Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: September 11, 2012 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner 'f- SUBJECT: HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 12 -02 AND MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MC 12 -15 TO RECONSIDER THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF THE DESIGN OF AN EXISTING, NON - PERMITTED, 28 SQUARE -FOOT, DETACHED, POOL BATHROOM, AND A ZONING MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A 2'-4W' TO 3' -2'/" EASTERLY SIDE YARD SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE 12' -0" REQUIREMENT AT 1050 HAMPTON ROAD Recommended Action: Denial of Appeal and Modification SUMMARY This is an appeal by the property owners of 1050 Hampton Road, Dr. Kris Mohandie and Mrs. Bic Mohandie, to request that the Planning Commission overturn the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association's (Upper Rancho) Architectural Review Board's (ARB) denial of the design of a 28 square -foot, detached, pool bathroom that was built without approvals or permits. The existing bathroom also requires approval of a Zoning Modification for the 2' -4W to 3' -2'/" easterly side yard setback in lieu of the 12' -0" requirement. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Appeal No. HOA 12 -02 and Modification Application No. MC 12 -15 because the design is inconsistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and the design guidelines set forth in City Council Resolution No. 6770, which establishes the regulations for the five, City- designated Association areas, and the bathroom does not satisfy the purposes for a Zoning Modification. GENERAL INFORMATION APPELLANTS/ APPLICANTS: Dr. Kris Mohandie and Mrs. Bic Mohandie (Property Owners) LOCATION: 1050 Hampton Road REQUESTS: An appeal to reconsider the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association's Architectural Review Board decision to deny the design of an existing, non - permitted, 28 square -foot, detached, pool bathroom, and a Zoning Modification approval for the 2' -4%2" to 3' -2'/2" easterly side yard setback in lieu of the 12' -0" requirement SITE AREA: 31,670 square -feet (0.72 acre) FRONTAGE: 120.33 feet along Hampton Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is improved with a 3,649 square -foot, one -story, single - family residence that was constructed in 1949. There are also a detached, two -car garage, a recreation room, a play structure, and a swimming pool. The site and area is zoned R -0, First One - Family. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 31,670 square -foot lot zoned R -0 & D. Attached are an aerial photo of the area (Exhibit A) and photos of the subject pool bathroom (Exhibit B). The property is improved with a 3,649 square -foot, one -story residence with a detached, two -car garage, recreation room, play structure, a swimming pool, and the subject, non - permitted, detached pool bathroom. Plans of the property and bathroom are attached as Exhibit C. On March 3, 2011, Arcadia Code Services issued a Notice of Violation (attached as Exhibit D) to the appellants /property owners in regards to the detached pool bathroom and a partially constructed recreation room. In response, the owners obtained approval from the ARB and a permit for the recreation room, and according to Code Services, the detached pool bathroom was to be removed once all the plumbing and electrical fixtures were removed and reinstalled in the recreation room. The recreation room was finaled on August 30, 2011. Code Services issued a second Notice of Violation (attached as Exhibit E) on March 16, 2012, after receiving information that the bathroom structure had not been removed. A third Notice of Violation (attached as Exhibit F) was issued on May 15, 2012. Dr. Mohandie presented plans of the bathroom to the ARB on July 5, 2012. On July 17, 2012, the ARB denied the design review of the pool bathroom. The ARB Findings and Action Report is attached as Exhibit G. The design review was denied based on a finding that the location of the bathroom does not provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties because it is too close to the property line. The prcperty owners do not agree with the ARB's decision and filed an appeal on August 1, 2012. The appeal letter is attached as Exhibit H. HOA 12 -02 & MC 12 -15 1050 Hampton Road September 11, 2012 — page 2 of 7 DISCUSSION The appellants /property owners are requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB denial of the proposal to legalize the existing, non - permitted, 28 square -foot, detached pool bathroom at 1050 Hampton Road. The bathroom measures 5' -3" wide by 5' -3" deep, with an overall building height of 9' -2 ". It is built at an angle to the easterly property line with a setback of 2'-4 %" to 3' -2 %" at the northerly portion to the southerly portion, respectively. The ARB denied the design review for the subject bathroom based on a finding that the location does not provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties because the side yard setback is too close to the property line. In the appeal letter, the appellants state that they were under the impression that the subject bathroom was allowed to remain, and that it is situated at the most practical location on the property, as it is easily accessible from the swimming pool. The appellants believe that the bathroom is not visible to the neighbor to the east, and a hedge was planted by the appellants to screen the building. Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Standards The Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association (Upper Rancho) design standards are established in City Council Resolution No. 6770 (attached as Exhibit I) 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. The Resolution also sets forth standards and conditions that are imposed upon the properties in the HOAs, pursuant to the City's zoning regulations. The standards and conditions for the Upper Rancho area include the following: • SIDE YARD SETBACKS. Minimum 15 feet. • 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 HOA 12 -02 & MC 12 -15 1050 Hampton Road September 11, 2012 — page 3 of 7 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. Zoning Modification Concurrent with the appeal, the appellants are requesting a Modification for the 2' -4Y2" to 3' -2V2" easterly side yard setback in lieu of the 12' -0" requirement. Typically, a side yard setback for a small, detached, accessory building is eligible for the Administrative Modification process, which requires the consent of all the owners of the adjoining properties. In this case, five of the six of those property owners had signed off on an Administrative Modification application for the bathroom; and when all of the owners do not sign off, the request is usually considered by the Modification Committee. But, since the pool bathroom is now subject to an appeal before the Planning Commission, the Modification is also subject to the Planning Commission's consideration. The Arcadia Municipal Code requires a minimum side yard setback of ten percent (10 %) of the lot width. Therefore, with a lot width of 120 feet, the Zoning Code requires that the bathroom have a minimum side yard setback of 12' -0 ". And, as mentioned above, Resolution No. 6770 specifies a minimum side yard setback of 15' -0" for the Upper Rancho area. According to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9292.1.1, Modifications may be approved for the following purposes: HOA 12 -02 & MC 12 -15 1050 Hampton Road September 11, 2012 — page 4 of 7 1. To secure an appropriate improvement of a lot, 2. To prevent an unreasonable hardship, or 3. To promote uniformity of development. The requested Modification does not serve any of the above purposes. The reduced side yard setback is not appropriate for the Upper Rancho area. The 31,670 square - foot lot has ample space for a small detached, bathroom structure to be situated in compliance with the required 15 -foot side yard setback. Any hardship in this case is self- imposed. Had the owners followed the applicable procedures (i.e., ARB review and City plan check) the bathroom would not have been built in an improper location. The appellants refer to a detached bathroom structure at 1040 Hampton Road, the neighboring property to the east. This structure was built in 1951 and was probably built in compliance with all applicable code requirements at that time. And, while the requested side yard setback for the subject pool bathroom is consistent with the neighbor's structure, current building codes will require significant alteration of the easterly side of the building that will noticeably alter its appearance. The City's Building Official has reviewed the plans of the subject structure and determined that it does not meet current Building Code requirements. In order for the structure to remain at its current location, the easterly roof eave must be removed, and the east - facing exterior wall must be one -hour fire -rated (e.g., stuccoed). ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an accessory structure of a single - family residence is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines for new construction of small structures. And, Modifications are also Categorically Exempt per Section 15305 (Class 5) for minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of Tess than 20 percent. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this Appeal and Modification Application were mailed on August 31, 2012, to the owners of those properties within the required notification area — see the attached notification area map (Exhibit J). Notices were also sent to the Upper Rancho President and ARB Chairman. Because this project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the notice was not published in a local newspaper. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Appeal No. HOA 12 -02 and uphold the ARB decision, and deny Modification Application No. MC 12 -15. If the Planning Commission decides to approve this application, the structure must comply with all applicable building codes, and the following conditions of approval are recommended: HOA 12 -02 & MC 12 -15 1050 Hampton Road September 11, 2012 — page 5 of 7 1. The subject building shall be remodeled to comply with all applicable building and safety codes to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official and Fire Marshal. 2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 3. Approval of HOA 12 -01 and MC 12 -15 shall not take effect until the property owners have executed and filed an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Appeal and the Modification, the Commission should move to approve Appeal No. HOA 12 -02 and Modification No. MC 12 -15; and state that the project is consistent with the City's design guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770, such that the structure 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 Modification, the Commission should move to deny Appeal No. HOA 12 -02 and Modification Application No. MC 12 -15; and state that the project is not consistent with the City's design guidelines nor City Council Resolution No. 6770, and does not meet the accepted standards of harmony and compatibility with the neighborhood, is not of good 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 September 11, 2012 public hearing, please contact HOA 12 -02 & MC 12 -15 1050 Hampton Road September 11, 2012 — page 6 of 7 Associate Planner, Thomas Li by calling (626) 574 -5447 or by email at tli(ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: J. y" sama mmunity Development Administrator Attachments: Exhibit A — Aerial Photo Exhibit B — Photos of the Subject Property Exhibit C — Proposed Plans Exhibit D — March 3, 2011 Notice of Violation Exhibit E — March 16, 2012 Notice of Violation Exhibit F — May 15, 2012 Notice of Violation Exhibit G — ARB Findings and Action Report Exhibit H — Appeal Letter Exhibit I — City Council Resolution No. 6770 Exhibit J — Notification Area Map HOA 12 -02 & MC 12 -15 1050 Hampton Road September 11, 2012 — page 7 of 7 1050 Hampton Road HOA 12-02 & MC 12 -15 a VNV8V3 100d - 31JB ONLLSIX3 latojaiql 05 Tfr. ••• • • - . l. ••••1 • , r GA 51 CIV01:1 NOi&IVH Exhibit C .0 E a) Z o EL r-1 m r 2 L 0 0 C E G In L O to CO t .Q N 0 ld �+ 0 Y 0 d L .0 pa a 0 3 Kris & Bic Mohandi 1050 Hampton Rd. Exhibit C a N of V g DIIaM ■ WaII A Exhibit C ins m m et N d N City of Arcadia Development Services Department Jason Kruckeberg Director of Development Services 240 West Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 (626) 574 -5415 (626) 447 -3309 Fax www.ci. a rca di a . ea .us March 3, 2011 Kris and Bic Mohandie 1050 Hampton Rd. Arcadia, Ca 91007 RE: Unpermitted structures in rear yard at 1050 Hampton in Arcadia Dear Property Owners: During a recent site inspection at the subject property, a building inspector and I observed a small bathroom / accessory building located approximately 2 feet from what appeared to be the east property line wall. Only a certified survey can determine the exact location of the property line. 2010 California Residential Code Section 302 Fire- Resistant Construction requires exterior walls of an accessory building without automatic residential fire sprinlder protection to have a minimum fire separation of 5 feet to the property line. 2010 California Residential Code Section 105.1 requires any owner who intends to construct a building or structure shall first make an application to the building official and obtain a building permit. Therefore, with the information available at this time this structure will need to be removed. We also observed a partially constructed accessory structure located in the rear yard. Arcadia Municipal Code (AMC) Section 9405.4 requires a building or structure or portion thereof to comply with applicable provisions of the Arcadia Municipal Code or other law. Therefore, this structure will need to be removed or obtain approvals from Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association and Arcadia Planning Services and all required building permits from Arcadia Building Services. Brad Koehler, ARB Chairperson for Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association can be reached at 626 -510 -9233, 1120 Singing Wood Dr. Arcadia Planning Services — 626 -574 -5423 and Arcadia Building Services — 626 -574 -5416. Notice is hereby given that the subject violations must be corrected by April 15, 2011. Failure to correct the violation in the stated time period may result in the issuance of an administrative citation that would include a monetary fine and /or additional penalty. Thank you for your cooperation in resolving the noted violations. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact me at (626) 574 -5421. I am at my desk from 7:30- 9:30am and 4- 5:30pm. Sincerely, Robert Swanson Code Services Officer c: Brad Koehler, ARB Chairperson' Rancho Santa Anita Association Building Services Planning Services Exhibit D City of Arcadia Development Services Department Jason Kruckeberg Assistant City Manager/ Development Services Director 240 West Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 (626) 574-5415 (626) 447-3309 Fax www.ci.arcadia.ca.us March 16, 2012 Kris and Bic Mohandie 1050 Hampton Rd. Arcadia, Ca 91007 RE: Unpermitted structures in rear yard at 1050 Hampton in Arcadia Dear Property Owners: During a site inspection at the subject property in February 2011, a building inspector and I observed a small bathroom / accessory building located approximately 2 feet from what appeared to be the east property line wall. Attached is the original Notice of Violation dated March 3, 2011 regarding this structure. My office has received information that this structure has not been removed. Therefore, with the information available at this time the Notice of Violation is in non - compliance and the structure will need to be removed. Notice is hereby given that the subject violation must be corrected by April 20, 2012. Failure to correct the violation in the stated time period may result in the issuance of an administrative citation that would include a monetary fine and/or additional penalty. Thank you for your cooperation in resolving the noted violations. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact me at (626) 574 -5421. I am at my desk from 7:30- 9:30am and 4- 5:30pm. Sincerely, Robert Swanson Code Services Officer c: Building Services Planning Services Attachment: Notice of Violation dated March 3, 2011 Exhibit E Cl of Arcadia Development Services Department Jason Kruckeberg Assistant City Manager/ Development Services Director 240 West Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 (626) 574 -5415 (626) 447 -3309 Fax www.ci.arcadia.ca.us May 15, 2012 Kris and Bic Mohandie 1050 Hampton Rd. Arcadia, Ca 91007 RE: Unpermitted structures in rear yard at 1050 Hampton in Arcadia Dear Property Owners: During a site inspection at the subject property in February 2011, a building inspector and I observed a small bathroom / accessory building located approximately 2 feet from what appeared to be the east property line wall. Attached is the original Notice of Violation dated March 3, 2011 regarding this structure. My office has received information that this structure has not been removed. Therefore, with the information available at this time the Notice of Violation is in non - compliance and the structure will need to be removed. You can contact Tom Li, Associate Planner, to inquire about the possibility of legalizing this structure. His phone number is 626 -574 -5447. Notice is hereby given that the subject violation must be corrected by June 18, 2012. Failure to correct the violation in the stated time period may result in the issuance of an administrative citation that would include a monetary fine and/or additional penalty. Thank you for your cooperation in resolving the noted violations. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact me at (626) 574 -5421. 1 am at my desk from 7:30- 9:30am and 4- 5:30pm. Sincerely, X2p4/44—. Robert Swanson Code Services Officer c: Building Services Planning Services Attachment: Notice of Violation dated March 3, 2011 Exhibit F FILENO ■ Of=c DATE St/Will-FM /15 ARCHITECTURAL DESJGN .marw BO (COMMITTEE) KKRO-10.0 AND Aprog ° 4 ADDV,ESS: 1C, C-3 Up, 0A pi—u •BL .M.OPER.rrowNErt. ■Z,‘ 5 -t3 kkik Os Pcti PIC ykDDRES-S (1001014UilsliT C. MUMS (onlytheole thosetbat apply, and provide a WrittAa analarititicti for each • L The propose dotiftucticiti mater ARE 13, ARE NOT D compatible with The Ogiving alatudalk bettartt 2. The :proposed materialS, WITA, . NOT U bAY-g ,n! 00400 adverse iiinpact ale .V.ettin appeatailee. dike ii.t.Opeit:k; because. 3. The proposed proj94 IS: CI, 1,3 NOT CI sigatimantly faxyzn.the a oining,public rights of -way became. _ pxopOSekl. prof 141:Y1' 0 i sible front the, adjofr g properties, ITCP44.s.0 5, Th e. elatents ithe structure's design ARE CI, ARE NOT ID :consistent WO tiro fttuting building's desiku, because 6. The proposedproject IS CI, ISNOT 0 in proportion to other ilmuovorneitta on thesubject site orto improvements on °flier pmperties in the neighborhood because 7. Thc 1oati On oftheproposed Project V911.1 EJ, WILL V�T :.. to the use and enjoymenfrand:valueofadjacent property and neiglibuttood, because Theprivoscd project's-seta' qlcs: DO Q, DO NOT ID proVide for adequatiztseparatim bweet, improvonents, on the Sallie :or adjoining properties, because OE \-Prfar> 6er -roc, cLx5e TO pac,,pd.112-T-r- ( r) 9. OTHER VINDINGS; HOWTOlinisfmn: Exhibit G D. ACTION.: 0 AP.MOVAL 0 APP.ROVAL sObjeol* taPwing (: . 3 DENIAL E. DATE OF ARCHTIVIVRAL, UMW BOAkin (COMMIT ; E'S) Aen VT I sc) tr2- F, BOARD tCoMMITTES)VIEKBEIttg) RENnEgm3 THE ABOVE D'EasTm Le-12- :71 62 c 1,-16 tv-k DO e-W.C--tiZ5 t p g a g m - v e Th t c . . . 6 4 0 . 5 P s A - 5 - t — A A K1 lc A oaartmz- 0ISSOCIATION. _ APPEA Appeals from The Boartrs, (Committees). decision shall be made to the Planning Conunission. Anyotte.deSiting to niiike sash in Appeal thotildoontact the Planning Offices for- therre fees atidprOdeftea. Said app eal num: he made in wilting at& delivered to the Planning Offieess 240 NV.- Buntiittm. Dr.,:s Arcadia, CA 91007, within SOO (7) working days of the Board's kOPPOlitteela-de01010, L EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period c).f one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which Plans have been approved by the Board (Committee), has bee untiaed, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect, Exhibit G KRIS & BIC MOHANDIE 1050 HAMPTON ROAD ARCADIA, CA 91006 (626) 627 -8388 July 31, 2012 Tom Li, Associate Planner City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 60021 Dear Mr. Li: /o /.2'ad. AUG 1 2012 ii'vErthn!rtc, '6:^ ii ices C t3 Enclosed is a check for $210 to accompany our appeal of the ARB decision to deny the plans for our unpermitted, existing bathroom. We received official notice of their decision via letter, approximately July 27th. We would like to appeal the decision of the ARB to deny the plans for our unpermitted existing bathroom. By way of history, we have a permitted recreation room that was completed last year -we were allowed by the City to keep the bathroom through completion of this recreation room. After completing these structures and upon our inquiry of the City about its removal, we were led to believe it would be allowed to remain. We were notified- Exhibit H surprisingly this year in a letter of May 15, 2012 - that this had changed, apparently due to a complaint. As a point of information, upon completion of the recreation room, it became apparent to us that the convenience of the bathroom adjacent to the pool was much more realistic in terms of the usage and purpose: our child (age 9) and his many age mates who come over regularly to swim are most likely to use the bathroom steps away and not likely to use the bathroom to the rear of the property (involves a trek down a slope, across grass and dirt). Thus, the reality is they will either use the pool as their restroom, or track water in the house. At this point then we are faced with having to remove a very functional structure at considerable aggravation and expense -one that is not really visible to the complaining neighbor -as we purchased hedges which have grown in nicely. Further, if we have to remove it (at considerable expense and inconvenience), we will have to obtain a temporary (and unsightly) porta -potty on a regular basis, or incur substantial expense to build a bathroom elsewhere near the vicinity of the pool. Aesthetically, it works best where it is. We would like you to consider the above and several other points in our appeal: 1) that we were able to obtain five out of six signatures from our neighbors; 2) that the only neighbor that did not sign the document was the likely complainant who has a much larger, more visible bathroom structure adjacent to our fence (which happens to be grandfathered); and 3) that the only reason the ARB did not approve the structure was concern about setting a precedent. It seems unfair, and irrational, that the complaining neighbor would block us from retaining our similar structure when theirs is much larger and visible. Referencing the ARB precedent concern, there are many structures throughout the area that are similar to ours in terms of being close to a property line. Finally, we are willing to pay all necessary expenses to retain the structure via the Exhibit H variance process after this current step (the ARB decision appeal) is completed. In good faith we are attempting to comply with the City by engaging in this process. You will note from our file, we have completed several projects on our property with all necessary permits including a children's play structure, house remodel, and a recreation room. We have been committed to increasing the value and appeal our house in this Arcadia neighborhood, and have done so in a way that has enhanced the traditional character of the neighborhood. On a personal note, my family had a business for years in the City (Highlander Pet Center, 145 Foothill) where I worked as a teenager, my mother (Linda Senechal) taught special education in the school district here for over 40 years until her retirement, and as a child I attended Anoakia(1968- 1974). We are invested in this City, understand and care about it, and truly believe granting this variance will not harm any aspect of the City. Attached are the plans for your review, as well as the paperwork which was submitted to the ARB. Ultimately, we would like the opportunity to at least get this in front of a public hearing. In any event, we appreciate your help with this process of obtaining the variance for our unpermitted existing bathroom. Thank you for your consideration. Since y, Kris & Bic s andie Exhibit H RESOLUTION NO. 6770 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE SINGLE - FAMILY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREAS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby repeals Resolution Nos. 5286, 5287, 5288, 5289, and 5290 and Ordinance No. 1832, and adopts this Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 2285. SECTION 2. In accordance with the Arcadia General Plan directive to protect and preserve the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design, and to implement Arcadia's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines applicable to the real property within the five Single - Family Homeowners' Associations that are zoned "D" as Architectural Design area, Architectural Review Boards are established for each Association and are hereinafter referred to as the "ARBs ". The five Homeowners' Associations and their Architectural Design Zones are: Arcadia Highlands Home Owners Association — "Highlands" Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association — "Upper Rancho" Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association — "Oaks" Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association — "Lower Rancho" Santa Anita Village Community Association of Arcadia — "Village" The boundaries for each Association are depicted in Exhibit "A." The ARB for each area is govemed by the corresponding Homeowners' Association Board for that area. 1 Exhibit 1 SECTION 3. In order to promote and maintain the quality single - family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 7 there are hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said associations may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 4. It is determined that each building or structure and its landscaping and hardscape on properties within each area should exhibit a consistent and cohesive architectural style, and be harmonious and compatible with other neighborhood structures in architectural style, scale, visual massing, height, width and length, and setbacks in relationship to site contours and architectural elements such as texture, color and building materials. To promote harmony and compatibility is not to promote sameness, uniformity, a specific architectural style, or a certain time period. It is acknowledged that architecture (and neighborhoods in general) evolve and change over time and this will be considered through the review process. The following standards and conditions are hereby imposed upon all properties within said areas pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those in ownership or control of property within said areas are subject to this Resolution. A. SITE PLANNING —1. Natural amenities such as views, and other features unique to the site should be preserved and incorporated into development proposals. 2 Exhibit 1 2. The location, configuration, and design of new buildings and structures, or the alteration or enlargement of existing structures, should be visually harmonious with their sites and compatible with the character and quality of the surroundings. 3. The height and bulk of proposed dwellings and structures on the site should be in scale and in proportion with the height and bulk of dwellings and structures on surrounding sites. Altematively, projects should incorporate design measures to adequately mitigate scale differences. 4. The design of a new house should provide effective and varied open space around the residence. B. STREETSCAPE — The developed subject property, when viewed from the street, should blend and be harmonious with the other structures and landscaping on the street. This includes and is not limited to setbacks, structural mass and scale, height, roof forms, 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. C. FLOOR AREA — The space contained within the boundaries of the property, including any open porch, open entry, balcony, covered patio, trellis, or garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, shall NOT be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building as measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls in computing the required minimum floor area of a dwelling. Village — 1,200 square feet of ground floor area if 1 story in height, or 1,300 square feet of floor area if 2 stories in height, at least 900 square feet of which must be on the ground floor. 3 Exhibit I Lower Rancho — 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if 1 story and not Tess than 1,000 square feet on ground floor if 11/2 or 2 stories Upper Rancho — 2,500 square feet of ground floor area. Attached covered porch, balcony or garage shall be counted at .5. Highlands — 1,600 square feet if 1 story and not less than 1,200 square feet on ground floor if 11/2 or 2 stories. Oaks — 2,000 square feet of ground floor area, except 1,800 square feet in Tracts 14656, 13544 & 10617, in which no one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,800 square feet of ground floor area. D. FRONT YARD SETBACKS — If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of the subject property, the ARB shall have the authority to require a front yard setback for the subject property equal to at least an average of the two adjacent front yards. Village — Underlying Zoning Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho — Minimum 50 feet Highlands — Underlying Zoning Oaks — Minimum sixty -five (65) feet from the front property line, except that Tract 13544 shall be not less than sixty (60) feet, Tracts 13345 & 11013 shall not be less than fifty -five (55) feet, and Tract 14656 shall not be less than fifty (50) feet. E. SIDE YARD SETBACKS Village — 10% of lot frontage, and not less than 5 feet Lower Rancho —10% of the lot frontage, and not less than 10 feet 4 Exhibit 1 Upper Rancho — Minimum 15 feet Highlands — 10% of lot frontage, and not Tess than 6 feet Oaks —10% of lot frontage, and not Tess than 10 feet F. REAR YARD SETBACKS Village — Minimum 25 feet Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Over Rancho — Minimum 40 feet Highlands — Underlying Zoning Oaks — Minimum 35 feet G. CORNER LOT SETBACKS (STREET SIDE) Village — Underlying Zoning Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho — Underlying Zoning Highlands — Minimum 15 feet from side street for Tracts 10725, 13367, 14626, 15285 & 16920. Oaks — On a comer lot, any detached garage shall be located a minimum of twenty (20) feet, at any point, from the side street property line. H. FRONT OF DWELLING — For all HOAs, any dwelling on the lot should face the front lot line. Exceptions for good cause may be granted through the review process. I. GARAGES — No carports allowed. Village & Lower Rancho — Garages shall not dominate the front elevation, and should be set back from the front facade or located in the back yard. 5 Exhibit I Upper Rancho, — No garage door shall be allowed to face the public right -of -way within the front 150 feet of the property. No garage door shall be closer to the street than the dwelling (Lots 1 through 20 of Tract No. 13184 shall be excepted). Corner Tots shall be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Highlands — Underlying Zoning Oaks — A detached garage shall not be located less than 150 feet from the front property line, except for Tract 11013 which shall be 140 feet and Tracts 13345, 14656 & 13544 which shall be 125 feet, and in no case shall the garage be closer to the front property line than the main dwelling. Front facing garages are strongly discouraged. J. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS — Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including without limitation, roofing, and walls or fences greater than 2 feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with the materials of other structures on the same lot and with the other structures in the neighborhood. K. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE — The appearance of any structure, including roofs, walls or fences shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood, inclusive of landscape and hardscape. L. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD — The impacts on adjacent properties shall be addressed, including impacts on privacy and views. First story and second story elements should be designed and articulated to reasonably address these issues, and windows and balconies shall be located to reasonably protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards. M. TREES — City Planning staff must approve the removal of any Oak Tree or construction of any improvements under the drip line of Oak Trees. 6 Exhibit 1 N. ANIMALS — Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept. SECTION 5. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than 2 feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the ARB. Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the ARB. No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the ARB; however, any fence or wall between adjacent properties not within the front building setback or street side setback area is subject only to review by the City. Specific requirements of the ARB for proper consideration of an application are listed on the Short Review or Regular Review Applications. The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building that does not substantially change the external appearance of the building. A. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD — The ARB shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: 1. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in the applicable area described in Section 1. F 7 Exhibit 1 2. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the ARB. 3. Said by -laws provide that only property owners can be appointed to and serve on the ARB. 4. Owners have been appointed to the ARB in accordance with the by -laws. 5. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto has been filed with the City Clerk. 6. The ARB shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. 7. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, actions, and decisions of the ARB shall be maintained by the ARB, in accordance with the City's records retention policies. 8. The ARB's decision on a Regular Review Process shall be accompanied by specific findings, based upon a reference to supporting facts, setting forth the actions and decisions. 9. Only ARB members present at the meeting can participate in making the decision. 10. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall render the decision. 11. A copy of the ARB's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within 7 working days of the ARB's decision. 8 Exhibit 1 12. All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). All aspects of the Brown Act shall be adhered to by members of the ARB. This includes, but is not limited to proper posting of meeting agendas, noticing requirements, no discussion of matters outside of public meetings, etc. B. POWERS OF THE ARB — Pursuant to Section 3 and Sections 4A through 4N, and through the specified review process, the ARB shall have the power to: 1. Determine the compatibility with the neighborhood of the mass, scale, design and appearance of the proposed project. 2. Determine and approve appropriate setbacks. 3. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Determine the impact of the proposed project on adjacent properties. 5. Subject to compliance or consistency with the City's Municipal Code, any of the conditions set forth in Sections 4A through 4N may be made less restrictive by the ARB if the ARB determines that such action will foster the appropriate development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Resolution. 6. The ARB shall have the power to establish requirements concerning project applications and procedures for review for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such requirements shall be kept on file with the Planning Department. 9 Exhibit 1 C. NOTIFICATION STANDARDS FOR REVIEW PROCESS — For the purpose of conducting design review, required notification shall be deemed to include at least the two parcels on each side of the parcel subject to plan approval (subject parcel), the five parcels facing the subject parcel, and the three parcels to the rear of the subject parcel. Unusually situated parcels, those where a second -story addition or modification is involved, or where the slope of the terrain might impact additional neighbors, may require additional parcels to be part of the required parcels to be notified, and this is to be determined by the ARB Chair or designee. The required notification shall not include properties outside of the HOA area or commercially -zoned properties. An example of the required area of notification is set forth below, although the required notification may vary case -by -case: 4 Street ■ iris Subject Parcel 4— Street Required Notification Area Parcels included in "Required Notification Area" as related to Subject Parcel D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE 10 Exhibit 1 1. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single -story remodel or addition where (a) the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and neighborhood; and (b) the design is in harmony with the streetscape of the neighborhood. The ARB Chair or designee shall have the authority to approve the following specific Short Review Process items: • Single -story remodels and additions • Detached accessory structures — new, additions to, and /or remodels • Fences and /or walls in and /or facing (i.e., visible from) front and street side yards • Hardscape, landscaping and structural elements in front and street side yards, including without limitation, swimming pools, spas, fountains and other water features • Fences, lights, and other features related to tennis courts, sports courts or other significant paved features • Mechanical equipment • Roofing 2. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. 3. If the ARB Chair or designee determines that the proposed project is not a cohesive design, not in harmony with the neighborhood, or might have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, he /she may require that the application be processed under the Regular Review Process procedure. 11 Exhibit 1 4. The ARB Chair or designee shall render a decision on a Short Review Process Item within 10 working days from the date a complete application Is filed with the ARB Chair or designee; failure to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the 10 working -day period. E. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE The Regular Review Process shall be used by the ARB for review of (1) any new home construction, (2) any new or expansion of a second story, (3) any significant change in architectural style of an existing building, and (4) all projects that are not eligible to be processed by the above Short Form Review procedure as determined by the ARB Chair or designee. 1. The ARB is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process application. 2. The applicant shall provide to the ARB all documents required by the application. 3. Notice of the ARB's meeting shall be deposited in the mail by the ARB Chair or designee, postage prepaid by the applicant, to the applicant and to all property owners within the required. notification area of the subject property, not less than 10 calendar days before the date of such meeting. 4. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall render such decision. 5. The ARB shall render its decision on a Regular Review Process application within 30 working days from the date a complete application is filed with the ARB; failure 12 Exhibit 1 to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the 30 working -day period. F. EXPIRATION OF ARB'S APPROVAL — If for a period of 1 year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the ARB, has not begun construction (as evidenced by clearing and grading and /or the installation of a new foundation and /or by installation of new materials on a structure that is being remodeled) or has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. Such project may be resubmitted to the ARB for renewed approval; however, the ARB shall review the project as if it had not been previously approved in accordance with the current standards in effect. G. LIMIT ON ARB'S POWER — The ARB shall not have the power to modify any regulations in the Municipal Code. The ARB may, however, make a recommendation regarding modifying such regulations to the City staff, department, commission or board that will be considering any such modification request. SECTION 6. Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services within 7 calendar days of the ARB's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Planning Commission decisions on ARB cases may be appealed to the City Council. Upon receipt in proper form of a completed appeal from the ARB's decision, such appeal shall be processed by Planning Services in accordance with the same 13 Exhibit 1 procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee, except noticing shall be consistent with ARB noticing. A. STANDARDS FOR ARB DECISIONS AND APPEALS — The ARB and any body hearing an appeal from the ARB's decision shall be guided by the following principles: 1. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. 2. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. 3. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. 4. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. SECTION 7. The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the 14 Exhibit 1 purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness, all of which can have a negative impact on the environment of the community, affecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. All findings and statements of purpose in related resolutions which pre- existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference. SECTION 8. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. 15 Exhibit 1 SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 3rd day of January, 2012. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4a4-ce Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 16 tor. yor f the City of Arcadia Exhibit 1 Exhibit "A" Map and Descriptions Homeowners' Association Areas 1) Arcadia Highlands Homeowners' Association — "Highlands" 2) Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association — "Upper Rancho" 3) Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association — "Oaks" 4) Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association — "Lower Rancho" 5) Santa Anita Village Community Association — "Village" 17 Exhibit 1 Highlands The area north of the commercial properties fronting on Foothill Boulevard, south of the northerly City limit, east of Santa Anita Avenue, west of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District property, extending to the east end of Sycamore Avenue. Excluding those properties located in Tract 15073 (1500 to 1538 & 1503 to 1537 Highland Oaks Drive) and 1501 Highland Oaks Drive and 307A, 307B, 307C & 307D East Foothill Boulevard. Upper Rancho The property bounded on the south by the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; on the west by the east line of Michillinda Avenue; on the east by the centerline of Baldwin Avenue; and on the north by the City limits. Oaks Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Baldwin Avenue and the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Oak Meadow Road; thence southerly along the centerline of Oak Meadow Road to its intersection with the centerline of Hacienda Drive; thence westerly along the centerline of Hacienda Drive to its intersection with the centerline of San Carlos Road; thence southerly along the centerline of San Carlos Road to its intersection with the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; thence westerly along the centerline of Foothill Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of Baldwin Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of Baldwin Avenue to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Oak Meadow Road and the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the southerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said southerly property line to its intersection with the westerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence southerly along the prolongation of said westerly property line to its intersection with the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; thence westerly along the centerline of Foothill Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of San Carlos Road; thence northerly along the centerline of San Carlos Road to its intersection with the centerline of Hacienda Drive; thence easterly along the centerline of Hacienda Drive to its intersection with the centerline of Oak Meadow Road; thence northerly along the centerline of Oak Meadow Road to the point of beginning. 18 Exhibit 1 Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue and the easterly prolongation of the southerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said southerly intersection with the westerly property line to its y property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence southerly along the prolongation of said westerly property line a distance of 65 feet; thence easterly along a line parallel to the southerly property fine of Lot 76 of Tract No. 11074 to its intersection with the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue a distance of 65 feet to the point of beginning. Lower Rancho Area #1 Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point being the southwesterly comer of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly line of Tract No. 13312; thence northerly and easterly along the easterly and southerly boundary of said tract to the southeasterly corner of Lot No. 1 to its intersection with the easterly line of Golden West Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Vaquero Road; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly terminus line of said Vaquero Road; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly Tine of Lot 17 of Tract No. 11215; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of aforementioned Tract No. 11215; thence northerly along said easterly line and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Colorado Street; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Tract No. 17430; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly comer of Lot 36 of Tract No. 15928. Area #2 Beginning at the northwesterly comer of Lot No. 62 of Tract No. 12786; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said center line to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly Tine of Tract No. 14460; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said tract; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said Tract No. 14460; thence southwesterly alopg said westerly line, and its southwesterly prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the northeasterly corner of 19 Exhibit 1 Lot No. 61 of Tract No. 12786; thence westerly along the northerly line of said tract to the point of beginning, said point being the northwesterly corner of Lot 62 of Tract No. 12786. Area #3 All properties with do that Starea reet bounded and on the south by Baldwin the north and east by Co southerly tract boundaries of Tract Nos. 14940 and 15318. Santa Anita Village Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point being the southwesterly comer of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline he easterly intersection with the and northerly lines of Lots 11 through 19 of 13312; thence southerly along said tract to be northeast comer of said Lot 19; thence easterly along the easterly prolongation of said Lot 19 to its intersection with the northwesterly comer of lot 74, Tract No. 12786; thence easterly along the northerly line of said tract to the northwesterly comer of Lot 62 of said Tract No. 12786; thence southerly along the westerly line of said lot and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive, thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northeasterly prolongation of the easterly line of Tract 12786; thence southerly along said easterly line and also the easterly line of Tract No. 12104 to the southeast comer of Lot 129 of said Tract 12104; thence westerly along the southerly lines of Tract No. 12104, Tract 11688, and Tract No. 11932 and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Cortez Road; thence northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of distance a 150' more or less to a point; thence northerly to a point on the northerly line of Portola Drive, said point being 140' westerly from the northwesterly corner of Portola Drive and Cortez Road, thence northerly to the southwest corner of Lot 28, Tract 11932; thence northerly along the westerly line of said tract and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Balboa Drive; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Sunset Boulevard; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928. 20 Exhibit 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6770 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 3rd day of January, 2012 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Amundson, Segal and Kovacic NOES: Council Members Chandler and Harbicht ABSENT: None ity Clerk of the City of Arcadia 21 Exhibit 1 100 -foot radius map of project address, 1050 Hampton Road below: # Name Address Assessor ID# 1 Sheng H. & Min Mei Chang 1150 Singing Wood Dr. 5769 - 003 -024 2 Mike & Barbara Mitchell 1032 Hampton Rd. 5769 - 004 -003 3 Mr. Chu H. Fong 1035 Hampton Rd. 5769- 003 -027 4 Daniel Tsai and Rosy Tsai 1055 Hampton Rd. 5769 - 003 -025 5 Bo Yan Xiao and Xiao Bo Yan 1045 Hampton Rd. 5769 -003 -026 6 Robert J Oconnor 1060 Hampton Rd. 5769 - 004 -006 7 Dr. Kris Mohandie and Mrs. Bic Mohandie 1050 Hampton Rd. (Project Address) 5769 -004 -005 8 Yopie Sioeng and Julie La 1040 Hampton Rd. 5769 - 004 -004 9 Mikey & Lee Segal 1135 Fallen Leaf Rd. 5769 -004 -018 10 Bill & Dorothy Davila 1145 Fallen Leaf Rd. 5769 -004 -009 11 Yi Li and Wulantouya Li 1061 Fallen Leaf Rd. 5769 - 004 -012 12 Dr. James R Stewart and Mrs. Emma Stewart 1051 Fallen Leaf Rd. 5769 - 004 -013 13 Ben and Christina Massey 1035 Fallen Leaf Rd. 5769 - 004 -014 Exhibit J