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