Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 A R
e
-
Q�� -„.j 7
r , C„
AuH pe I 9A i
,"f.
..„,
``� °°�`� STAFF REPORT
„nit of
Development Services Department
DATE: July 29, 2014
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL NO. HOA 14-02 — AN APPEAL OF THE HIGHLANDS
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD'S DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL AND CONSIDERATION OF
OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. THE 14-27
FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AT 1717 ALTA OAKS DRIVE.
Recommended Action: Find that this project qualifies as a Class 3
Categorical Exemption from CEQA, Deny the appeal and uphold the
approval of the Architectural Review Board, and Approve the Oak
Tree Encroachment Permit.
SUMMARY
The subject applications were submitted by project designer, Mr. Robert Tong of
Sanyao International, Inc., to build a new 5,064 square-foot, two-story, single-family
residence at 1717 Alta Oaks Drive. On June 3, 2014, the Highlands Homeowners'
Association's Architectural Review Board conditionally approved the applicant's plans.
On June 4, 2014, an appeal was filed by Mr. Ming Cheng Chan, and on June 5, 2014,
another appeal was filed by Ms. April A. Seymour and Ms. Jun Segimoto.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the
Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board's approval, and
approve the Oak Tree Encroachment Permit.
BACKGROUND
In mid-November 2013, Mr. Ralph Bicker retired as Chairperson of the Highlands
Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) after 35 years of service.
The ARB was unable to find a replacement until mid-February, 2014, when Mr. Glenn
Oyoung assumed the position.
During the three months from November 2013 to February 2014 when the ARB did not
have a chairperson, the Development Services Department, with the City Attorney's
advice, began to conduct design reviews for the projects within the Highlands HOA. It
was critical for the City to process the design review applications because under
Resolution No. 6770, "the ARB shall render its decision on a Regular Review Process
application within 30 working days from the date a complete application is filed with the
ARB; failure to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the
end of the 30 working-day period." The Development Services Department had been
contacted in late November and December by a number of applicants that were ready
to submit projects to the Highlands ARB. Unless the City processed the design review
applications, the projects would have been approved by default, and there would not be
an opportunity to review the architectural design of these proposals.
The subject design review application was initially submitted on February 11, 2014 for
the City's Single-Family Architectural Design Review process under case no. SFADR
14-23. Rather than completing this design review through the City's process, the City
decided to work with the ARB to have a design review meeting in response to the
growing opposition to large new homes in the Highlands area, and a new ARB
Chairperson was already in place. Therefore, the ARB held a noticed public hearing on
May 29, 2014 at the subject property. At the meeting, the ARB conditionally approved
the subject proposal.
On June 4, 2014, an appeal was filed by Mr. Ming Cheng Chan, and on June 5, 2014,
another appeal was filed by Ms. April A. Seymour and Ms. Jun Segimoto.
The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the appeal, and
also consider Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 14-27. The Commission's
decision may be appealed to the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The subject property is a 12,440 square-foot interior lot zoned R-1-10,000&D. An aerial
photo of the area and photos of the subject property are attached. The subject property
is currently improved with a 2,644 square-foot, one-story residence.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and build a new 5,064
square-foot, two-story, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage. The
floor plan includes four (4) bedrooms, four (4) full bathrooms, two (2) half bathrooms, a
library, kitchen with a wok room, a dining room, wet bar, living room, family room, and a
home theater. The proposed architectural style is described as Prairie, which typically
consists of horizontal elements, grouped windows, and deep overhangs. The proposed
home includes 30-inch eave overhangs, a smooth concrete tile roof, brick veneer,
smooth stucco finish, wood-stained front door and garage door — see the attached
plans. The overall building height is 27'-0" as measured from the average existing
grade, where a maximum of 30'-0" is permitted by Code.
HOA 14-02 & THE 14-27
1717 Alta Oaks Drive
July 29, 2014 — page 2 of 7
The ARB imposed the following conditions of approval: 1) reduce overall height by
lowering the grade two (2') feet below the average existing grade, 2) change the roof
pitch to 3:12 to reduce the roof height by approximately one (1') foot, and 3) raise the
bottom of the windows facing the neighbors to six (6') feet in height to help address
privacy concerns. By incorporating these conditions, the overall building height would
be approximately 24'-0" from the average existing grade.
Based on these changes, the ARB found the plans to be consistent with the City's
Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines) and the established design
guidelines in City Council Resolution No. 6770. A copy of the Findings and Action
Report, and the ARB meeting minutes, are attached. Copies of the Guidelines and
Resolution are included in the Planning Commission agenda packet.
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.
Staff finds that the architectural design of the proposed residence to be in conformance
with the City's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, and the design standards in
City Council Resolution No. 6770.
APPELLANTS' COMMENTS
Two appeal letters were submitted on the subject proposal. The first appeal letter was
submitted by Mr. Ming Cheng Chan, a developer who finds the approval of this project
to be inconsistent with the ARB's denial of his single-story proposal at 1760 Wilson
Avenue. The second appeal letter was submitted by Ms. April A. Seymour, who resides
at 1614 Highland Oaks Drive, and Ms. Jun Segimoto, who resides at 1710 Elevado
Avenue, which is adjacent to the rear of the subject property. The appeal letter states
HOA 14-02 & THE 14-27
1717 Alta Oaks Drive
July 29, 2014 — page 3 of 7
that the subject proposal is not consistent with Resolution No. 6770 based on the
following: obstruction of views from neighboring homes, specifically, anything over 15' in
height would obstruct the view of the neighbors to the west of the subject property; the
height of the entry is too tall; front elevation lacks articulation; tall windows add to the
verticality of the building; the height visually dwarfs the adjacent one-story homes; and
the veneer is not compatible with the neighboring homes. The two appeal letters are
attached to this staff report.
STAFF'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Mr. Chan's concern is with the consistency of the ARB's decisions, and does not relate
to any specific concerns or issues over the architectural design of the subject proposal.
However, this design review and appeal process is to evaluate the architectural design
of the subject proposal, and not on the perceived fairness of the ARB decision. It is
important to note that Mr. Chan's proposal at 1760 Wilson Avenue was denied based on
the presentation of an alternative design sketch, and a revised project was
subsequently approved by the ARB after a full set of architectural plans based on that
sketch were presented.
In response to the appeal letter submitted by Ms. Seymour and Ms. Segimoto, it is
staff's opinion that the specific conditions of approval imposed by the ARB effectively
limit the height and mass of the proposed building — see attached ARB Findings and
Action Form. These conditions will reduce the overall building height by approximately
3'-0". Resolution No. 6770 states that "Natural amenities such as views, and other
features unique to the site should be preserved and incorporated into development
proposals." While the applicant should incorporate measures to preserve views, limiting
the building height to 15'-0" as the appellant suggested would be an unreasonable
restriction to impose on this property. This suggested height is even more stringent
than the 16'-0" maximum accessory building height permissible by Code. On exterior
finishes, the proposed brick veneer is consistent in appearance with many neighboring
homes. Several homes along Alta Oaks Drive have utilized bricks on the buildings and
for paving.
Oak Tree Encroachment
The proposed development will encroach into the protected areas of three oak trees, all
of which are located in the front yard area of the subject property, including two (2) oak
trees located in the City parkway. Certified Arborist, Mr. Michael Crane reviewed the
subject proposal and prepared the attached Arborist Report for this project. Mr. Crane
finds that with protective measures, the proposed development will not adversely affect
the health of these three (3) oak trees. The recommended tree protection measures are
included as a condition of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) staff has
determined that the development of a single-family residence is Categorically Exempt
HOA 14-02 & THE 14-27
1717 Alta Oaks Drive
July 29, 2014 — page 4 of 7
per Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the Planning Commission is to
consider denial of the appeal and approval of the design review, the Commission should
find that this application qualifies for the Categorical Exemption.
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on July 18, 2014, to the owners of
those properties within the required notification area — see the attached notification area
map, as well as the appellants, the HOA President, and the previous and current ARB
Chairpersons. 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. An opposition letter to the appeal was submitted by Mr. McCallum, resident
at 1730 Alta Oaks Drive. A copy of the letter is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Appeal No. HOA 14-02, uphold
the ARB's decision, and approve Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 14-27,
subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The grade of the building pad shall be lowered by two (2') feet below the average
existing grade.
2. The slope of the roof shall be reduced from 4:12 to 3:12.
3. The bottoms of the windows on the side elevations of the second floor shall be
raised to six (6') feet above the finished floor.
4. The applicant shall comply with all recommended protective measures outlined in
the arborists' report dated March 2014. A Certified Arborist shall provide a written
follow-up report to Planning Services to verify the fulfillment of the protective
measures prior to final inspection sign off of the project
5. The proposed project shall be developed and maintained by the property owner in a
manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and approved by the ARB and
TRE 14-27.
6. The applicant/property owner shall comply with all City requirements regarding
building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public
right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer
facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building
Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Development Services
Director, or their respective designees. Compliance with these requirements is to
be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check
review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees.
HOA 14-02 & TRE 14-27
1717 Alta Oaks Drive
July 29, 2014 —page 5 of 7
7. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to
attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of
Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to
any approval or conditional 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 officials, officers,
employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
8. The ARB approval & TRE 14-27 shall not take effect unless on or before 30
calendar days after Planning Commission approval of these applications, the
property owner and applicant have executed and filed with the Community
Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the
Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these
conditions of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval of Appeal and Denial of Design
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Appeal and deny the proposed
design, the Commission should move to approve Appeal No. HOA 14-02, and deny Oak
Tree Encroachment Permit Application No. THE 14-27, state that the proposed design
is not consistent with the City's design guidelines, and/or with City Council Resolution
No. 6770, and that the Oak Tree Encroachments are not acceptable.
Denial of Appeal and Approval of Design
If the Planning Commission intends to deny the Appeal and uphold the ARB's
conditional approval of the design, and approve the project, the Commission should find
that the subject application is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and move to deny Appeal No. HOA 14-02 to uphold the ARB's
decision, and approve Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 14-27; and state why
the proposed design is consistent with the City's design guidelines and City Council
Resolution No. 6770, and that the oak tree encroachments are acceptable, and move to
approve the project subject to the conditions set forth in this report, or as modified by
the Commission.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the July 29, 2014 public hearing, please contact Associate
Planner, Thomas Li by calling (626) 574-5447, or send an email to tli @ci.arcadia.ca.us.
HOA 14-02 & TRE 14-27
1717 Alta Oaks Drive
July 29, 2014 — page 6 of 7
Approved by:
Jim Ka a
Corn nity Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo of the Area
Photos of the Subject Property and neighboring properties
Proposed Plans
ARB Findings and Action Form
ARB Meeting Minutes
Appeal Letters
Arborist Report Dated March 2014
Notification Area Map
Letter from Mr. McCallum
One copy of the City's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and
City Council Resolution No. 6770 are included separately in the July 29,
2014 Planning Commission agenda packet.
HOA 14-02 & THE 14-27
1717 Alta Oaks Drive
July 29, 2014 —page 7 of 7
Site Address: 1717 ALTA OAKS DR
property Owner(s): Dexter Alta Oaks, LLC
--- - -
111** q -.7, ' <., ' ' „
st..,4 ..t
mo
. if,, .
9 ,.
1, it 1
F
j
k
Ploreg
t
4
(j
r
'" L r ..
Property Characteristics Selected parcel highlighted
Zoning: R-1 (10,000) ,g: IN= M2' ��am s r = 1
General Plan: VLDR >, mi. •: min ma_ r�um Ego r2 1
.i .. ii Cam'g 4 WI. meta •i se, 4
Lot Area (sq ft): 12,440 t:i:ii NE MEN tf 2.414 N =io
Main Structure/ Unit(sq.ft.): 2,644 ma : o� := raft$te �a�♦
Year Built: 1951 "" �* ~' Ise*
Number of Units: 1 'FIR lu. :� .� :• ��.� �►
.�= Ze s�.E� Mr aft �.
1p lam= .w'ri— mg , v, ,. -
Overlays �� =C :m.Mas 1" •� � ►,
Parking Overlay: n/a �= � �"Ill
Downtown Overlay: n/a " �1 uu∎ ^2 ! tzsø wm _ �1
Special Height Overlay: n/a b.a;G A�� ���!
Architectural Design Overlay: D Parcel location within City of Arcadia"
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for Report generated 22-Jul-2014
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current, Page 1 of 1
or otherwise reliable.
View of the subject property at 1717 Alta Oaks Drive
U ,, T � y
0, . S 4 K '
t
Y „ I. ,. i, �,t d^ `��tk I y
r
e•
1 ± . -t"` ?"e am f ........'.7 y3 ,k. y ,? ► .� c„2r .
oil .-
■ �
. .
View of the neighboring property to the south at 1709 Alta Oaks Drive.. .
alt. 1. ii....
t... , ...141
•
okiiti, , _.i
L a '
r4 u,_
, .
......E-4a.
View of the neighboring property to the north at 1723 Alta Oaks Drive
w Ii, * ii ° i ' 'a,ts' '" ^ rr,�,
{ + e t • t'Y S '"'`��1��� � ��=x�'���`fit"" ''" � ��+t
y�. : 1. .- ,.Y, �, n !}y ''. 1
ae .e., - . a , M ,• v, Ar.ary a"w t ^ �\ '1 t *k• .,/,..i. _.-y t
J
•4 0 .*19
, .,1` •.
u
d I owsror bw)ni•Hors,(Ku1 Na " Y':..:.Ytl 1
'rRn'WO,w]'.IN•kton.j'l••rq.„n•3ifi r- • VO rVIOVOLIV I-,I
y •b.i...w rm..vnw ' r
3 _r.�� 3Alaa SHVO V11V LW. �' ik y R
'I .r '3NI IVNOUVNa31NI O VAN Y S I rsiti YA 3Sf1OH AlIWVJ 31ONIS i Q ��
I
r N 1 y el V
Yf
c.
age q o ;��Q it p:Piiiiiii hi, 4
[9/
Lt .ss_ Yp °. Qiiiyy ylypypyy a .Iii ,, y� se.—. ]4T
k C :1 J19 pit i 6 i19 I11 111/1111 ' a 4e:sli `r _;_t_----',.r I _ i
NI lAl.; a»a 7 :° F OW—I. = ss xilx;liAid; O�ild; mho =� g 'pIP f Pa g{il1PiP@ F .a1 ! ! 0 I 1 i 10‘kagbi-1.3� l � P i4l63i1 W iiQil�li S a1 FiIIrill I I i
a
i�l ;,; ;is 1� ii I 1 iI e C^ FF1Q111i1i�y.K- _ +l i i 1—__i 0 a ^ syNifiRAg1 ! 1:TSiiyi111111 ib: E W? id; C� i
1 �i III P�1 IQ 1 �� �� I! !1Q1111 I 1 d
--r � 4 Q
9! S d ' iiS�i F !
h. n F 11,151 N
I.. i1 'i 11 { siy jil f`1{ il 11Jli111111 I lil i iiiiii i • 0
W' SXVO Y.L7Y Wind 11111i hi f i i�i1i,el
— —� — T—IqI — — --8-- — it i a ; " lit I i"11111rI1 1F1I" Mkt L WLL
1 �� ti 1 I- ' . ... �... - A,Cax R e O li° al 91 _— _ 4yi—I. I�,R�1 @�P aae4 ��i�P 9 +Il' w 1;
_ 1Y 11' p
81 I 1 \ yi` op H alzz.'•- \ 3 e i1$! 1i r .i ,°11JjIJI 01 I1111Qti %
_ yR .�•_�;}:);�,;:y — N il \\ MIL i`l`,y Ipdi��`,i, W F 1W R 14 P if: i i"1111 0,1
+AV ::CCYl.... ::,7C:Zi'A ' y 1 QE „Ig pit i; .1� .,,,1 ii ilf xf.e
p rte., � l 'sw;:..;::,,:` .111.P111e11i 1 3:311 I�
pe s• 11 �suss 41 VI- �. r .ymcr,"1 F414Z, , Z 9 i1li�i�l�I�•
leg ill,,...441_11% `■Y -;; �t(�:G: Rf. a e � � iy °K 4, C:'•4 \\\\ \ b y 9 R
�5 I i" '1'� .< - L- I i1 . C i— 1 10 1 li x Ir1 § !r
i ��� _ "—I 1; 1, y 111 i ii,b i Rb I Iiti iI 1 \�1: I1'; 1 I ' _ 1401 p6G r vii 1!j Rib a
. oy,,,s�t ¢ ��11111111 n I g � 1C1 111j-1 9 @RLLi�:l ` ��I ie 1 6�ayl' ��3ej�It
-I �;ii_ I w ' FM § I lgSii a1tii111 q�R� 1I is iliti 1.
@ ':E1_,"; -ill��—_ __ _ `" l=Jl-us 1 1lIIpili°�i'ie: :11:11 �' 11111111
11
. . iwu Y i Q Pik Q R , 1 an
"II;�r 1 �� t.,, I _ R, �p�411ifQy■`yy 11x1 �8��`Rn� cey Il�r,�dr•!
III! I H 11 1F+ giiil�i�2bJb Q��1y1 i! !S1 1t Q. ;1.1� 2
R ,.�. �� ' o.i Q I ' i< R ith iiiiriliiiiii !31111.413!11 R i i X1111 ai
iap I Q 1>��I 4 Ii EE,11113797911i,1F1CCC:1111[• 1345! E Ei
p9GE �1pp i
, a ODE=IP ■• L....m.0 1
R !'1 �. 7,&
6► R E y e4 b; 7. ��11 1�'/I �;y, , I! I g� 1 13414..1 i Mega
x(11 L— :: `. �-�. [ 1 '10 ad 1 ii 1:1.01h1gli �Ilil III: 1 ! RH!C g 1 [41 1i1411 T"
1 `g p Wig a iirit. i , i•
I Tf � � .1 d E. , 1 R
1
Fie �. � _ _ 1 i 1 a Iiii$11$ @l ei
I 1 4 g 0by313I lig
AO'OB MAO,OC.OIS W F E° {Qi1 3gb13 • . i
i1 e 1 Yi ?ib rrliiis@illss 4 lle
• € 111•11• MOl'MIIOpIni.114,111,iKN MJ rr
Yfll Vow p'gppN'MiI Is M9 M�9 me k 1
•M. %*WIWI• 3 ;', V3 JVIOVOZIV
i =i- 3AJ O S)IVO V1lV L6u § 1 : A ''rl
II I
�. ''""'"i01"N'91""OVANYS v } }4 3Sf1OH AlIWV 1 31ONIS i1 j I Q
11 lit I 11 II
Iiiiiiiiiplio l' I if;
I �l!�.�rl u 1Idd
sJ� dtg t r i
rJ '7 rs app . J a-a rp i f f Y Y 9>!�: �± ,y�
VI
- a-4re't li 1;1
., . FL- rs
cI1T f12 ii it-- -- 'p, r—__--1 1 I LIi:i1. I , -lj E k 11�u 1 I , . I L J I I I L____J 11 I y ^t R� ' II II - '--±
■
I
J3�" '� 11111 _ ii ii j� �' E 19...
r ,.
4 , 1 I I )11111111111�' I r
is II _ "F' t
ill
'V J'u�l' ` 1 ,ii i t i6»i y 7 I 'h',3 it k +UNE k.i �., Ik$ Nl N J + III If
1rtr�r iTl ��� maw 7
Z in L-4
I q 1 1Ii I _ N a :. i 10
:if-:1 is i i_====ii 1.==:_=„====1 I 4 , _ i',?. 1 'lir
I� 111E1
1 it 'I rvr �
�--, IJI MVO ... " T 1111
JL J h ..
I '1, -,
' rJ
J
rJ
rX ^r •.M1 rJ i r• .1 rJ
A.la *a A-.1
$717. vrn v�11� wn omi'u. o"ns y on F i i i ' V9�MIQV'.�1ld ^ N.sr ri.�nw•an•u• >4�3 �NI�rNOUVNa3JNk OVANVS a 3St1OW AIIWtld 31ONIS 1 ii i i t a C I '„
I � ��I I11 �II
`! 'yy pp I
" r.. 7 ri rc I ri,' 1 rr ri 1,-ii, i � i'�p�jfl ltl It ti Ili
i 0 ' tttt�ttraiiii1��8�
Z————r ;i,. -1-I————a-r i I a1FIa I ; �___i_H
• i I ;210,3 iY ii i tl 9
---_E-�= -, --1 r ► I �„e w, I 1 1 it
�t a 1 � i 11
r n,i ,,I-ISHIIIIIII!JI1'�A1�I��I' I �r �lrt, I A ki ki
R • a , 1— -I, 1•
1 I AAd '� ,r ' tiG7h'_i
■• $
r______L___ ___;.. I tiial t7 71 1 L _, _,,_, I Vd 1 -4C.----- --..---.t1 e .r. 11 .1
I +.. I '=�
1 X la: s,.� ` 4p 4.,
b -I— ,I i C 1 t I d 511
1 1 gg I VNI_Abh- Ill 1 — ! 5
lir 0 ,
,..„,,, .....,... ...., , ,---
I I II I I
I I i1 ____I I
II I II I
.1.1 l r.■ ri 1 ri w IZa,rf in i rF
ri ' ri r},N
.....................
Y<4Q44 oeoi An Sd••A•A•ArArr Ni
•
vAro'Aeo�e va lA tiw••nr•aoa"r bwl•n'p nAro'a xA fl4 .1-'Y ... V3 lviavm iv
3 •°u""•1d""u•`1••'1• .. ; 3/11ti0 S)IVO V1111 LLL� ; a co)
3Hi,rnouvNU i OVJINYS '•'. ;{ 3Sf10H A11wvd 310NIS d i a a i a
lb tt d
hi il,,,, .... IN a
" ' "Ii ill i; 1 . R ' i
11 Id il I Hi ill d .j I II ii 1 O i l '�g - �!; i - .''O .�����4 1 izt
�da +� ' �,' E !l I lit o iilt iili�f ? 1 0 :r:::: .11!SI Iii! }} i s hil , li r Ih'
�l I ilitill I
I 5 M
L :
• -
g1i! - p ,' • _
1
111111111 I
to
CD $ if 111
� m m 1
ICD
? --- �Si i
r._ - A
Y1Ar'AIAf - - lAlYY d 5`
1 I ler°
ii
!! —1 II , it 1 I z )1 11 IV s
liiv--- ---- ,4--- -----_ ___ — - �I- . ..
0 41' I i--u -7x1
/4_ T `��aD
II
Nk' -3 5,1 0,-
i as
1 I
I
t 1 F7CI d( -- ^'- it ' ._ti c�—i■-'I 71 c\-� i as as
as! �\ S 6g i n
8 ® II
III i'il _ ICD iv' II
— _ r,
= .....,__,... ._____7:79, _r; .., 1.1,_=et\- ..iNk\1
II II II
111 II '1 1l
igt J
i
•--
Lli 4:,....-;:z...,,,Hil-f-t-2,.„,-2-..ij.....
3Alk la SNVO Vild L ILI I.
11 i .m..................
3N11VNOUNN2131N1 ovANvs NI A ,..2-..-7--Argtm,s•
.. ...VAIr................,11 3SflOH AllioNi 31DNIS I i iet I
...
',
• k
f : • V . .1
...;
.1. .
,
' ”1..•1
, e i
,
0 itil . .1 . ,
II PIII II 1,111,
f ,„,... :
NI
1.r, „[■1,1 11
6 ii:.4t,I.L '''I1,,IIIII II.II la l ,.1141.-. . •
WI IIIII2 •
- 11' 1,1' 1U'-I
il ,! ,
Il 4 il t , i'll'-'"'---5 •
0 c) 1 1 Ettottlim.
10111.111' in MIMI! ".
-,, 4 11 1 11 Illiil ■ :I e.. r , i)1' , !ill Mil 1:.t. , ,,!(. 1 1, ;
,.. ,
i II d.. -., .., ..
11141UNBA I. ii
1 ; A-, 111- -, idlli
l i \ 1;H'ile0,:•1 •)•2' - ii ' ji
I
1
1 '(11z- • • 11' ,1 11141,
v.
I, BIM
111 III :111111111 ^-1-4;21 ' I l'li 11,11-11111 - CO -17---1 '11:11 1.11111
Ili - —11
0 11' 11 'fan/ ll I 1 :7-5.-1,1,11fflNO3, - , 1' 1111 4
!ta5;:si
. 11 17.,':. .11111 1 •-ti
r In il 11.1 1 i ---&'f-7,4 .• • clD I :rail, 11 . .
IL.1 imli
IllieM11 W.
IT
111
iorliii. ! iiiii i i I, ,,1, , i _.,,, , . w .
. 0
•ill ii,6' III 41111 ' 1_111
11111,71,1,1,t;;I:: 1 AI la, ,04, • i[61.1111iiilliil 1111, '‘-------,, -1 • if4111;11111111111.71-'111,1'1111:'1•-',1 ,1_:11__I I .......„
i
It 1 1 wi, ,' iii . ... •• .
irmegl. c,,. ,,. ..
1,- , ,
. ,,, ,
ii--1.1 I!1
, ,, -_....,„„ 1 .., 1
. j .,...,:I,'
. ' Ill'
um= '' 1, l_::j- --1 . . • 1 , - . '
ti
,, :tut 1, 11, : 1 9P- . i•
- ftal • - ', 41D 1::101,
NI 49 : 11111 II:, -,, H11 ii 4:111
• ' le 1 , 1 I 11:Nit
.,„. 14i Pi ' ' •
.. f i' . ' U I Ali I III' -••;',1:4;I71: 1 ,
,
0 IV U 1 II; 11 ' I, 1 H
G1 '- - -"..*" ' '
1" le 1111:1■1111"i ;
-IFIF:111 14, Lnodi.. 1 1111:11 1 ■1.7 1 11711)11.iiii:'' _
ir l'"PIL il r • s\■!iiiilltill,ti11
. 00] ;It,; iiiIIIIIIIIIIMI. ... ,,s•t urit I I !II IIII 1
, 1 T.,. .1 ,,li 1 1 111111111111ii$,1111111 )
,,,„ 1 • ' li‘i - ' . .---1 . 11,21Ilik
,
i.*•P *. 1111111=111111M - • .
11111111L1111. .. -4 'Ilirol,..,.,,,,",.
1 .i
.....„„..,,.
• / ,.,7i ,.. •■1 . . ./,,,,, 1- I r)I
z \
, .
0
• „,. 'l 1:1
, A ,
• -
------1 If 1 li 1 ;
•, 6 Ill ;
l
i
. gi k E 1 i 1.1 4 131 sk i
1011 h '11 1' II
I I il
it Ile 111, ,I li .
;ii' ; Q 1 .
....„
\
.,
li /ill !! Iii Ili 11
I ....1. il i'Li!il 1 i 1 t-
:-• I tt1P-t-22i k il Ill it It!' 11 fl \ -..
it Id .1 al gli
' .1 litimin, r _ . . PV011.sit 5 .
, . . . . .
114_1 .11r— i 1.., 1 V.IgligS5r4 C •
,( 1 ' ! 1 , 11111116F 1 1 '4:!11!ilg F12'11 \
• I I ,I ot..., . 1 z [14” -3' -8 !
• I,!4. 1
a i 1 i 11111 1 kgttlal--
, il,Is .1 gglrilit . 1 '125E'ig. F3 i
1.4 0 ipig 2z.1 i
\ I 41' Ill I r I
te...11THI, L 1 1 'it'll I
1 I 1 S I NEL,EiliiSii
'11 I., i ,; 1 ..ia., I 8 - • • • - —
111 ;'• r 1 illi 1,1, . i.,
1
CP .
' t 1 li t .•"ki,
' 1 'G 11, elk
11 1, Q_.-.) ' I
1 L 1 I Lii • [ '
0 lill [ IiIIM
• 1 f' ," '1 Nil •
, 1111211,4,_ —.,,■.■ ...
.' .-- 1 1 tool; . — •.11-,-,-0-4:2119 IMP-''7::.•-:,' \
0 I!
,rli I
I
I ' 1
.10 ; •'•
• : ,. ,11;
- 1'
,I,OrAIMPHI': -
•1/4.,t-
i i • , - 1 1 I
, ..
6 I,C I
0CL6SCS9i9 XCVA 90S6SfS9i9 78.0 w7' 6L99S01929:%Vi us9-SIt-9C9:'I31 Z00-900-ILLS'91,1 wt..+ V
MII6 VJ'OWNVWNV9 �}l{'� SLLI6 YJ`1dl%61VONVS 90016 VD'YIOYJYY p4[ i p ~
�. "Id 073IdtlIYA SOli (0 8 '%O 31'1587'M Oii 'Sw SAVO VI'1YLILI 1 1 F i 1
i SIIVIDOSSV i8 AI3IIJQAiR7 Aiin (.;,,77,. a`,, d[10110 I i9IS3Q 331 AIRI3Z 3SIIOH A'III'1IV3 3'I9AIIS ! 04
.rt.x1+JZUKllvarv�GOxv�xWnovuN d�'"0 ...W.. . 1 E R 6 i 6
s M , R
S
1 1 1 1 1 110 112/;!!; i 11 b 1 i!i li it i b x R a a ° a
ikp 9p1 y i9 ii SS pp
11} IiS i gii i. liigBgi iit i hp lift ii § 1 i Q w .4FY ! 4 . s pih i § 3^ 42 V IF il 1 WI ©© © 11 © , G n ,
1 §0s D E O / � g � Eltit4i « :? 41 klip 1, > 9 ,
1 1 11 11 3
11 If© g a 0 s e —
MI '11. J.doba. _______ 2 9� 11 V • V..„ E .ip t— '..:iH�bi' � 11 _ 0 , x Z Z Z i Z i
a-- it 1 tf� a� �: . \e `
i
N[v C7 `�N 1`:`. V II �J(—I'�I���If/l \ 3 - - ^ « e -a v - II
t' 1 mss '? v...4.4 Iiil.,, I 8 8 8 8 i o i o
@ !1 V \, Ltr . �` s r» y p x
. -�t \ • 14t.^' '
iOQ ,iS1g : � YKs. �∎ i.jjh� t.
i
, / 0 }■
Il <:'- ?. S SG - p
C
\� 1�i 1 >I rrlr\, ��,I �\
„�F I I' ['n iI 0 ' b 3
lii h`. a yy `y p QQQ s
g ,I �1+ r 1411 ,
, ;;. ; Ii lll
pp l/� u II � ti II I '3 - J
— i•' ,
\ i ` a 1:61 CV 7
11 il Y B
2 S
ILI
;
it!r ! ;;J_ . ro fi I
pp 1 M W v..
1 :Ale
Ma
t1 I,I file 7 m .. ICI U
1@i b1. iii Le�,�j7pS i ,� J �:-0:IP ,
Y! as 'I :OQQ�J�'.-��� sii ;a 1@ F Y
.:, OACIIL t ViAI /11illill
. �I�: ,g
�N°�¢ '�1 p ice"
1 iii.l!firilli
l'.Y 11,smiSts.. :..m n¢7m./6.h.c.i..a .6]��f, C gry [I8P+7,..,.U'_S^m.mm �= . Ey m _ 5 FFF h hi Q p
1 1 IP 13f; ti 01;111 WI
a r' a i r i
� , O <� �
_
ft Y
I
ZlU Sl1V0 V1lV L ii.l fi ,j r 1 OM'1S Sl0H AlINIVUN'S MN 4 ` ' I•
i>I1 •au'�sappossy 799
MI '�{f i
Z a e f
MAi : - 1 § z t' :R I :14
41 ',' ---:: * D 1---- 2 ° tit p
w < —� ii el 1 A€ h i!W to hid t •80 SYVO el ld
,is 11 1 .
� z z _iit:
2 r r I. , �, ci4,.gr `ai9r ",: , i
t t i -j d a.0--z n 116;1 1 s ( j" / If .
�R le l o e ' `' )t i is
.` t.at g¢ II I yak 1.�` I ie i '�.� 6
v t t Y Z 2p 1 .� :r ' �1 y I� E
�lia�3 LI rr'11 k ! / L I , i •t N 1 sum 1 rill N';,�, JJ i q R 1 ti' !
1 I 6 ! @�11°-!a per ?. "e � �, \ -j" L:_� n I�
C R : : :
%i Si
s! 1 01 ! 13. IR S{ "� ` R 1!
© 5 d d B F 1 -'-II®H Igi-i' i �s i5 !I
r i . r 1; 4 t4 4 `e 1 Ri
1 11.I ? m �S ‘J IiSWG a m r IBm
b1 •_ 1 R �r o kg t o M R
1 142: i t f'!6 `d 1' W I 111
4 � u
h .$,'\ 101 7 z _ 1i r 111 1,:o
e Q,.f I 111 n
�"° S 9 'i. 44 e yy a R 111- ''c`e t �II '
d i i I'H `,0 9 1i II
1 a"^T L*, . - i L. . -i i . LC ,0 I~ I
I �� g e$ , I. pi e
.�ti b
- r---z'.---szF I lrit ,�1! — ■� --II ai Dr ! �,, h : 1, 11
�r - --'O i el i ' III '.
11 11 ! " � 3f �� i° ` �F,; 11 ik
© R RR e�j \.. Pr` ——e — It pa
gg e
C 5t $ I29 ! ' i ' R i roe.
e f 10 m+1 �%,. ©33330 i �. j -il:1
ii r
i e tiI 0 � lei i .t � i.
i l;
UI �; iie6 :91 �e QSS � f�l1J1'✓<
s
��,
b SS f P1 11 h I I o'/y/ C 6iA 008 I
pri il le ifrf f , b �19YYff ' �e g p g {IRri R 7.i M.00.00015R"4 ° QEeiy 1�is
2 A 2 & e
2 ii S
Iiiiiihnallinniii
,;00006 061)@&C 00000MINM
b i; it1 xiii i 1 ; ; 11 Q V @pleI 4I id I
go! n i y ell b 1 2 & 1: E V c 1 G x 1� 0 1 ill si ;.R . E tl i
Ae Vie; 'I M �S 141 ix 111 R 1 II p pgi i ,, 91i iI I r ,j' p
Al V 11 1 �r Re1 Obi!�rb i 11 19 4° 1 gf 9+ i • IA c f" 19 Og ifi S
b II$ a e 1 1°11 b r -
1�082 i0 '`ii i iliv is02G11 X51° i" VIIil i i�1 !R i y R ib G g R 1 Iii "�� : bi A f
" 1/0 1111a G Alr1 � 112 r i R ixa6 r1A f/ shag @I I e i1 ri 0 I pot L it i _ ill
k ri i i Ij it Q f l 4 lr o b A its 1 i !x rR3 �� f
54:45 ;01 llai 1 Al11r l V 1 1I a orb - 0 :1 1"R 51 i 1 i 9
it 8 �� ,�� � 1 A rR 1 � . ed I R„ r Y 6
0101b 05;5 v1,511 A 5 fzi.liVN4iplii � i i iMh)I i °ii ID :a;Ii it 4 141.i, i € 1
11;1101111;011� qq %i� 1iCd11 1 yb y"8�: PO A.1 pje q fib{ {F 1 UMez l 1``ly� 1 e �;ys' 1 0 g .p�
v, i�1r'ilillIi iii 9Wllktil-0111��ie Dli5[Yi 411:1 b�Ni'llit;1A IA ! :!hil i-111 l`!ii R R Yiii r f �fl 4 w M , r .: w r C = Y . ! � ! ! R k - - -. r e r . a e
9e .+w.w� 1
Arcadia Highlands Homeowners' Association
Architectural Review Board
Findings and Action Report — Regular Review
June 3, 2014
Project Address: 1717 Alta Oaks File G-2014-014
Applicant: Sanyao International
Owner: Dorado LLC
Project Description: New two-story home
Action: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Conditions: Reduce plate height and change roof pitch to 3:12 to achieve
reduction in overall height of approximately three feet (3')
Findings:
1. SITE PLANNING —The proposed project is consistent with the Site Planning
Guidelines based on:
Design measures have been incorporate to reduce the massing and mitigate
scale differences with surrounding homes. This includes breaking up the plane of
the front façade and roof articulation.
The proposed project will also be retaining the mature trees located in the front of
the site, which will also help to reduce the feeling of mass. The site sits on a
grade and the street is comprised of other two-story homes.
II. ENTRY —The proposed project is consistent with the Entry Guidelines based
on:
Height and style of entry is compatible with the house. No vertical elements to
emphasize the scale or massing of house.
III. MASSING — The proposed project is consistent with the Massing Guidelines
based on:
Project has adequate wall and roof articulation to help mitigate the mass and
scale. Second story has lighter character than first. Brick veneer helps to break
up the sense of mass on the first floor /front elevation.
IV. ROOFS — The proposed project is consistent with the Roofs Guidelines
based on:
The project utilizes traditional roof forms. Applicant has agreed to change the
pitch of the roof to 3:12 to reduce height by roughly 1".
V. FACADE DESIGN — The proposed project is consistent with the Façade
Design Guidelines based on:
Façade treatment relevant to architectural style is carried out through all
elevations.
VI. DETAILS - The proposed project is consistent with the Details Guidelines
based on:
Consistent with the architectural style of the project, windows & doors are
consistent with design.
VII. MATERIALS AND COLORS - The proposed project is consistent with the
Materials and Colors Guidelines based on:
Materials and colors relate to the surrounding neighborhood and add to the
architectural style of the project.
VIII. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE - The proposed project is consistent with
the Landscape and Hardscape Guidelines based on:
Mature trees are being retained to help with reducing sense of mass.
IX. FENCES AND WALLS —The proposed project is consistent with the Fences
and Walls Guidelines based on:
Compatible with design of house. Retaining walls to be maintained. New block
wall materials compatible with neighborhood.
X. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE - The proposed project is consistent with the
Architectural Style Guidelines based on:
Consistent architectural style on all four facades. Overtones of traditional style
with good use of brickwork to further mitigate massing by breaking up the front
and side elevations.
Other: if applicable
These Actions and Findings were made by the following ARB Members of the
Highlands ARB members on June 3, 2014.
Signed:
Glenn Oyoung, ARB Chair
Guy Thomas
Jim Thomas
Kevin Zimmerman
Highlands ARB
Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association
Meeting Minutes
June 3, 2014
4:30PM Hearing— 1760 Wilson Avenue
1. Applicant Robert Tong from Sanyao presented project to Highlands
residents, ARB committee members, and other individuals in attendance:
• Hector Battiford
• Tom Savage
• Laurie & Stuart Wagoner
• Reni Rose
• Alan Stanchfield
• Angela Jenson
• Lori Gamez
• Glenda Vanni
• Tess Crabtree
• Jim & Myuma Esther
• Jane Chun
• April Seymour
• Rachel Huang
• Mark Cheng
• John Uniack
• Michelle Scatchard
In addition to the individuals above, Jason Krukeberg, Assistant City
Manager/Development Services Director, and Tom Li, Associate Planner,
Planning, were present from the City of Arcadia.
2. Jason Krukeberg provided an overview to the residents of the background
on how this project was given back to the ARB for review due to the
transition of Ralph Bicker off the ARB and the decision of the city to give
residents a chance through the ARB to provide feedback given recent
resident feedback including efforts by April Seymour.
Also provided overview on the design review process, the role of ARB,
Planning Commission, and Council and appeal process.
Page 1 of 4
Highlands ARB
3. Floor opened for resident feedback. High-level feedback included:
• General frustration at lack of communication in the process
• Concerns about development in the Highlands, specifically size as
defined by many residents as square footage and others as mass,
height, and lot coverage
• Some residents raised concerns about their perception that developers
and buyers were insensitive to the community they are moving into /
redeveloping
• Concerns that city council is not supporting the ARB (brought up in
past tense) which has led to overdevelopment
4. Glenn Oyoung asked that residents outline specific feedback on this
project in terms of concrete concerns they would like addressed. Feedback
included:
• Lot coverage and whether the courtyard is counted in the percentage.
Jason Krukeberg clarified it is not per city code.
• Roof height (25') and incompatibility with houses in neighborhood
• John Uniack shared rendering to help visualize per his calculations the
possible impact
• Shutter style
• Privacy concerns
• Mr. Battiford (neighbor to south) raised concerns about possible
damage to his trees, as has been suffered in the past, due to
construction.
• Whether the attic space could be changed into living space. Jason
Krukeberg clarified that would not be permissible in the current
design and in practice was unlikely to be possible
5. Robert Tong responded to questions and agreed to following corrective
action:
• Change shutter style to be more cohesive with neighborhood
• Reduce height to 19' and remove dormers
6. Board decision: Motion to DENY by Jim Thomas. Seconded by Kevin
Zimmerman. Board to await and approve revised 19' plans suggested by
Robert Tong. 4-0 vote to deny.
Page 2 of 4
Highlands ARB
6:00PM Hearing — 1717 Alta Oaks Drive
1. Applicant Robert Tong from Sanyao presented project to Highlands
residents, ARB committee members, and other individuals in attendance:
• Tracey Totten
• Jay & Tess Crabtree
• Jun Sugimoto
• Duane and Linda Schube
• Ralph Boley
• Mark Cheng
• Greg & Glenda Vanni
• Benjamin & Rosy Ling
• Webb & Donna Marner
• Tom Savage
• Gary Thomas
• George Wu
• Thomas and Jenny Miu
• Aran and Mary Currie
• Mary Pocino
• Ted Salthisky
• John Uniack
• Janet Boley
• Mary Jane Macy
In addition to the individuals above, Jason Krukeberg, Assistant City
Manager/Development Services Director, and Tom Li, Associate Planner,
Planning, were present from the City of Arcadia.
2. Jason Krukeberg provided an overview to the residents of the background
on how this project was given back to the ARB for review due to the
transition of Ralph Bicker off the ARB and the decision of the city to give
residents a chance through the ARB to provide feedback given recent
resident feedback including efforts by April Seymour.
Also provided overview on the design review process, the role of ARB,
Planning Commission, and Council and appeal process.
Page 3 of 4
Highlands ARB
3. Floor opened for resident feedback. High-level feedback included:
• General frustration at lack of communication in the process
• Concerns about development in the Highlands, specifically size as
defined by many residents as square footage and others as mass,
height, and lot coverage
• Some residents raised concerns about their perception that developers
and buyers were insensitive to the community they are moving into /
redeveloping
• Concerns that city council is not supporting the ARB (brought up in
past tense) which has led to overdevelopment
4. Glenn Oyoung asked that residents outline specific feedback on this
project in terms of concrete concerns they would like addressed. Feedback
included:
• Height of the house (27')
• Mass and scale incompatibility with neighborhood, desire for a one
story house vs. two-story
• Privacy concerns (neighbors to either side not present during hearing)
5. Robert Tong responded to questions and agreed to following corrective
action:
• Reduce height by approximately 2' by grading down the average
grade level
• Reduce roof height by approximately 1' by changing pitch to 3:12
• Change window height to 6' to help address privacy concerns
6. Board decision: Motion to CONDITIONALLY APPROVE by Kevin
Zimmerman. Seconded by Jim Thomas. 4-0 vote for conditional approval.
Page 4 of 4
/VIPEA G. 7-0 /_c. /`' -
•
( . b E- AR C4 4
RS 17 C4kcs -Apc#43,tA.
h■ia --FRt ecT. C� � t5�O�6�' Jr- I '0 K 12,45( 1-D
2 f 1- i c s A•�H 2_ j 41 qH- w ± v.eD
�4
�1.tt M/ Tv.J.ecd-V 01J Yk[t)so in Au E.
ifl e-A- 1 T Aff *( b -F
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 2014
Planning Services Loo �� l ''� �
City of Arcadia e ' 141)-1 0-1
1,Yom, O`U'1
RECEIVED
June 5, 2014
JUN 0 5 2014
City of Arcadia Planning Services
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006 City of Arcadia
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPEAL
Re : 1717 Alta Oaks Drive
Review No. :
APPLICANTS : April A. Seymour
1614 Highland Oaks Dr.
Jun Segimoto
1710 Elevado Ave .
I .
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
1717 Alta Oaks faces East and is approximately a 12, 451 sq.
foot lot . It is not flat . The front 60 feet slopes up from the
street level approximately 8 feet . To the North, 1723 Alta Oaks sits
approximately 6 feet above 1717 Alta Oaks . 1723 Alta Oaks is a
single story well-maintained Ranch style house with minimal to no
alterations to the facade approximately 15 ' tall . 1709 Alta Oaks is
to the South of 1717 Alta Oaks and is approximately 6' feet lower
than 1717 Alta Oaks . It is also a single story well maintained Ranch
style house with minimal to no alterations, approximately 15' tall .
A majority of homes on Alta Oaks are single-story Ranch style home,
not exceeding 15' in height .
There are views of the mountains to the North of 1717 Alta Oaks
from 1709 Alta Oaks and there is a view over the rooftop of 1717
Alta Oaks looking south from 1723 Alta Oaks . 1710 Elevado enjoys
1
views of the mountains to the east on the backyard over the roof of
1717 Alta Oaks which abuts 1717 Alta Oaks .
Attached as Exhibit "A" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1717
Alta Oaks Drive .
Attached as Exhibit "B" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1723
Alta Oaks Drive.
Attached as Exhibit "C" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1709
Alta Oaks Drive .
Attached as Exhibit "D" to this Appeal is a photograph of the
view from the kitchen of 1710 Elevado.
II .
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
1717 Alta Oaks Drive is within the Highlands Architectural
Review Zone. Pursuant to Resolution 6770, each building or structure
and its landscaping or 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 .
On May 29, 2014 at approximately 6 : 00 p.m. , the Architectural
Review Board for the Highlands Homeowner' s Association held a public
hearing to determine the compatibility with the neighborhood of the
mass, scale, design and appearance of the proposed project for 1717
Alta Oaks Drive submitted by Sanyao.
There were approximately 20 to 25 resident in attendance . I do
not know the exact number because a written request for the sign in
sheet made by April A. Seymour to Glenn Oyoung, then acting
Architectural Review Board Chair, was denied. Jason Kruckeberg,
Assistant City Manager and Thomas Li, Associate Planner, were
present .
The Architectural Review Board voted 3 to 0 with 1 abstention
to "conditionally approve" the proposed project . Approval was on the
condition that the developer reduce the grading of 1717 Alta Oaks by
2 feet and reduce the height of the proposal by 1 foot .
The Architectural Review Board did not state their findings or
criteria for determining the compatibility of the proposed project .
2
At first the Architectural Review Board began their discussion away
from the public, behind a truck, in violation of the Brown Act. Upon
demand from the neighbors, the Architectural Review Board came out
from behind the truck, made a motion to conditionally approve and
began voting in favor of conditional approval in violation of
Robert ' s rules of order. Upon demand from the attendees, the
Architectural Review Board Chair asked for discussion. The attendees
began to state their opinion in violation of Robert ' s rules of
order. There was shouting. There was contention. The Architectural
Review Board members themselves did not discuss the criteria they
were using, their findings or their basis for their findings . After
approximately 10 minutes of discussion by the attendees, the
Architecture Review Board members voted. After the third member
voted to approve, the fourth member became very agitated, made
statements that it didn' t matter what he thought, the city will
prove it anyway, he resigned on the spot and stormed off .
This was not a process but more of a circus . The neighbors of
the Highlands deserve a process, with decorum, professionalism and
respect . They deserve to know what is the criteria for determining
compatibility and harmony, the findings by each board member as to
each criteria and the basis for each finding. Another hearing for
1760 Wilson had been held on May 29 2014 at 4 : 30 p .m. just before
this hearing. That proposed project was for single story house 24 '
tall that was denied by the Architectural Review Board. Discussion
by attendees indicated that the proposal was too tall because the
homes on either side of the proposed project site were only 15'
tall, the same as for 1717 Alta Oaks !
It is clear from the inconsistency of these 2 hearings that the
Architectural Review Board for the Highlands has no understanding of
how to determine compatibility and harmony.
Therefore, the neighbors of the Highlands respectfully request
the Planning Commission to deny the proposal for 1717 Alta Oaks
based on the following criteria and findings .
III .
CRITERIA FOR COMPATIBILITY
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 6770
A. SITE PLANNING: The proposed project is inconsistent with the
Site Planning Guidelines based on:
1 . Natural Amenities such as views and trees .
3
2 . Size and Design: The proposed project is visually a much
greater mass and dwarfs the much smaller homes on either side of the
proposed project site .
3 . The height and bulk of the proposed home is not in scale and
proportion with adjacent homes . The proposed new home is 27' in
height, with a 10 ' top plate on the first floor and a 9' top plate
on the second floor. The adjacent homes are 15' in height with 8'
top plates . There is a 12 ' disparity in height between the proposed
project and the two adjacent homes .
B . ENTRY: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Entry
Guidelines based on:
1 . The height of the entry doors appears to be 9' . The adjacent
homes have entry doors which are only 7' tall . This disparity
creates visual discord and gives the proposed project the appearance
of verticality in comparison.
C . MASSING: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Site
Planning Guidelines based on:
1 . The front elevation lacks adequate articulation. The
proposed second floor is directly atop the first floor without any
variance in front plane setback. This adds to the vertical
appearance of the proposed project.
2 . The windows and doors along the front elevation are taller
than their width adding to the verticality of the proposed building.
The adjacent homes have windows that are wider than their height,
stressing the horizontal .
D. HEIGHT: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Height
Guidelines based on:
The proposed project is 27 ' tall . Adjacent homes do not exceed 15'
in height . The proposed project will visually dwarf the adjacent
homes due to this height disparity of 12' .
E. ROOF : Consistent .
F. FACADE DESIGN: The proposed project is inconsistent with the
Façade Design Guidelines based on:
1 . The proposed project uses stacked veneer stone which is not
seen on any other residences within the surrounding neighborhood.
G. DETAIL: Consistent .
4
H. MATERIALS AND COLORS : Consistent .
I . LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE : Consistent .
J. FENCES/WALLS : Consistent
K. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES : The proposed project is
inconsistent with the Affect on Adjacent Properties based on:
The property to the west of 1717 Alta Oaks Drive has views of
the mountains over the rooftop of 1717 Alta Oaks . Anything taller
than 15 ' on 1717 Alta Oaks would obstruct this view.
IV.
CONCLUSION
1717 Alta Oaks is not compatible .
Respectfully Submitted,
7--/i01!
BY
A. our
1614 High' -nd Oaks Dr.
By -
Jun Segimoto
1710 Elevado Ave .
By
Name
Address
5
_
;-1
t
1� ,rte►:ra -- r . Y
N
�,yy��
A
v
i
•
E h • b t
r
•
--"51 1tolsr
011 4-
., iirt-zr 4,71.4 911111101114111:11111T11,1111 ,16:21:01. 1,00 _
_..a -- -
E h • b • t
1
w
,,.
•
•
•
•
E h • b . t
�-
w .
• .
(
•
, ..
---,,•t 7,7;- ..-__■._.__..,.___--.. ..-
. •
•
. .
• .
. ,
. . ..
1 1.
..... .
-.144:t'''5 t■It64- .< ' -...1Rr
Exhibit D
Protected Tree Report:
Tree Survey, Encroachment,
Protection and Mitigation
1717 Alta Oaks Dr
Arcadia, CA 91006
Prepared For: Robert Tong
Sanyao International, Inc.
255 E. Santa Clara Street, #200
Arcadia, CA 91006
Tel: (626) 446-8048
Fax: (626) 446-7090
Email: Sanyao888 @aol.com
Prepared By: Michael Crane
Arbor Care, Inc.
P.O. Box 51122
Pasadena, CA 91115
Tel: (626) 737-4007
Fax: (626) 737-4007
Email: info @arborcareinc.net
March 2014
Table of Contents
Summary of Data 1
Background and Purpose of Report 1
Project Location, Description and Tree Ordinance 2
Observations &Analysis 4
Tree Characteristics &Health Matrix 6
Construction Impact Matrix 7
Findings 8
Further Recommendations 8
Appendix A- Photos 9
Appendix B -Protected Tree Construction Impact Guidelines 12
Author's Certifications 18
Certification of Performance 19
Topographic Site Plan Pocket at back
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Dr.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
SUMMARY OF DATA
Total number of live Protected Trees on property including street trees
located in the adjacent public right-of-way area 3
Total number of off-site Protected Trees with canopies(driplines)
encroaching onto the property 0
Total number of dead or nearly dead Protected Trees on site 0
Total number of live Protected Trees to be preserved 3
Total number of live Protected Trees to be removed 0
Total number of Protected Trees to be relocated to on-site locations 0
Total number of Protected Trees to be impacted
by construction within dripline (encroached) 3
Total number of live Protected Trees with no dripline encroachments 0
Total number of proposed mitigation trees to be planted on site 0
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
I was retained by the Architect and Project Manager,Mr. Robert Tong,to be the consulting
arborist for the planned redevelopment of the property located at 1717 Alta Oaks Dr., Arcadia.
There are Protected Trees located on the property, encroaching onto the property from off site;
and in the public right-of-way setback that fronts the property. The proposed construction may
impact these trees and this report will serve to both notify the City of Arcadia Planning
Department of the extent of the potential impacts as well as to inform the builder of the proper
protection measures which must be taken in order to preserve the trees. As part of my
preparation for this report I made a site visit to the property on March 25, 2014. I met with Mr.
Tong at that time to view and discuss the proposed construction plans as they relate to the
preservation of the Protected Trees.
1
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Dr.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
PROJECT LOCATION, DESCRIPTION & TREE ORDINANCE
o
W Gra41,aen.Ave
n ,_,4if
0 7
r ;
pain
i ..1.' 9 r
7 r v
e m ri
J
R
;,:y.1yr,:. Q > n
m
{ z tt '4SI',A t.
, v
A a
*} rS g 0;
r
9
Sierra Madre Blvd
p
o p > TS' O
ii 4 I N
1717 Alta Oaks Dr. is located just south of Doshier Ave., which is one block north
of Highland Oaks Dr. and Virginia Rd. Above map courtesy of Mapquest.com.
The property consists of a one story single-family residence that appears to be in fair condition.
The home will be demolished and the property redeveloped into a two story single family home.
The landscape is maintained and is in good condition. The trees on the property, including the
Protected Trees appear to be in good health and structural conditions. The landscape will be
renovated and the Protected Trees will be incorporated into the new design, with cultural
improvements that will benefit the health of the Protected Oak Trees.
2
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Dr.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
• b $ Ate : ryas ±
°.p. r I
'V1� 7Y
Y
^..
� � - !!! J • ,M'.mot,
d if t %
till
'A * f� �
1� i I
dij • .
ilili '
.
t
Vi‘
,--' , . ..' ',''' ''' " '''.': 4 4.:; ":?4,itt ,,t ,,' ''', '..* - gi. ay ,...f
�, � Mw '� de �-ti�4 , ��� R. I
' ° amain.' I C^ .. y� )"�V'«• J ` s;.. I ' .c.'
t,
1, f 4"
•• 4 j. ., ;f,
4 „I," �.f
1y N
,,, �' , Y.
This aerial view (courtesy of Apple Maps) has been illustrated to show the approximate
boundary lines (orange), and the Protected Trees are numbered in yellow.
City of Arcadia Tree Ordinance
On January 21, 1992 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1962 recognizing oak trees as
significant aesthetic and ecological resources and establishing criteria for the preservation of
oak trees. The regulations (Chapter 7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code)provide that the
following oak trees shall not be removed,relocated,damaged, or have their protected zones
encroached upon unless an Oak Tree Permit is granted:
• Engelmann Oaks(Quercus engelmannii) or Coast Live Oak, California Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia)which have a trunk diameter larger than four(4) inches measured at
a point four and one half(41/2) feet above the crown root, or,two (2)or more trunks
measuring three (3) inches each or greater in diameter,measured at a point four and one
half(4 1/2)feet above the crown root.
• Any other living oak tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve (12) inches measured
at a point four and one half(41/2)feet above the crown root, or,two (2)or more trunks
measuring ten(10) inches each or greater in diameter measured at a point four and one
half(4 12)feet above the crown root.
3
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Dr.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
FIELD OBSERVATIONS & DESIGN ANALYSIS
Refer to Site Plan located in pocket at back of this report,Tree Characteristics and
Health Matrix on page 6, Construction Impacts Matrix on page 6 and Photos in
Appendix A,page 7.
Analysis regarding rootzone impacts are based on the type of impact, e.g, soil compaction,
grading, and excavation; as well as the distance from the trunk that the impacts will occur. It is
commonly accepted among professional arborists that a distance equal to three times a trunks
diameter contains the structural roots responsible for keeping the tree upright. This critical
rootzone area is defined as the root plate. Beyond the root plate the roots typically taper off into
smaller, less significant sizes. These smaller roots are usually two inches in diameter or smaller
and make up the rootmass responsible for water and nutrient uptake. Although roots of these
sizes can be cut without significantly impacting health and stability it is advised that no more
than 30 percent of the rootmass within the dripline is severed. The bulk of the rootmass is
located within the top three feet of soil and root growth slows or halts when soil bulk density
exceeds 1.60 g/cm3 for most soils. More information regarding rootzone impacts is provided in
the Excavation and Root Pruning section of the Construction Impact Guidelines,Appendix B.
The design of the new home and hardscape is within much of the footprint of the existing
infrastructure.New hardscape that will encroach includes the new driveway, which will be built
in the same footprint and grade as the existing one. This design allows for a significant
reduction in the net excavation impacts from the proposed construction. Furthermore,the
preliminary landscape design does a thorough job of recognizing a 15-foot radius from all oaks
that will be null of under-planting and irrigation; or will have semi-permeable surfaces to
promote good long-term rootzone health.
Tree#1 —36"coast live oak: The tree is situated in a tree well next to the existing driveway. The
tree well will remain and the concrete driveway will be replaced in its same grade and footprint.
The new driveway will be surfaced in interlocking pavers, which is a benefit to the soil
conditions within the rootzone. The front yard setback for the new home will be equal to that of
the existing house, so rootzone impacts will be minimized for the required excavation and
compaction,which will occur as close as 20 feet from the trunk on the west side. The second
story roofline slightly encroaches into the dripline and it is likely that some minor crown
reduction will be required on the west side. The cuts can be made to industry standards and less
than 5%of the total live crown will be removed.
Attention should be made in the crown to repair broken cables that were part of a branch support
system. A couple of old heading cuts should also be addressed,by removing these short stubs
that show some decay.
4
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Dr.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
Tree#2— 14"holly oak: Located in the public right-of-way setback of the front yard, and
landscape renovation type encroachments will occur. The existing turf and groundcover ivy will
be removed and replaced with a 15-foot non-irrigated radius, and drought tolerant plants.
Tree#3 — 16"holly oak: Similar to Tree#2,this tree is also located in the public right-of-way
setback of the front yard, and landscape renovation type encroachments will occur. The existing
turf and groundcover ivy will be removed and replaced with a 15-foot non-irrigated radius, and
drought tolerant plants. The existing driveway entry is located seven feet from the trunk on its
north side. The driveway will be replaced in its same footprint.
5
- ,.LO?I W41310/10021.
i4 C4
Q 1100d d X
a-�,o`$`$ c> u
5 6 g 4> GOOD X DC
a g Ca W AVOW QOfy
i$ u 6,
5 a v x 3° o xooa
e
a I �
5 Q A, i - F s % xxvHaIQ JIAu
fi (-� g o 2IOOa X
� a
tot 3
1 c b aDVIONV X X
Q•;
u IN ash RDA/TA NGL
j ' v H LpaSNI'I0 aS�'aSIQ
',t o
a a O w Q w aS'IYdIS k
a 'IVW UON 44 C C
0 0 3IIL,LVI�1I3A0
to g
`� C.7 Q a2IIlJ NY1I
g c CO DNI1OA X X.
U
� QaSa2ddflS
vo 6U ,V O ' IMVNIIAIOQ-OD
v
U U
wo I:1 NIWOQ X .X-.
b DNI.M%IIIASV
C.) ° anintsavAs x x x
u 0 (iaaa) o o
,� (Naha aDVIand `II
a) CLaal)
a) ocr
H y Z r .LHJIaH aLVINIXOxa. • 'r' 1 M
4.)- (SaHONI) VD VD
I W aalal/WIG NNIfl L `1" .-• .-•
5
z E--4
irg o
Q W a, 4) ai
a0 a0 a5
Q aa_a cy
xaa1If1N Ma N M
sjEnoulaa gousaq aoj smo Jo JaiowjQ z z z
pip-Lbw.�a au Etp ui
a 5 ° o
£ u loam! n jo aqN
Q/o0£ Paaaxa o1 loll Summa
a
u ?° , + %OI paaaxa o; ;on & qunad
.. r t
°u paa!nbaI 3u!unad oN
d paiaAas JO paAOUZad aq ol
u n c o 0
V V V
j J %petu �s[
auiidup um mm.moon o; daaP 449 ›., ›., ›,
to4Ueq�ssaj SuipE. 14 U !EUOi; ppv
OO �—+ UUIiI:.IIIlJ�� .111 i1'.1OUIJzj
u °} � U
a 'tuna; mi.;; HfQ X £) a3el'
0 a ;ooa ay; gaeoaaua mitt aoI;PAnax
a _ 'tuna; moat HgQ X £;seal ;e Jo
c 0 p aaue;sip a uieuiaa IItm uo!eAeaxa
a �' lag N
1 Z ' C4 .mptu;sE.jul a ;stxa Act paaaj# Z
o g O arE s;oEdurt uoi;EAeaxa a.Iaunn sapts
, -8
0 E., maw flTM(.radaap JO saFpw x10
L) not;EAEOxa aaaunn aaq Jo sapis Z
H ,m NOLLIQNOD w E.
O '-§, R
bE. 1:1
°' `" O 1Q)2Iai�ivIQ NIN.f 1211 M l
�, CH II
og
L)
aQ„
7a-1 z
v R. -
cn .� o a, ti C)
W 4aa
0'
41 _
2IHHNif1N3,a2I.L N M
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
FINDINGS
As with many construction projects, soil compaction is the most preventable impact that
will need to be monitored in order to provide reliable protection and long-term
preservation of the trees. To prevent unnecessary soil compaction a protective fence
must be installed around the Protected Trees before any demolition occurs. The goal is to
enclose the largest possible amount of space underneath the tree so that the heavy
equipment required for demolition and construction can be routed away from root zones.
The_recommended fence placements are drawn in dashed lines on the Site Plan of this
report. The main haul route for the demolition phase and into most of the construction
phase shall be the existing driveway.
The removal of the hardscape and existing vegetation near the Protected Trees shall be
done by hand. No rototilling, deep cultivation or grading shall occur within the driplines.
Refer to the Construction Impact Guidelines in Appendix C for important general
preservation measures concerning the different elements of this project.
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
• Prior to demolition the contactor and consulting arborist shall meet on site to make sure
fences are properly placed and installed and to review the goals for the tree protection
plan. The location of the protective fences are drawn with a dashed line on the Site
Plan included in this report.
• The fenced protection zones may be altered during construction; however,any alterations
of the fenced protection zones must be approved by the arborist of record.
• Maintain the fences throughout the completion of the project. No staging of materials or
equipment or washing-out is to occur within the fenced protected zones.
-• All demolition, excavation or grading within the driplines of the Protected Trees shall
be done with hand tools and monitored by the consulting arborist.
• If any injury whatsoever should occur to any Protected or preserved tree, call the
consulting arborist immediately. Timeliness is critical to being able to provide the best
mitigation treatment for injuries.
8
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
APPENDIX A—Photos
Age'. ; b a,. 7�.1..--. r ,- .t J r
r' tv a
Ali *."
'.e .1,� ♦it
y y .. ya �. T,� t,,, . r
ittik
' "11-4,4 P' ..\ ,.
r 1 r j:
ABOVE: Tree #1 is located at the top of the existing driveway. BELOW. :
Tree #1 is in a tree well that will be preserved. The concrete driveway will
be replaced and surfaced with interlocking pavers.
s.
v1�r
w I. , ,
v
" •tiL
*'ALL 414
9
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
r•r^ it}� �e
�r,. * 4;4. -tr og-i .M,',
.' a. '.1
aft_. ,. 1 :' 1,4)rio.N. 4. i a , , .., 10;*
~ ' . f .1' fir'.. '` ;00 ,s.
ex
* git 3 .,......
. _,
,., ,. ,,,,,,
la
a
s
1 1
4
ABOVE: Trees #2 and #3. The turf and ground cover will be removed and
the area irrigation removed to a minimum distance of 15 feet from the
trunks.
10
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
°i►
it
C • 3 ,
, , .
M" . a irs r,' `d 4
, , _ _ „.„-,,
....„......„,,, _ , . ...
_..... . ... ,_ __
ABOVE: Tree#3. The driveway will be replaced in the same grade and
footprint,and will be surfaced with interlocking pavers.
11
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
APPENDIX B - Protected Tree Construction Impact Guidelines
Size and Distribution of Tree Roots—Taken from Arboriculture,Integrated
Management of Landscape Trees Shrubs and Vines. Harris,R.W., Clark, J.W.,Matheny
N.P. Prentice Hall 2004.
Roots of most plants, including large trees, grow primarily in the top meter(3 ft)of soil
(see figure below). Most plants concentrate the majority of their small absorbing roots in
the upper 150 mm{b in.)of soil if the surface is protected by a mulch or forest litter. In
the absence of a protective mulch, exposed bare soil can become so hot near the surface
that roots do not grow in the upper 200 to 250 mm(8 to 10 in.). Under forest and many
landscape situations,however, soil near the surface is most favorable for root growth. In
addition,roots tend to grow at about the same soil depth regardless of the slope of the soil
surface.
Although root growth is greatly influenced by soil conditions, individual roots seem to
have an inherent guidance mechanism. Large roots with vigorous tips usually grow
horizontally. Similar roots lateral to the large roots grow at many angles to the vertical,
and some grow up into the surface soil. However, few roots in a root system actually
grow down.
704'
Mph ft. Depth i Y)`
In meals
a -
4 — 1.5
FIGURE In mature trees,the taproot is either lost or reduced in size.The vast majority of the root system is
composed of ho izentslly oriented lateral roots.
12
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
The importance of soil
Soil supports and anchors tree roots and provides water,minerals and-oxygen.
Furthermore, soil is a habitat for soil microorganisms that enhance root function. A soil's
ability to sustain tree growth is largely determined by its texture, structure (bulk density),
organic matter,water and mineral content, salinity, aeration, and soil-microbe abundance
and diversity.
Soil physical properties
Soil texture-the relative proportion of sand, silt and clay, is important because it affects
water-and nutrient-holding capacity, drainage and aeration(gaseous diffusion). Soil
structure is the arrangement of individual soil particles into clumps(aggregates). The net
result is the formulation of larger voids between the aggregates which serve as channels
for gaseous diffusion,movement of water and root penetration. Unfortunately, soil
aggregates are readily destroyed by activities that compact the soil (increase bulk
density). When this occurs,gaseous exchange,permeability,drainage and root growth
are restricted.
The influence of the organic matter content of soil properties is quiet significant. Its
decomposition by soil organisms releases substances that bind soil particles into larger
granules,which improves both soil aeration,and drainage. In essence,the breakdown of
organic matter improves water-and nutrient-holding capacity and reduces bulk density.
Furthermore, it is the primary source of nitrogen and a major source of nitrogen and a
major source of phosphorus and sulfur. Without organic matter soil organisms could not
survive and most biochemical processes in the soil would cease.
Soil aeration,the movement and the availability of oxygen, is determined by both soil
texture and structure. In general, compacted and finer soils, due to a higher proportion of
small pore spaces (micropores), tend to drain slowly and hold less air than coarser, sandy,
or well-structured find soils. Water retained in the small pores displaces oxygen and
inhibits gaseous diffusion.
The availability of soil water is largely determined by the size of the pore spaces between
the soil particles and the larger aggregates in which water is held. Most of the water in
the larger pore spaces drains readily due to gravitational forces. A relatively thin film of
water,which is readily available to plant roots, remains following drainage. Much of
water held within the smaller pore spaces resists uptake by plant roots because it is held
tightly on the soil surfaces.
Plant roots require an adequate supply of oxygen for development. Injury or dysfunction
results when oxygen availability drops below a critical level. Root respiration is the first
process to be restricted, followed by disruptions in growth,metabolism,nutrient and
water uptake, and photosynthesis. Furthermore, the accumulation of high levels of
carbon dioxide,produced by the roots during respiration can also impair root function.
Reduced soil aeration resulting from soil compaction, flooding, excess irrigation, or
13
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
impervious pavement favors the development of crown rot(Phytophthora root disease).
It also inhibits mycorrhizal fungi that enhance water and nutrient uptake and resist root
pathogens.
The forest floor under a canopy in most undeveloped forests and woodland settings is
typically covered by a layer of fallen leaves and other woody debris. It is usually cool,
shady, well-aerated, and relatively moist—conditions that favor normal root growth.
When the natural leaf litter is removed and when a tree's lower canopy is pruned up to
provide clearance,the absorbing roots in the upper few inches of the soil experience
higher soil temperatures and increased desiccation due to direct exposure to sunlight.
Minimizing the Effects of Construction and Development on Tree Root Systems
Activities that injure roots or adversely affect the root zone should be avoided or kept as
far from the trunk as possible. Design changes or alternative building practices that avoid
or minimize construction-related impacts should be considered and proposed when
applicable.
Soil Compaction
Soils are intentionally compacted under structures, sidewalks,reads,parking areas, and
load-bearing fill to prevent subsidence, and to prevent soil movement on slopes.
Although unintentional,soil within the root zone of trees is often compacted by
unrestricted foot traffic,parking of vehicles, operation of heavy equipment, and during
installation of fill. Compaction destroys the soil's natural porosity by eliminating much
of the air space contained within it. It leaves the soil hardm impenetrable and largely
unfavorable for root growth. The soil's natural porosity, which allows for water
movement and storage,gaseous exchange,and root penetration,is greatly reduced.
Consequently, root growth and tree health suffer. Soil compaction is best managed by
preventing it.
Bulk density is used to describe a soil's porosity, or the amount of space between soil
particles and aggregates. High bulk densities indicate a low percentage of total pore
sIace.
Pavement
Paving over the root systems of trees is another serious problem because it reduces the
gaseous diffusion and soil moisture. Most paving materials are relatively impervious to
water penetration and typically divert water away from a tree's root zone. Cracks and
expansion joints-do,though, allow for some water infiltration into the soil below. Of
greater concern, is the loss of roots from excavation to achieve the required grade, and
the necessary compaction to prevent subsidence. Once the soil surface is compacted, a
base material is then added and compacted as well. With that done,the surface can then
be paved. Thus,pavement within the root zones of trees can damage roots and create
14
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
unfavorable soil conditions. One alternative to minimize pavement impacts is to consider
placing the pavement on the natural grade over a layer of minimally compacted base
material. To reduce sub-grade compaction,consider using reinforced concrete or asphalt
over a goetextile blanket to help stabilize the soil. On-grade patios or paving that covers
more than one-third of the tree protection zone(TPZ) should be constructed using
permeable materials that allow aeration and water penetration. Soil under permeable
surfaces should not be compacted to more than 80 percent.
Excavation and root pruning
Excavation within the root zones of trees should be avoided as much as possible. The
extent of root pruning(selective) or cutting(non-selective) should be based on the
species growth characteristics and adaptive traits, environmental conditions,age,health,
crown size,density,live crown ration and structural condition of the tree. The timing of
the root pruning or cutting is another important consideration. Moderate to severe root
loss during droughts or particularly hot periods can cause serious water-deficit injury or
death.
When root pruning/cutting is unavoidable,roots should be pruned or cut as far from the
trunk as possible. Cutting roots on more than one side of a tree should also be avoided.
Root cutting extending more than half-way around a tree should generally be no closer
than about 10 times the trunk diameter. Recommended distances range from as little as 6
times trunk diameter(DBH) for young trees to 12 times trunk diameter for mature trees.
The size of the TPZ should,however,be increased for over mature and declining trees
and species that are sensitive to root loss.
The minimum distance from the trunk that roots can be cut on one side of the tree without
destabilizing it,is a distance equal to about three times the diameter(DBH)of the trunk.
Roots severed within that distance provide little or no structural support. Root pruning or
cutting distances from the trunk should be greater for trees that lean and/or those
growing on shallow or wet soil.
In cases where the proposed grading will adversely affect trees designated for retention,
special attention should be given to proper root pruning and post-construction care for
injured trees. Where structural footings are required for foundations,retaining walls,etc.,
and roots larger than 2 inches in diameter will be impacted, consider design changes or
alternative building methods.
When excavation within 5 times trunk diameter is unavoidable,roots greater than 1 1/2
inches in diameter should be located prior to excavation and then pruned to avoid
unnecessary damage. Hand-digging or use of a hydraulic or pneumatic soil excavation
tool is the least disruptive way to locate roots for pruning. Although mechanical root
pruners make clean cuts,they are non-selective. A backhoe bucket,dozer blade or
trencher will typically pull,rip or shatter the larger root, causing additional damage
toward the tree. Once the roots that interfere with the structure being built,e.g.,
15
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
foundations, footings, retaining wall, curbs, etc., are exposed,they should then be cut
perpendicular to their long axis using a hand-saw, `carbide-tipped chainsaw' or sharp ax,
depending on size. Roots that are pruned in this manner typically regenerate new roots
from near the cut. Roots exposed by excavation should be protected from exposure to
sun and desiccation. Exposed roots that can not be covered with soil by the end of the
day should be covered with moistened burlap or similar material.
Roots can generally be cut in a non-selective manner when excavating near of beyond the
dripline. Ripped, splintered or fractured portions of roots however, should be re-cut. The
damaged portion should be removed using sharp tools. The cut should be flat across the
root with the adjacent bark intact. Wound dressings should not be applied to pruned or
damaged roots except when recommended for disease, insect or sprout control.
The best approach to avoid water-deficit injury following root loss during the growing
season is to provide ample irrigation. Irrigation should be considered prior to, during,
and after root pruning. Watering schedules should also consider local soil conditions,
climate,topography,time of year,species adaptability,extent of root pruning and tree
health. If possible, irrigate the tree 7 to 10 days prior to excavation so that there is an
adequate reservoir of soil water. Water can be delivered to large construction sites via
water-tank trucks and applied directly to affected trees or stored nearby in plastic tanks.
On relatively flat terrain, a 6 to 8 inch soil berm at the tree's dripline should be
constructed to act as a watering basin. On steep terrain, soaker hoses should be used.
They can be placed across the slope or spirally around the trunk, from about six feet away
to the dripline. In addition, a two to four inch layer of wood chip mulch should be
applied to as much of the root zone as possible to retard soil water loss.
Pruning foliage to compensate for root loss is not supported by scientific research and
likely to result in slower recovery. Fertilization to stimulate root growth is generally
unwarranted and may be counterproductive.
Trenching within the Tree Protection Zone
Trenching for underground utilities should be routed around the TPZ. When this is
unavoidable, trenching within the TPZ should be done by `hand' or using a pneumatic or
hydraulic soil excavation tool,carefully working around larger roots. Roots larger than
1 %z inches in diameter should not be cut. Dig below these roots to route utilities or
install drains. A combination of tools can also produce satisfactory results, for example,
a skillful backhoe operator under the arborist's supervision can dig down several inches
at a time and detect larger roots by `feel' (resistance). At that point, as assistant can
expose the root and dig around it. In this manner, the backhoe can then continue
extending the trench though the TPZ. Tunneling(boring)through the TPZ is the
preferable alternative. For most large trees, tunneling depth should be at least 36 inches.
Tunneling should begin at the edge of the TPZ, but no closer than a distance equal to one
foot of clearance for each inch of tree DBH. Tunnels should also be offset to either side
16
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
of the trunk. For trenching that extends only part way into TPZ, consider trenching
radially to the tree trunk, as this is less harmful than tangential trenching. All trenches
made within the TPZ should be backfilled as quickly as possible to prevent root and soil
desiccation.
Managing Root Injured Trees
Root-pruned trees should be monitored for symptoms of water-deficit injury for a
specified period following root pruning. Irrigation should be considered prior to, during,
and after root pruning. Irrigation schedules should consider local soil conditions, climate,
topography,time of year,species tolerance, extent of root pruning and tree health.
Grade Change: Fill Soil
Fill soil placed within the root zones of trees can have an adverse effect,particularly if
the soil is compacted to support a structure or pavement. Soil compaction reduces
aeration and water infiltration. Fill soil, die to textural changes, can also prevent water
from penetrating the original soil layer below where the roots are. Furthermore, soil
placed against the root crown and lower trunk can lead to root disease problems,
especially if the soil near the trunk remains moist during the summer from irrigation.
Alternatives to placing fills over roots zones shall be considered and proposed as
appropriate.
17
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
AUTHOR'S CURRENT CREDENTIALS
�
4 � .In
..e.) = 1. i I a o
_ L A
i ; a
Q
I'1 `{` a Lei ` C F ..
a - - o 04
U
a . A
F c
2 i ''''!"'''. ><: '
2
"l<
r r' Vi
J. v W
V I i j - 1-,
s
A, m T w y r-711
tik VA
❑Y
O t In d i OL E- jp ..
= 140~ �, iA Q
tip $ X ge IZNQ �ct
tt hli:: 1/ ir 4., I.. ,-
''J a - 0Q 0 co a5aa co
18
Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan
1717 Alta Oaks Rd.,Arcadia CA 91006
Michael Crane,RCA#440.March 2014
CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
I,Michael Crane,certify that:
• I have personally inspected the tree(s) and the property referred to in this report and have
stated my findings accurately.
• I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the
subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties
involved.
• The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on
current scientific procedures and facts.
• My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared
according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices.
• No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the
report.
• My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that
favors the cause of the client or any other party not upon the results of the assessment,the
attainment of stipulated results,or the occurrence of any subsequent events.
I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of
Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been
involved in the field of Horticulture in a full-time capacity for a period of more than 15
years.
% Vi ,
Signed:
Registered Consulting Arborist#440; American Society of Consulting Arborist
Board Certified Master Arborist#WE 6643B; International Society of Arboriculture
Licensed California Agricultural Pest Control Adviser#AA08269
March 25, 2014
,$I. Cid Date:
06011:11,„.,rfx%
•
‘consehta. •
19
2 Q 099L-971939)•.4.930.1971939)MI .`=;:��Ty
v a 7'90019.o+i4•>'v'oo:}'ie u..�nu•4•a m n VO LNdla`d321�d
eurvundnn.•ni^u s'Ga° � -- 3AI21O S�i110 41111 LLLL i '�
'0N11VN011tlNM31Nl Od 1 NMS ea .� "°'
/� Y.7 ' --"''� 3Sf1OH AIIWVd 31ONIS ! i ,
N M e} ®I ILL'
555 ® .1 i
, ¢n )- !3 I Z FI Tvrmrtn_:
Y
e
W ' U
lx Y .
1 I g asa i i —i.i gfga ig s" I m oz
y+� 1 p� ip1l!ei! F 0 LL aggee Wilma O
§ f g 5:r " B�kalma : . : i m iiii01 E, 51;30? , 8 S
i 1 Jl le! 111 hia I e
I ((y.°
G E E J
1 i II 1 1 11 ill I I li6_ill� L_
4 I liil��•ffHo, 1 tt�;f1 lij ! 1=�ei�.,
2IQ S)IVO f'I7V t E 11 t 1 "1 1 1 , I i a o
II"ifllliifili � 1 i,1�11 Ili f M phi 1
--'-. — � — — � I 1 ? i 9 9i! 1!s 3 311 HMO�O 1 1111°1/1 W
�, I 99:900 9 1.. • . D
oR= 1 31 � • I
I
q'�,: r ' 1 yy
! !!ij1!l�!! JI !!��l W
!ti8 —` " ��, 0j ;1118 $$p ligg_piciPi tl}Fi f g jiiti C
( I d'\\7 ;9;' .%u. — —< r--_a� — i i$4��g 1 9g, �110� 6Q } d L
Z -I ,gi ::' :'q '.)�. iy 44 1$ 4Y+�¢4 Q}g E 4s•1116Y
�\\� I. �0L.!1f 't,1t" ` <• , I BO� H 11/3 @1_FLI ,$, Rlq. o � . i fbig
�.� pi y 9 116 ,!� g:5K lid!7d i1 !_- \ �is 1 u NIB . _ f i5E1 ! h!1 P i i;i°ri1'
nnn 9 pi � ,9 d g .. .
E.iiii
1 1`r ILF 1 N 1 loallligoLli opilli li,�vg i ji-
J 9-.L a
tt. 19 117 w I
M •:L 9': 0X3 "''!/ Ii
lig rim i 1 - SI I R 'ni 8 ya , 1 011E ••. ����1� c R ! ' n
R �! ° [ @ d, „ , . ,,, „
k�l1 I in - i s I ~ i lit vil4 At
it _ A ,_.
i — —
- --- — — AO'0Y M.00AE.O Le
II 0 1
ii i o
•
gill CD
ca
UP IP
m m
Pr JI al
U. �i 2 0
Z
,wok V
/ 14- N.
r
al 5
Ya
Q
F.. .2
l
P,,, co
01, Ilc R c .
rm r`` IS
�f LL
P�
0‘..= p
Fes„ In fco
i _
wg
PI 42
o L 1.i
a
rte. e
O r, a
i b
X o Sci-
o
Cfit, it:
4. i
c
:7 -¢V o
O�
O S
a. . .
.. 0.,, .
. .
-
. ,„_ 0
m
azt k
M d?- Pte,Cg
r.
July 23, 2014
Mr. Ed Beranek, Chairman
Arcadia Planning Commission
Dear Ed:
I am writing about the Highlands Home Owners Assn and its ARB and the hearing your
commission will hold on Friday,July 29th. I would like to make several points so I'll briefly
state each.
1. My wife and I have lived in the Highlands almost 42 years.
2. I understand there are about 850 homes in this area and that, as of July 16th, only 65 were
members of the Assn. There have recently been two special meetings of the Assn and
each were attended by 20-25 people.
3. During these meetings new members of the ARB were elected as were two officers of the
Assn. The new members of the ARB do not represent my views regarding the purpose of
the ARB or what is an appropriate home in the Highlands. The ARB members feel
strongly that two-story homes do not fit the Highlands. Two story homes have been
allowed in Arcadia since the city's founding 110 years ago. And there have been two-
story homes in the Highlands for at least 50 years, one just three homes north of ours. I
believe the city resolved this issue many years ago. Why is this issue even being
discussed?
4. The members also do not like"off shore"money coming in, buying homes and no one
living in them. How this has anything to do with architectural review is something I
simply do not understand.
5. A former chair of the RB recently was complaining that your commission and the
Council approving a home with a"small living room and a huge master suite." He
thought this design was completely wrong and was upset that the design was approved. I
wonder what leads anyone to presume to have the right to design the interior of any
home?
6. About 5-6 weeks ago three different ARB members held two meetings, one immediately
after the other,to discuss two proposed projects on my street. Some new, current ARB
members raised all sorts of complaints in a very emotional way and were so completely
out of order with their language that one ARB members spoke up and said he was not
going to take this abuse any more and he resigned on the spot. I understand another ARB
member resigned the following day and the then ARB chairman also resigned a few days
later. The current ARB members, led by April Verlato have been completely
disrespectful to many of us and are so determined to have their way that they have caused
a lot of emotion and now some residents are upset with their neighbors.
7. It seems like the members of the ARB have gone way beyond architectural review into
areas where they have no business. What gives them the right to judge the ethnicity of a
property owner,where the money for the construction is coming from,the size of
someone's master suite, encroachment of the drip line of oak trees, etc.
8. It is my understanding that in the United States homeowners have certain property rights
and overly aggressive individuals cannot override these rights I urge the Planning
Commission to approve these projects.
Thank you for your kind consideration of my thoughts.
Sincerely,
Bruce McCallum
1730 Alta Oaks Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91006-1701
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 2014
Planning Services
City of Ai cauta