (2) mature oak trees that overhang the property. Tree #1 is an 18" diameter Engelmann oak tree located in the parkway area near the southeast corner of the property, and tree #2 is a 32" diameter Engelmann oak tree located on the adjacent property to the north. These trees will be encroached upon by perimeter fencing and landscaping. A certified arborist, Mr. Michael Crane, evaluated the subject proposal and its potential impacts on the trees and concluded that no significant roots should be encountered and no pruning of the live crowns is required. The arborist's report is attached. Mr. Crane provided the following recommendations to minimize any potential impacts on the trees, and staff recommends incorporating them as conditions of approval: • Prior to demolition the contractor and consulting arborist shall meet on site to make sure the fence is properly placed and installed and to review the goals for the tree protection plan. • Maintain the protective fence throughout the completion of the project. No staging of materials or equipment or washing -out is to occur within the fenced protected zone. • All demolition, excavation or grading within the dripline of the Protected Trees shall be done with hand tools and monitored by a consulting, certified arborist. • Vegetation removal and ground preparation near Tree #1 shall be done with hand tools and no rototilling or significant soil cultivation is to occur. • Supplemental irrigation will be required during construction. Monthly monitoring visits by the consulting certified arborist will include soil moisture evaluation. HOA Appeal No. HOA 12 -01 1101 San Carlos Road May 22, 2012 — page 8 The best management practices referenced in the report shall be utilized to protect the subject trees. CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed project is required to comply with all zoning requirements, with or without Modifications, and through plan check will be required to comply with all other applicable code requirements and policies as determined by the Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Appeal No. HOA 12- 01 to overturn the ARB denial, and approve the proposed design, Modification No. MA 12 -22, and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 12 -15, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The proposed design shall be revised to provide a minimum 35' -0" setback from the southerly street side property line and the revised design shall be subject to the Planning Commission's approval. 2. The applicant shall comply with the aforementioned recommen- dations from the certified arborist. 3. A certified arborist shall provide a written follow -up report to Planning Services to verify fulfillment of the conditions of approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and the proposed project, the Commission should move to approve Appeal No. HOA 12 -01, Modification No. MA 12 -22, and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 12 -15, and state that the proposed project is consistent with the City's design guidelines, City Council Resolution No. 6770, and is harmonious and compatible with the neighborhood, is of good architectural character, and will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent properties and the neighborhood. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and the proposed project, the Commission should move to deny Appeal No. HOA 12 -01, Modification No. MA 12 -22, and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 12 -15, and state that the proposed project is not consistent with the City's design guidelines, City Council Resolution No. 6770, and does not meet the accepted standards of HOA Appeal No. HOA 12 -01 1101 San Carlos Road May 22, 2012 — page 9 harmony and compatibility with the neighborhood, is of poor architectural character, or will be detrimental to the use, enjoyment or value of adjacent properties or the neighborhood. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the May 22, 2012 public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li by calling (626) 574 -5447 or by email at tliCa-ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Ji asama Community Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo Photos of the Subject Property Proposed Plans ARB Findings and Action Report Minutes of the ARB Meeting City Council Resolution No. 6770 Appeal letters and Exhibits Notification Area Map Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines Arborist Report Dated May 5, 2012 HOA Appeal No. HOA 12 -01 1101 San Carlos Road May 22, 2012 — page 10 v OP. MINUTES - Excerpt - ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION c� °'y °tAe�a Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DECISION APPEAL NO. HOA 12 -01, MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MA 12 -22 AND OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. THE 12 -15 1101 San Carlos Road Robert Tong The applicant is appealing the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board decision to deny the architectural design of a proposed 7,833 square - foot, two - story, single - family residence with a 956 square -foot, attached, three -car garage with workshop. The proposal also requires a Zoning Modification to allow a 29' -7" street side yard setback in lieu of a 50' -0" special setback from Foothill Blvd. (AMC Sec. 9320.30.2) and an Oak Tree Encroachment Permit for new landscaping and perimeter fences /walls to encroach upon two (2) oak trees (AMC Sec. 9703). RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve appeal, Modification and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit Mr. Li presented the staff report. Chairman Baerg asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Robert Tong, the project designer, represented the owner, Mr. Baghdadlian. Mr. Tong said that Mr. Baghdadlian fully understands and appreciates the neighbors' concerns about privacy and with that in mind, Mr. Baghdadlian asked him to design a home. Mr. Tong submitted the proposed design to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in early March and received some suggestions an style, mass and scale eventually resulting in a Colonial Spanish style which was simplified and reduced in height. The changes were resubmitted to the ARB on April 19 but the design was rejected again. The main objection seemed to be the size of the house. Mr. Tong noted that the Zoning Code would have allowed for a 15,000 square foot house and this house is much smaller than that. Further, he said that the design complies with the single - family residential guidelines, which staff acknowledges. He said the ARB contends that the location of the proposed house is visually significant as it is a corner lot but Mr. Tong says the impact will be reduced because the applicant intends to retain the mature trees and add more concealing landscaping. He noted that one of the ARB members had submitted a letter in support of the project. Mr. Tong stated that the computer depiction of the house that the ARB submitted is not completely accurate. He questioned Recommendation No. 1 on page 9 of the staff report requiring a southerly street side setback of 35 feet instead of the 27' 9" setback proposed. Mr. Tong said he feels a 35 foot setback would not be proportionate to the design. Chairman Baerg asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this project. Mr. Vince Vargas represented the ARB. He said that at the April 19 meeting, all ARB members present spoke against the proposed design. In addition, there were five emails against the project and one in favor. Mainly, the objection was to the excessive mass in relation to the existing homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Vargas reviewed the criteria listed in Resolution 6770 on which the ARB is directed to base their decision on acceptability of a proposed design. He said the design submitted clearly does not meet requirements in regards to mass, scale, size and compatibility. Mr. Vargas displayed pictures of homes from Foothill Boulevard to Orange Grove as examples of the existing homes in the area. He showed a visual depiction of the project in relation to existing homes that had been created from measurements provided by the applicant which he said clearly demonstrates the degree of incompatibility of the proposed design. On March 23 the applicant agreed to withdraw his application for redesign but only changed the front of the building. He said the ARB invited the applicant to meet again to work out a compromise but their invitation was not accepted. Mr. Vargas noted that in the past, the ARB has approved a few similar projects but they all met the criteria outlined in Resolution 6770. Since the ARB has determined that this project does not meet this criteria, he asked the Commission to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the ARB. Commissioner Parrille asked Mr. Vargas if the ARB had any discussions with the appellant on a size compromise. Mr. Vargas said that was their intention but Mr. Tong and Mr. Baghdadlian decided to withdraw the application and resubmit it instead. He added that a later invitation from the ARB to meet again was rejected. Mr. Loren Broadhead, an ARB member and 55 year resident, noted that Resolution 6770 states that the design should be harmonious with the neighborhood and the street in terms of structural mass and scale. He pointed out that the pictures of San Carlos and Arbolada show that a large, bulky, ponderous home would not be in harmony with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Broadhead added that although the Staff Report refers to other large homes in the area, those homes are, in fact, a block and a half away and they, too, would have been challenged under the guidelines of Resolution 6770 had it been in effect when they were proposed. Mr. Broadhead pointed out that the staff report says that the lot coverage of the proposed home is under the maximum square footage allowed, yet Resolution 6770 refers to compatibility, mass and scale, etc., and says nothing about maximum lot coverage. Mr. Richard Parker said he was at the ARB meeting when the application was originally denied and that the application presented at that time was substantially different from the application presented here, leading him to believe that staff was reviewing a different project than the one that was denied by the ARB. He asked why the applicant didn't return to the ARB for additional review. Mr. Parker said that he lives adjacent to the two very large houses described in the staff report and considers them "sore thumbs" in the neighborhood. He concluded that this proposal would stand out even more and contribute to the progressive deterioration of the City. Mr. Richard Midgley, a member of the HOA, noted that Resolution 6770 was established to govern the development of residential property including the preservation of the architectural heritage of the Community of Homes. He added that the Resolution is a compact between the City and the HOAs providing assurance for homeowners that new construction and modifications to existing structures shall be compatible in scale, mass and character with the existing neighborhood. Therefore, Mr. Midgley concludes that the staff report is in breach of this compact and he expects denial of the appeal. Mr. Alan Crawford said that he bought his home in the Oaks in 1995. He said that his family drove through South Arcadia and were disappointed but when they found the Oaks, they decided to buy there. He expressed concern that if this project is approved it will be the first of many and eventually the Oaks will resemble South Arcadia. He urged the Commissioners to deny the appeal. Arcadia Planning Commission — Minutes Excerpt — May 22, 2012 Item 6 — Page 2 A An anonymous speaker reminded the Commissioners that once limits are stretched, the new limits become the norm and further loosening of regulations is inevitable. Mr. Hank Voznick, said he has lived in the Oaks for 49 years and that the proposed house is a monstrosity that does not fit into this neighborhood of single -story, ranch -style homes. Mr. Voznick said that the outdoor ambience of Arcadia is an important part of the lifestyle of his neighbors and himself. He said that covering most of the land with a barn -like structure is like excluding the earth from everyday living and he would prefer not to see this home built. Ms. Mary Dougherty, President of the HOA, pointed out that the design guidelines repeatedly stress mass, scale and harmony as primary design issues relating to new single family development. Further, she states, that configuration, size and design should be visually harmonious and compatible with surroundings, i.e., square footage is not the issue, only scale and mass. Resolution 6770 states that properties within the HOA area are subject to ARB guidelines and the approval of the HOA. The ARB is composed of volunteers who have carefully studied the guidelines and she urged the Commissioners to support their decision rather than re- evaluate it or substitute their own judgment for ARB determinations. Mrs. Donna Perez said that she has lived in the area since 1972 and there has always been an ARB. Ms. Perez states that the proposed house is too massive for the surroundings and is designed to accentuate the extreme rather than to fit into the neighborhood. She added that living in the Community of Homes means being respectful of your neighbors and their lifestyle and that she and her husband strongly oppose this ostentatious house. Chairman Baerg asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal. Mr. Baghdadlian, the property owner, said that this small family home is his dream home. He expressed surprise to hear comments at an HOA meeting about the massive scale of the home including a comparison to a Wal -Mart building. Mr. Baghdadlian said that the HOA representatives have been going door to door campaigning against him and coaching his neighbors to oppose the project. He portrayed himself as a fair and honest person who only wishes to live in peace but said that the HOA is prejudiced against him. Mr. Baghdadlian said his plans were changed twice in an effort to accommodate the residential guidelines but they were not successful. He also said he believes that the HOA representatives are destroying the neighborhood and the city because they are living in the 60s. He said he has a right to build this home. Chairman Baerg asked if the design presented to the Commission tonight is the same design that was denied at the April 19 meeting of the ARB. Mr. Baghdadlian replied that the architect made it smaller and better and he informed his neighbors that he would plant trees to screen the home. He confirmed that changes had been made. Chairman Baerg again asked if the design is the same as presented to the ARB on April 19 and Mr. Baghdadlian replied that it is identical. Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Baghdadlian if he had considered a single story structure. Mr. Baghdadlian explained that he liked to exercise and wanted a nice pool and that the limitations of a single story structure would not provide enough back yard space for this lifestyle. Commissioner Baderian pointed out that the pictures of the area showed a majority of single story houses and that there appears to be a desire to maintain that style. He asked again if Mr. Baghdadlian would consider changing to a single story. Mr. Baghdadlian said that is he is restricted to a single story then he has no desire to build in that area. He explained that his architect had informed the HOA that the height is lower than requirements, the second Arcadia Planning Commission — Minutes Excerpt - May 22, 2012 Item 6 — Page 3 floor is recessed from the first and that it will not look like a huge mansion. He added that he was not aware of this situation. Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Baghdadlian if he was aware of the ARB policies when he bought the property and Mr. Baghdadlian said he was not. Ms. Silvie Baghdadlian, the owner's daughter, explained that when her family first bought the property, the house was in disrepair. She pointed out that there are other two story homes in the area and several are over 6000 square feet. She said that lot size should be a consideration in determining the size of the house. Ms. Baghdadlian expressed concern that the pictures presented by the HOA did not accurately portray the proposed design and that they were out of scale and did not show any landscaping. Ms. Baghdadlian asked the Commissioners to remember that this is her father's dream home and that he has wanted to live in the Oaks for a long time. Mr. Tong said that the pictures provided by the HOA do not show any articulation and are misleading. He said he feels that the pictures do not accurately show what was submitted. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Baderian said that considering the impacts to the existing neighborhood, he would have to ask again if it would be possible to change to a single story design. He noted that the average square footage of homes in the area is roughly 2933 square feet according to the staff report but this home is 7800 square feet which is considerably larger. Commissioner Baderian said that given the information and testimony provided, he cannot support the appeal. Commissioner Beranek pointed out that the neighbors had signed the plans signifying their agreement and that staff says the design meets all code requirements. He said that under those circumstances he could not deny the appeal even though he agreed that it would change the neighborhood. Commissioner Parrille agreed with Commissioner Baderian. He said that although the size of the house may be within code requirements, the design is not compatible with the existing neighborhood and he could not support the appeal. Chairman Baerg said that although he is appreciative of the benefits of home ownership and the desire to build a dream house, when moving into an area with a Homeowners' Association the homeowner must be willing to comply with the rules. He noted that it looked like the ARB did nothing to abuse their discretion. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, Homeowners Association Decision Appeal No 12 -22 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permi t conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL seconded by Commissioner Parrille to deny HOA 12 -01, Modification Application No. MA application No. THE 12 -15 subject to the AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Parrille and Baerg NOES: Commissioner Beranek ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao Arcadia Planning Commission — Minutes Excerpt — May 22, 2012 Item 6 — Page 4 SANYAO INTERNATIONAL INC. RESIDENTIAL PLANNING 255 E. Santa Clara St., # 200 Tel (626) 446 -8048 Arcadia, CA 91006, U.S.A Fax (626) 446 -7090 Email. sanyao888 @aol.com May 23, 2012 City of Arcadia Planning Department 240 W Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 RE: 1101 San Carlos Road, Arcadia, CA Dear Mr. Jim Kasama, RECEIVED M AY 2 3 2012 CITY OF ARCADIA CITY CLERK I am writing this letter to appeal the Arcadia Planning Commission's decision for denial of the appeal to the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowner's Association architectural design review of 1101 San Carlos Road, Arcadia, CA. I do not agree with the Planning Commission's decision. This proposed single family residence is designed based on both the Arcadia design guidelines for a single family residence and Resolution No. 6770 which was approved and adopted by the City. In fact, this proposed residence is significantly smaller in size than the maximum allowed per City code requirement. 'Sincerely, Robert T President/ SANYAO International, Inc.