Loading...
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