No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a - 1717 Alta OaksL� C'WFO'k Au9u s't 5. 19D3 �z STAFF REPORT ��lUni[y eft ;o Development Services Department DATE: September 2, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL AND OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. THE 14 -27 FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AT 1717 ALTA OAKS DRIVE Recommendation: Deny Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission's Decision to Uphold the ARB Design Review Approval and 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 (ARB) 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. The Planning Commission, at a special meeting on July 29, 2014, denied the appeal and upheld the ARB's conditional approval of the Design Review and the Oak Tree Encroachment Permit. On August 5, 2014, Ms. Jun Segimoto, Ms. Grace Lee, and Ms. April A. Seymour jointly filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision — see the attached appeal letter to the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the ARB's conditional approval, and approve the Oak Tree Encroachment Permit. Appeal — HOA 14 -02 & THE 14 -27 1717 Alta Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — page 2 of 9 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 that 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 as case no. SFADR 14- 23. Before any significant progress had been made with this design review, the Highlands HOA appointed a new Chairperson. Rather than continuing with this design review through the City's process, the City decided to work with the ARB to have the ARB hold its design review meeting. 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, at its special meeting on July 29, 2014, considered the appeal at a public hearing and denied the appeal by a vote of 4 to 0, with one Commissioner absent, to uphold the ARB's decision and conditionally approve the subject design review and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit. The Commission found the design of the proposal to be consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770. An excerpt of the meeting minutes of the July 29, 2014, Planning Commission meeting is attached. On August 5, 2014, Ms. Jun Segimoto, Ms. Grace Lee, and Ms. April A. Seymour jointly filed the attached appeal letter to the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. The appeal letter is similar to the one previously submitted to the Planning Commission, with additional information on the effects of grading the property down 2' -0" from the average existing grade as conditioned by the ARB. The appeal letter also includes additional signatures of support and photo exhibits of the Appeal — HOA 14 -02 & THE 14 -27 1717 Alta Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — page 3 of 9 surrounding homes. On August 21, 2014, the appellants submitted the attached supplement to the appeal letter to provide a list of recommendations for compatibility in the neighborhood. 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, a kitchen with a wok room, a dining room, a wet bar, a living room, a family room, and a home theater. The proposed architectural style is Prairie, and consists of horizontal elements, grouped windows, and deep eave overhangs. The proposed home includes 30 -inch eave overhangs, a smooth concrete tile roof, brick veneer, smooth stucco finish, and wood - stained front and garage doors — see the attached plans. The plans are consistent with the R -1 Zoning Code. The ARB imposed the following conditions of approval: 1) Reduce the overall height by lowering the grade twofeet (2') below the average existing grade; 2) Change the roof pitch to 3:12 to reduce the roof height by approximately one foot (1'); 3) Raise the bottom of the windows facing the neighbors to six feet (6') above floor level 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 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 City Council agenda packet. 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 and Ms. Jun Appeal — HOA 14 -02 & THE 14 -27 1717 Alta Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — page 4 of 9 Segimoto. Ms. Segimoto resides at 1710 Elevado Avenue, which is adjacent to the rear of the subject property. The appeal letter states that the subject proposal is not consistent with Resolution No. 6770 and specifically states that any home over 15' in height would obstruct the view of the neighbors to the west of the subject property and that the overall proposed height would dwarf adjacent homes. The letter also comments on the height of the entry, a lack of articulation to the front elevation, the verticality of the windows, and the lack of compatibility of brick veneer. The attached PowerPoint document was presented by the appellants to provide images of the surrounding neighborhood and highlight their design issues. The appellants also presented an introductory PowerPoint document for all the design review appeals, which is included in the agenda packet. The two appeal letters to the Planning Commission and the appeal letter to the City Council 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. 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. In response to the appeal letter submitted by Ms. Seymour and Ms. Segimoto, the conditions of approval imposed by the ARB effectively limit the height of the proposed building — see the 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 limit is even more stringent than the 16' -0" maximum accessory building height allowed 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 (3) 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 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 oak trees. The recommended tree protection measures are included as a condition of approval. Appeal — HOA 14 -02 & THE 14 -27 1717 Alta Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — page 5 of 9 In response to the appellant's concern, Mr. Crane provided an addendum to his original assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of the grading activity to drop the building pad two feet below the average existing grade, as conditioned by the HOA. Mr. Crane reviewed the grading plans and found that there will be no additional or more severe impact to occur other than the ones which were present in his original evaluation — see attached arborist report dated March 2014 and addendum dated August 6, 2014. Based on the foregoing, the proposal as conditionally approved by the ARB, was found to be consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770, and approval of the conditionally approved design was recommended to the Planning Commission, subject to the following additional conditions of approval: 1. 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. 2. 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 THE 14 -27. 3. 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. 4. 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 Appeal — HOA 14 -02 & THE 14 -27 1717 Alta Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — page 6 of 9 option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 5. The ARB approval & THE 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. The Planning Commission, at its special meeting on July 29, 2014, considered the appeal at a public hearing and denied the appeal by a vote of 4 to 0, with one Commissioner absent, and upheld the ARB's decision and conditionally approved the subject design review and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit. On August 5, 2014, Ms. Jun Segimoto, Ms. Grace Lee, and Ms. April A. Seymour jointly filed the attached appeal letter to the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's decision, and on August 21, 2014, the appellants submitted the attached, "Supplement to the Planning Commission Appeal" that includes a list of proposed conditions for the project to achieve compatibility. This supplement includes recommendations to either revise the proposal to: one -story not to exceed a height of 19 feet; or, two stories that would be limited to 23' on the north side. In addition, if the project is a two -story design, the letter mentions that setbacks should be increased on the south side of the property and should match adjacent properties in the rear, plate heights should be reduced to 8', windows should be reduced in height, the second floor should be recessed by 8' over the doorway and a second floor dormer should be removed. The letter expresses concern with the 2' change in grade with regard to both the Oak tree on site (requesting a second opinion), and drainage of the site. Finally, the letter specifically requests that a dead tree be removed in the rear yard and an additional garage be added. Removing the dormer over the entry will reduce the mass of the second floor without negatively impacting the interior amenities or the overall design characteristics of the proposed home. Therefore, this change is recommended. While it is not necessary to obtain a second arborist report, as noted above, the City contracted the original arborist and had the report updated to address the revised footprint. Removal of the dead tree, which is a property maintenance issue, will be addressed separately. The additional height and setback restrictions requested in the appeal are not recommended. Designing rear yard setbacks to be consistent with adjacent houses and an 8' plate height are unnecessarily restrictive. The grading plan will be reviewed through the plan check process to prevent additional drainage onto adjacent properties. Appeal — HOA 14 -02 & THE 14 -27 1717 Alta Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — page 7 of 9 CONCLUSIONS The proposal is consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Reduce the overall height by lowering the grade two feet (2') below the average existing grade. 2. Change the roof pitch to 3:12 to reduce the roof height by approximately one foot (1'). 3. Raise the bottom of the windows facing the neighbors to six feet (6') above floor level to help address privacy concerns. 4. Remove second floor dormer and reduce ceiling height in foyer area to be consistent with the first floor roof over the living room and library. 5. 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. 6. 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 THE 14 -27. 7. 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, dead tree and vegetation removal, 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. 8. 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 Appeal — HOA 14 -02 & THE 14 -27 1717 Alta Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — page 8 of 9 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. 9. The ARB approval & THE 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the development of a single - family residence is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC COMMENTS /NOTICE Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on August 21, 2014, to the owners of those properties within the required notification area — see the attached notification area map — as well as the applicant appellants, the HOA President, and the previous and current ARB Chairpersons. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have no significant fiscal impact on the City Appeal — HOA 14 -02 & THE 14 -27 1717 Alta Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — page 9 of 9 RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the ARB's decision and approve the design review and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit, subject to the aforementioned conditions of approval. Approved Dominic Lazzar t City Manager Attachments: Aerial Photo Photos of the Subject Property and Neighboring Properties Proposed Plans ARB Findings and Action Form ARB Meeting Minutes Appeal Letter to City Council Supplement to Planning Commission Appeal Appeal Letter to Planning Commission from Mr. Chan Appeal Letter to Planning Commission from Ms. Seymour & Ms. Segimoto Appellants' PowerPoint to Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt of the July 29, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Staff's PowerPoint to Planning Commission Arborist Report Dated March 2014 Arborist Addendum Dated August 6, 2014 Notification Area Map One copy of the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770 for the four appeals are included separately in the September 2, 2014 City Council agenda packet. Also included separately are copies of 16 emails in opposition to the proposed new homes, and one letter in support of the projects, and the Appellants' Introductory PowerPoint document. L 113 S � re M.1117 Site Address: 1717 ALTA OAKS DR Property Owner(s): Dexter Alta Oaks, LLC Property Characteristics Zoning: R -1 (10,000) General Plan: VLDR Lot Area (sq ft): 12,440 Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): 2,644 Year Built: 1951 Number of Units: 1 Overlays Parking Overlay: n/a Downtown Overlay: n/a Special Height Overlay: n/a Architectural Design Overlay: D Selected parcel highlighted 0 'C W ,,, ■ _■ 1 0 L % �' a ■1 WE 111 1■ � 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. A View of the neighboring property to the north at 1723 Alta Oaks Drive �- �_��`.�- Wes/"- L�ti��` " � .�'`�� - -•�- 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 fagade 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 1 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 Facade Design Guidelines based on: Facade 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, 2414. Signed: Glenn {}young.ARBChair 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 b. 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 l' 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 =o August 5, 2014 AUG 0 5 2014 Planning Services City of Arcadia City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL Re: 1717 Alta Oaks Drive Review No.: HOA 14 -02 APPELLANTS: Jun Segimoto Grace Lee April A. Seymour I. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1717 Alta Oaks faces East and is an approximately 12,451 sq. foot lot. It is not flat. The front 50 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 homes, 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 views of the mountains to the east of the backyard over the roof of 1717 Alta Oaks which abuts 1717 Alta Oaks. 1 Attached to this appeal ar6 the following exhibits: A: 1717 Alta Oaks B: 1723 Alta Oaks C: 1709 Alta Oaks D: 1709 Alta Oaks view from backyard E: 1710 Elevado view from backyard F: 1701 Alta Oaks G: 1708 Alta Oaks H: 1716 Alta Oaks 1: 1722 Alta Oaks J: 1729 Alta Oaks K: 1730 Alta Oaks L: 1739 Alta Oaks M: 1740 Alta Oaks N: 1800 Alta Oaks 0: 1820 Alta Oaks P: 1821 Alta Oaks Q: 1829 Alta Oaks R: Map of Alta Oaks 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 residents in attendance. Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager and Thomas Li, Associate Planner, were also present. Residents of Alta Oaks opined that the mass and scale of the proposed structure was incompatible in comparison to all the other homes on the street. There were no other homes on the street that were related to the architectural style being proposed. 2 At first the Architectural Review Board began their discussion away from the public, behind a truc }t° 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 chair asked if the developer would be willing to reduce the height of the structure by regrading the property. The developer agreed to reduce the grade by 2' and reduce the pitch of the roof thus reducing the height of the structure by 1'. There was no discussion of the affect regrading would have on retaining walls, drainage or oak tree encroachment. 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 approve it anyway and he resigned on the spot without voting. The Architectural Review Board voted 3 to 0 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. 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 are not adequately protected. The impact on the oak tree has not been fully ascertained. 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' 3 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 121. E. ROOF: Consistent. F. FAgADE DESIGN: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Fagade 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. H. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Consistent. 1. LANDSCAPE /HARDSCAPE: Consistent. J. FENCES /WALLS: Consistent 21 K. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Inconsistent. The architectural style of° °the proposed project is "Prairie ". It does not "flow" with the rest of the homes on Alta Vista which are primarily ranch style. L. 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. AFFECT OF REGRADING PROPERTY A. OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT: PERMIT NO. THE 14 -27 The Highlands Homeowners Association approved the proposed plans for 1717 Alta Oaks on the condition the site pad is graded down 21. There was no discussion or supplemental report from a certified arborist as to the impact "down grading" the property would have on the oak tree that is encroached upon by the proposed project. B. RETAINING WALLS There is a significant height difference between grades of 1717 Alta Oaks, 1723 Alta Oaks and 1710 Elevado Avenue. There was no discussion or indication as to whether or not the regrading of the property would affect the retaining walls to the north and east of the property. C. DRAINAGE The property has a significant slope which increases at the back of the property. There was no discussion how drainage of the property would be affected by removal of 2' of grade. I believe all of these natural amenities would be adversely affected by the regrading of the property in addition to the adverse impact on the neighborhood when 35 truck loads of dirt are driving up and down residential streets. 5 V. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Of the Alta Oaks residents who testified at the hearing of July 29, 2014, all agreed the proposed home was not compatible and harmonious based on mass and scale of adjacent properties. All public comments in opposition to the proposed project were made by residents who were not residents on Alta Oaks Drive. Some were not even residents of the Highlands. VI. CONCLUSION 1717 Alta Oaks is not compatible and harmonious based on the criteria set forth in Resolution 6770. The mass, scale and height is excessive and garish in comparison to adjacent structures and will create a discord in the streetscape. Respectfully Submitted, By April A. Seymour 1614 Highland Oaks Drive By race Lee 1709 Alta Oaks r By [ �ll�f��1 C/tLi� r ��, N3 By By M- By Jun Segimoto 1710 Elevado By By By ��f � S' lek Bye T / 4� l� 1 . .o V. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Of the Alta Oaks residents who testified at the hearing of July 29, 2014, all agreed the proposed home was not compatible and harmonious based on mass and scale of adjacent properties. All public comments in opposition to the proposed project were made by residents who were not residents on Alta Oaks Drive. Some were not even residents of the Highlands. VI. ( nr)MM rT .q Tr)TN 1717 Alta Oaks is not compatible and harmonious based on the criteria set forth in Resolution 6770. The mass, scale and height is excessive and garish in comparison to adjacent structures and will create a discord in the streetscape. Respectfully Submitted, By April A. Seymour 1614 Highland Oaks Drive By Grace Lee 1709 Alta Oaks By By By By By Jun Segimoto 1710 Elevado 0 By By By M 9 V. PLANNING-COMMISSION HEARING Of the Alta Oaks residents who testified at the hearing of July 29, 2014, all agreed the proposed home was not compatible and harmonious based on mass and scale of adjacent properties. All public comments in opposition to the proposed project were made by residents who were not residents on Alta Oaks Drive. Some were not even residents of the Highlands. VT. CONCLUSION 1717 Alta Oaks is not compatible and harmonious based on the criteria set forth in Resolution 6770. The mass, scale and height is excessive and garish in comparison to adjacent structures and will create a discord in the streetscape. Respectfully Submitted, 1 By Ap 1 A. Se ' our 1 14 Highla Oaks Drive By By Grdce Lee 1709 Alta Oaks BY X; } -oen H gcxv 1--7 01 C l Dot � By ve- 19(1 A 1-�c- Oc)i(s By y..✓i �/�� ?ten L 0 Jun Segimoto 1710 Elevado By -� BY C'L� 4Z S dW 6t-p' s Dig. TO:S % ��� C�, B Y . A L l t- (24 By By By Grdce Lee 1709 Alta Oaks BY X; } -oen H gcxv 1--7 01 C l Dot � By ve- 19(1 A 1-�c- Oc)i(s By y..✓i �/�� ?ten L 0 Jun Segimoto 1710 Elevado By -� BY C'L� 4Z S dW 6t-p' s Dig. TO:S % ��� C�, B Y . A L l t- (24 1717 ALTA OAKS EftH0T "A„ I l . 1723 ALTA OAKS EXHIBIT 111311 �. t y �+ it yrvY . !reC �r.,.1. r .�+y�Ia,� . � J M •1 1• r . � 1 `rte, r\ ' � Pfs a• . i �Cz... " w 1710 ELEVA®® VDEW FROM BACKYARD EXHIBIT "E" 1701 ALTA OAKS EXHIBIT "F" `• �,�'. ' .i *'` ��j iii y �:• .�i: �;, r y f j „�. t fit;. ��.'!'�!.':,�� ..�; r. .�}y ti.» sir .• � . �• .f i J� (f � : rt 1 *�.1 L •1 •. ' S . x NO �- idp "own �i If-d- A -A 1716 ALTA OAKS EXH0T "HY) l4 1722 ALTA OAKS EXIf- BIT U[F., 44 1729 ALTA OAKS EXHIBIT".!" l,Jll 1730 ALTA OAKS EXHIBIT "K» 1739 ALTA OAKS EXHIBIT 11" 1740 ALTA OAKS EXHIBIT ilmll r� ka r Cat 1740 ALTA OAKS EXHIBIT ilmll r� ka r 1740 ALTA OAKS EXHIBIT ilmll r� ka oo�l A ti 3820 ALT'A OAKS EXHIBIT rr®» uic --l'. -___- — _,.. _ a 1821 ALTA OAKS EXHIBIT 'Pl.. 1829 ALTA OAKS IE )'' lBtT "Q" 3,153 sq. ft. .o 26,730 III 1620 Attu a.t 62 11 .�.Its Oaks 1;316 sq. ft. 2-970 sq. ft. 14.10 sq. ft i4120 Sd- ft. 1&M AtY7 ask 71,965 sq. ft. i3.314 sq. ft of:T ]ei. B:MO . ;. It. I 1Z.-5-U sq. It. 172-A Alt5 Omks S.�j q.Pt. 17,10.A}ta Dai 2,644 sq. ft. j171-7 12,196 s . ft ;.6-:c r,;. It. 1734 Alta Oaks 3� 5J ;q.It- 1.9P2 sq. ft Alta Oaks 1i,170 sq -ft. 1722 Alta Oaks 7 3q. a =,a64 s ft. lZ44D E. q. ft- � 1,663 MUM sq- ft. 1716 Aitn Oaks 6 1709 Ake Oaks 0 1.647 sq. ft. 2,029 sq. ft. N Ce 10,250 sq. ft. 12,56^ s . ft. u 1741 Aft2 links m 1746 Alta Oaks 2,604 sq. ft. 1.541 sq. ft. 12,403 sq. ft. < � njaao sq. ft. MAP OF ALTA OAKS DRIVE EXHIBIT "R" X� F SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL Re: 1717 Alta Oaks Drive Review No.: HOA 14 -02 AUG 2 1 2014 APPELLANTS: Jun Segimoto Grace Lee April A. Seymour RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY IN THE HIGHLANDS A. Single story not to exceed 19' in height. W' B. Two story with the following conditions: 1. By increasing the second floor side yard setback on the south side of the property to 25 feet the impact on the rear neighbor's views would be mitigated. 2. The height on the south side of the structure reduce to 17' and the height on the north side reduce to 23' to accommodate a second story. These minimal height differences would reduce the disparity between adjacent homes and create visual interest. 3. Obtain an independent, second opinion by Rebecca Latta, certified arborist, as to what effect the soil removal and trimming of crown would have on the oak tree before such condition is approved. See 413 4. Reduce the he, lit of the plate on the 1 st floor to 8' and the height of the plate on the 2n floor to 8', not to exceed 23 overall height and reduce the height of front doors to 7' tall. This would mitigate the disparity in height and mass of adjacent properties. 5. Remove second floor dormer with 20' high entry area. 6. Recess the second floor over the doorway by 8'. The space above is not usable living space and recessing this area would mitigate massing and add visual interest. Stone clad columns reinforce verticality. 7. Use less brick on the facade. Adjacent properties have little masonry and reducing the amount would mitigate the "weight" added by the excessive use of brick on the subject property. 8. Maintain a rear yard setback of the second floor that is at the same line as adjacent structures to mitigate affect on privacy and views of adjacent neighbors. 9. Maintain elevation symmetry. A hallmark of homes in the Highlands. 10. Pull out dead tree in backyard, replace. 11. Reduce height of windows to be less than width. This will emphasize a horizontal line which is consistent with adjacent homes. 12. Add a 3`d car garage due to additional bedroom labeled media room with full bath and additional bedroom labeled loft. 13. 2' reduction of site pad could alter storm water flows to adjacent properties. Slopes to adjacent properties need to be studied. Respectfully Submitted, Jun Segimoto, Appellant 1710 Elevado (GRO Lee, Appellant 1` 09 Alta Oaks Drive AR C'u pr,- -. k1t7 Al%A `04ks -6PcAa(A 2--71 HI qq W kS\l�D ,��m6zlr- %bpl 6,F a-0 A��H WAS I W15Ni To ARcA, � �Ii-e AfiP.-Wk-1 0 -(}v-- sou.bJ -e-x ffs-ecl- RECEIVED JUN 0 4 2914 Pinnning Services City of Arcadia 7e) SoRI �s��K e-� i Mi A(� G�Z�*I,GT �Ak All� A0 June 5, 2014 City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPEAL Re: 1717 Alta Oaks Drive Review No.: RECEIVED JUN 0 5 2014 Planning Services City of Arcadia 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 not know the exact number because sheet made by April A. Seymour to Architectural Review Board Chair, Assistant City Manager and Thomas present. to 25 resident in attendance. I do a written request for the sign in Glenn Oyoung, then acting was denied. Jason Kruckeberg, Li, Associate Planner, were 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. TII. 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 91. 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. FAgADE DESIGN: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Fagade 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, By Aril A. our 1614 High nd Oaks Dr. By'� - Jun Segimoto 1710 Elevado Ave. By Name Address Exhibi0 t A Exhibit B C, low C, 0 Exhibit D 7/29/2034 ■A ■. I. � ' i � �,�.la7ii°2���p I '��I#� ���lii�'v 4� D -REAR ELEYA' ON J WE . . OWNER: DEXTER ALTA OAKS L LC 225 E. SANTA CLARA S-MLLT ST4220 ARCADIA. CA, 91f)06 PROJECT: NEW SINGLE FAMILY I -10USE ZONING: R -1 LO'T SIZE. 12.451 OCCUPANCY GROUP: R3 /u TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V/6 W /SPRINKLER MAIN HOUSE LIVING AREA: 1ST FLOOR .- 3,471 SO. FT. 2ND FLOOR 1,594 50, FT. TOTAL = 5,064 SO. Ff. ATTACH GARAGE: 440 SO. FT. PORCH ANO OR (FRONT ENTRY) 34 SO. FT. PROJECTION (REAR FAMILY RM.) 40 50. F"1. AREA- LO "F COVERAGE: (35% MAX.) 3.471+440 -F74 — 3,985/ 12.451 — 32% FRONT YARD AREA: F.Y,S AREA 3.025 SO.FT. HARDSCAPE /LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE AREA: 6,160 SO.FF. HARDSCAPE (MAX. 40%)r HARDSCAPE AREA: 1.210 SOFT, 1,210 S.F./ 3.025.08 S.F. — 39.90% < 409 COOE7 THE GOVEfiNmc CODES FOR THIS PROJECT ARE: 2013 CALIFORNIA SUfLUINO CODF, (CBC), 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANT:ARO CODE, 2013 CAL)FORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC), 2413 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), 2008 ENERGY. T1TkE 24 (ENS). 2013 CALIFORNIA MEC"ANICAL CODE (CMC). 2013 CALIFORNIA PLL MS'NG CODE (CPC). WITH LOCAL AWNDMENP - 7/29/2014 a 1708 Alta Oaks 1,541 home squr W footage 9,980 lot square footage 7/29/2014 3 7/29/2014 1709 Alta Oaks views �J ire footage 10,250 lot square 7/29/2014 k, F 'J►i,- ..fit+, -" � ,,.F. �� -�+r A' � 5• 4 ij:_!� View from 1710 Elevado 7/29/2014 U 1723 Alta Oaks 2,690 home sqL, ire footage 13,560 lot square footage "f 1729 Alta Oaks (2009) 3,970 home square footage 12,230 lot square footage 7/29/2014 7 1730 Alta Oaks 1,992 home square foot�lge 11,170 lot square foot; 7/29/2014 Opt - --- -. 1730 Alta Oaks 1,992 home square foot�lge 11,170 lot square foot; 7/29/2014 ARCAD..� BEAUTIFULAWARQ 1800 Alta Oaks 2,965 home square footage 13,810 lot square footage 7/29/2014 6 7/29/2014 10 7/29/2014 11 a ua N 3,153 sq. ft. 16,730 sq, ft. 1820 Alta Oa! 1,918 sq. ft. W 1821 Alta Oaks 2,970 sq. ft. f 14,160 sq. ft 1800 Alta Oa S 2,965 sq. ft. 13,810 sq. ft a, 7er Avenue 1739 Alta Oaks 3,090 sq. ft. 12,770 sq. ft. 1729 Alta Oaks I ta Oak 3,970 sq. ft. 12,230 sq. ft. . ft. s .ft a Oaksq, oAaks ta Oa2 690 sq ft ft. s . ft. 1717 Alta Oaks a Oaks Proposed: 2,644 sq. ft, q. ft. 5,064 sq. ft. 12,440 sq. ft. sq. ft. 1716 Alta Oaks 1709 Alta Oaks 1,647 sq. ft. 2,029 sq. ft. I 10,250 sq. ft. 12,560 s . ft. f0 O 1708 Alta Oaks 1701 Alta Oaks 1,541 sq, ft. 2,604 sq. k. Q I 9,980 sq. ft. 12,400 sq. ft. I 1 1 1,3: 7/29/2014 11 W4 1518 Highland Oaks 5,317 home sauare fool ige 11 lot square 7/29/2014 12 ir 1518 Highland Oaks 5,317 home sauare fool ige 11 lot square 7/29/2014 12 7/29/2014 13 LnVFAR ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014 a -EXCERPT - 2. 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 with an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a new residence at 1717 Alta Oaks Drive. Appellants: April A. Seymour and Jun Segimoto Applicant: Sanyao International, Inc., Designer 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. Mr. Kasama introduced the appeal. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Chairman Beranek opened the public hearing and asked if the appellant would like to speak. Ms. April Seymour responded. Chairman Beranek asked if the applicant would like to speak in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Robert Tong, project designer, responded. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the appeal. The following responded. Mr. John Fiet Mr. Steve - noted that his opposition applies to all the appeals on the agenda Ms. Tess Crabtree Ms. Jun Segimoto Mr. George Zordilla Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this appeal. The following responded. Mr. Glenn Oyoung Mr. Charles Huang Ms. Peggy Allison Mr. Jeff Bowen Chairman Beranek asked if the appellant would like to speak in rebuttal. Ms. Seymour responded. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Falzone, seconded by Commissioner Chiao, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commission Chairman Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Falzone, to find that this project is exempt from CEQA, and that the design is consistent with the City's design guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770, and deny Appeal No. HOA 14 -02 and uphold the ARB decision and the staff approval of Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 14 -27. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Chiao, Falzone, and Beranek NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille At this point, Chairman Beranek called for a brief recess. Chairman Beranek resumed the Chair and called the meeting to order. Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 7/29/14 8/27/2014 Panoramic View of the Subject Property and the Adjacent Homes Panoramic View of the Homes Across the Street 8/27/2034 Z Appellants' Main Issues . Mr. Chan: ARB's approval of this project is inconsistent with the denial of his single -story project at 1760 Wilson Avenue. Ms. Seymour and Ms. Segimoto: Obstruction of views, cannot be over 15' -0" in height. Entry is too tall. Front elevation lacks articulation_ Tall windows add to verticality of building. Building height dwarfs neighboring homes. Exterior brick veneer not consistent with neighboring homes. ARB's Findings Proposal is properly modulated and articulated to minimize mass and mitigate scale differences with surrounding homes. Retaining mature trees to reduce massive appearance. Second story has lighter character than the first floor. Conditions: Reduce roof pitch to 3:12, lower grade by 2' -0 ", change 2nd floor window height to 6' -0" above floor level to promote privacy. 8/27/2014 3 Staff's Findings Staff concurs with the ARB's findings and supports the approval of this proposal with the stated conditions. Oak tree encroachments will not adversely affect the health of the oak trees. Recommendation Deny Appeal No. HOA 14 -02 to uphold the ARB's decision, and approve Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 14 -27, subject to the conditions of approval on pages 5 & 6 of the staff report. 8/27/2014 4 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 .................. ............................... I Background and Purpose of Report ... ............................... I Project Location, Description and Tree Ordinance ....................... 2 Observations & Analysis ............ ............................... 4 Tree Characteristics & Health Matrix ..................... 6 Construction Impact Matrix ............................. 7 Findings..... .................... ............................... 8 Further Recommendations ........... ............................... 8 AppendixA 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 4440. March 2014 PROJECT LOCATION, DESCRIPTION & TREE ORDINANCE Ol ,A1 Grardvww Ave " 7 Y1 a C7 ti t3 F s C M X i A n L' x Sierra Madre Blvd E_-3013 M 8 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 I717 Alta Oaks Dr., Arcadia CA 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. March 2014 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 (4 '/2) feet above the crown root, or, two (2) or more trunks measuring three (3) inches each or greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one half (4 %) 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 (4 1 /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 %z) 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 41 — 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. El Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1717 Alta Oaks Br., Arcadia CA 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. March 2014 Tree 42 — 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 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1717 Alta Oaks Dr., Arcadia CA 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. March 2014 OBSERVATIONS This chart includes all Protected Trees which are either located or encroaching on the property. It provides physical data collected from field observations. The trees have been surveyed and numbers correspond to the Site Plan included in this report. TREE CHARACTERISTICS & HEALTH MATRIX 31 T SIZE FORM CROWN AGE GE SHOOT WO w. VIGOR CLASS CLASS ©ENS IT WT SS , E� ❑ U (-- � Q W E.W., H raiz E� H W Q 2 � � � F � � � PwG � � � d � W ❑ G� w z SPECIES ¢ w w o Q '� o� w O ` ° ° O ° ❑ O O o o 0 1 I Quercus agrifolia 36 50 60 X X X X X X X 2 Quercus ilex 14 30 20 X X X X X X X 3 Quercus ilex 16 30 25 X X.-t- X X Ix I TX X 31 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1717 Alta Oaks Dr., Arcadia CA 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. March 2014 ANALYSIS This section includes all Protected Trees which are either located or encroaching on the property. It provides data collected from the analysis of construction plans. The tree has been surveyed and numbers correspond to the Site Plan included in this report. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS MATRIX TREE SPECIES SIZE & ROOTZONE IMPACTS REQUIRED PRUNING OF CONDITION LIVE CROWN C O O° C C° � O • O O v� +� :� C CC Cd O C = M C O Q 43 Z .0 �*^ C C �" a� 4� O W C .'fly Z7" Cr 41 gz O p ° o Ln b un z Y Q 1 Quercus agrifolia 36 Fair W W _ <10 0 N/A 2 Quercus ilex 14 Good - - Y <10 0 NIA 3 Quercus iex 16 Good N N Y <10 0 NIA 7 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1717 Alta Oaks Rd., Arcadia CA 91006 Michael Crane, RCA 4440. 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 contractor 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. Protected Tree Report: survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1717 Alta Oaks Rd., Arcadia CA 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. March 2014 APPENDIX A — Photos 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. z Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1717 Alta Oaks Rd., Arcadia CA 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. March 2014 ABOVE: Trees 42 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 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 Iarge trees, grow primarily in the top meter (3 R) of soil (see figure below). Most plants concentrate the majority of their small absorbing roots in the upper 150 mm (6 in.) of soil if the surface is protected by a mulch or forest litter. In the absence of a protective mulch, exposed bare soil can become so hot near the surface that roots do not grow in the upper 200 to 250 mm (8 to 10 in.). Under forest and many landscape situations, however, soil near the surface is most favorable for root growth. In addition, roots tend to grow at about the same soil depth regardless of the slope of the soil surface. Although root growth is greatly influenced by soil conditions, individual roots seem to have an inherent guidance mechanism. Large roots with vigorous tips usually grow horizontally. Similar roots lateral to the large roots grow at many angles to the vertical, and some grow up into the surface soil. However, few roots in a root system actually grow down. Depth I Its meters 0 0.5 1.0 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 horizontally oriented lateral roots. 12 Protected 'tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1717 Alta Oaks Rd., Arcadia CA 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #E440. 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 4440. 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 space. Pavement Paving over the root systems of trees is another serious problem because it reduces the gaseous diffusion and soil moisture. Most paving materials are relatively impervious to water penetration and typically divert water away from a tree's root zone. Cracks and expansion joints do, though, allow for some water infiltration into the soil below. Of greater concern, is the loss of roots from excavation to achieve the required grade, and the necessary compaction to prevent subsidence. Once the soil surface is compacted, a base material is then added and compacted as well. With that done, the surface can then be paved. Thus, pavement within the root zones of trees can damage roots and create 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 b 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 t/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 I717 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 %2 inches in diameter should not be cut. Dig below these roots to route utilities or install drains. A combination of tools can also produce satisfactory results, for example, a skillful backhoe operator under the arborist's supervision can dig down several inches at a time and detect larger roots by `feel' (resistance). At that point, as assistant can expose the root and dig around it. In this manner, the backhoe can then continue extending the trench though the TPZ. Tunneling (boring) through the TPZ is the preferable alternative. For most large trees, tunneling depth should be at least 36 inches. Tunneling should begin at the edge of the TPZ, but no closer than a distance equal to one foot of clearance for each inch of tree DBH. Tunnels should also be offset to either side Ill 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 r• .international 6ocietp of Zlrboriculture" Eree RiA Ratoment Qualification Michael J Crane Having sucCeSafulysamMeted 1110 regsaemrrnls estOshed dy me CeihluWn 900nd of the Internahmai Smety d Arhor Lalure," lire shore named is to" reWgnited as hWaN the ISA TreaRisN Assessment 4aaliralimn PVC _ irenu' - -' t dl�wcdwe Dem.Dem. ber 31.2015 r....o., 0.- hT i1YN1 F.nax Orenx xuma.n Sa..er dl.x.w., -n DEP.ARTIIENTOF PES ICIDE REGULAT10% w p r LICENSINGICERTIFIC AT PROGRAM AGRICI'1_1 URA1. PEST UOV IVOL ADVISER b:1TF:OFISS1 V VALIDTIIROU(:I1 01101/2013 1213112014 PCA 75893 ABCDEFG MICHAEL J CRANE PO BOX 51122 PASADENA CA 91115 jilig,111mmill� The American Society of Cmisulmig Arbnrists � C" 1l a Ci i14I 6OVAP of hdr[t1IYtUL'E - Lloarb - Certifieb Olaoter Rrbodot VicLe[ly (...rang Uilinitg suttrsstullp tarrg100 lhr requlremmits sel lip fUr arbartrl rterllbUtien 3lruvt of IUr 30leriiptl0naf gatirlp dl a DWICullure. Me Aftr mnit0 is herehn rttOptilib as An 3941 EeAr0- QettlGet 41amer c'3rhmisl 71� atrrta, R:rr��r �mWr J1,I l,ltttnrne..l b.d.laMWrMHrvll.rr J ! W EON38 Nav 9. 2005 the 34. 20tl a eb n tc tZ 0 as � � n Cm 0 naR 46 � n � 7 � a Can >0 tv 0 0 '9 Nrerco•,r'r ..nrrrlrr.re ird,ru sr.untrr� 01.�y „rstn urrrur /r C� Michael Crane, RCA #440 n Rel'rtile•re'r! ,ilrnilx•nldlr lrurwrn Iti ?fXXr ascia 111 H FBI 1l a Ci i14I 6OVAP of hdr[t1IYtUL'E - Lloarb - Certifieb Olaoter Rrbodot VicLe[ly (...rang Uilinitg suttrsstullp tarrg100 lhr requlremmits sel lip fUr arbartrl rterllbUtien 3lruvt of IUr 30leriiptl0naf gatirlp dl a DWICullure. Me Aftr mnit0 is herehn rttOptilib as An 3941 EeAr0- QettlGet 41amer c'3rhmisl 71� atrrta, R:rr��r �mWr J1,I l,ltttnrne..l b.d.laMWrMHrvll.rr J ! W EON38 Nav 9. 2005 the 34. 20tl a eb n tc tZ 0 as � � n Cm 0 naR 46 � n � 7 � a Can >0 tv 0 0 '9 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1717 Alta Oaks Rd., Arcadia CA 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. March 2014 CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE 1, Michael Crane, certify that: • I have personally inspected the tree(s) and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. • I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts. • My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. • No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. • My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party not upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of Horticulture in a full -time capacity for a period of more than 15 years. Signed: Registered Consulting Arborist 4440; American Society of Consulting Arborist Board Certified Master Arborist #WE 6643B; International Society of Arboriculture Licensed California Agricultural Pest Control Adviser 4AA08269 March 25, 2014 �L C� Date: _ J $41 c�cYx •! 19 Nd .oc� fowk.r ` PLANT I.EQEND 4.•),.�trts 7 vnwc trt� m tuner �+ j mvrtctm nx rm[ s¢twt su m a sxam'�m] ARBMSTS NUTA Alf AeaWWT .re —WY PIlnM and toe eat-of ISdr dAllttea —dm,.e b-0] Tex- 1— catteepaed to bolt 6a mtmba. dm meW'W dk-d w tech yabend the Ts . Nemlremdvnd w the,,i,w s6ti ofNutt s. The dashed lien htdicnc wh- ity rcao —mfm ptotcc0�c civg la be pme.d fnrtbc..bliA --fore pmlctian ranri S79'4WWE 161A ' I .�i. ai[ 7 %%m%%%%/ ' � I �R. rur a¢ci roar xwy st.� �x.a. REVIS10N5 DATE NO twc % % i 4 _ e.N w. o.w ur / � a n NausE / / / .smrtcttw IPrt ma.mrort town am sa.ot� i m�rtt b.+ i • M1'4 h• r f. w rr`c w.r sw -.�.. Pest sst -.vt r// •T-0' I Saar muse rew.e oo Omul m - a•�ttxin: tam - ea. x. R YBCN0.MGL ENWSIEER /A cwnw v��nf�va rnsrc txx ta,..t SITE PLAN ,� °� � ro ,,;, •i •°� 1°"" L1111LL/f1Ll3 A ® o Ler I vntmrwwe ISe• t 6CAfE 1•= ltl-0' aan r ttwc. w•a .w°°�i •.xw S78'111R6'E 1W.61' ./m. m >s,nt . as mw W 1L �_:_ }.} __ }_____ -_ .r!F�- _ sE+errac , rata sr ✓aots.m .,r.- xwa..aa �cot¢fh'vmort . -____: _-'__> - - 0 exu� txxrwt bOE tr�`' we 4 zp e= � a SINGLE &MULTS FAMILY DWELLINGS °° ^*"� °i° iie°'°^' em I.art ❑ Cl�. r Q e.m wx a uoa® mnaw� anz r:x w..c rwt rw uanAnfo�atsArstxttm� FIRE SPRINKLER REWREMENFS z - IL E RESIDENCE Q PROJECT SUMMARY 1 • `*i 1 I l! 0•Grw�tuF[ 4—. Z E- Fm�.s4l � I i I 1 I i ro I b' -0" /Y4R•GE ! 1t bt0 6Elms4w N• � Fn s1RUC➢RAl RMS z O uIMA n.... .a gym.. ww na �aees t N rw�s m M�W1x J J Pm+�m I T31C M pppa I 1 2[:kR WR/1GE� I _ I y 6m SHEET INDEX t i - -- a �.:. —• I Q avn.rcac ..at<m.,+ �oR P'i..["�aub� e.sn• c wtwt¢ a'wvw '°°"M4.� �um�on M vnc a M°R��`nnl�nid°�i"`rc II'�°�'`nHO1Y inL � .m.ar vrY a r 1 ti .a�PSg illw0i - 7^ L&T 4 CM wLaV 8 «� s" a� 6! P 1111 txeo.a . � •. rr a« I - G — — � e..e.., ea ta••f .n_�we STRUCTURAL ENCMEER f�pEEE €!E P g�gpqpp �i�iBQ:E��i Y ` PLANT I.EQEND 4.•),.�trts 7 vnwc trt� m tuner �+ j mvrtctm nx rm[ s¢twt su m a sxam'�m] ARBMSTS NUTA Alf AeaWWT .re —WY PIlnM and toe eat-of ISdr dAllttea —dm,.e b-0] Tex- 1— catteepaed to bolt 6a mtmba. dm meW'W dk-d w tech yabend the Ts . Nemlremdvnd w the,,i,w s6ti ofNutt s. The dashed lien htdicnc wh- ity rcao —mfm ptotcc0�c civg la be pme.d fnrtbc..bliA --fore pmlctian ranri S79'4WWE 161A ' I .�i. ai[ 7 %%m%%%%/ - T¢�g� ,� Ptl �L twc % % rxotectm w reef OFt lRWwIEY�YIS c1Ei [61 v1'Op[S tN If•S `" wrn5 w,.w n uNOmCAPEARSfuTECt Bfn Marti a ��Lt[5 » �� .wx vrc rm. yr wrsc � aim w. o.w ur / � a n NausE / / / .smrtcttw IPrt ma.mrort town am sa.ot� i m�rtt b.+ i • M1'4 h• r f. w rr`c w.r sw -.�.. Pest sst -.vt rew.e oo Omul YBCN0.MGL ENWSIEER /A cwnw v��nf�va SITE PLAN °• �°"°° 6CAfE 1•= ltl-0' :.'°.. CONSULTING ENGINEERING 3 mw W 1L r6ouwc[ , �cot¢fh'vmort . _ �' eENeRx NOres; �� n.smta a SINGLE &MULTS FAMILY DWELLINGS °° ^*"� °i° iie°'°^' W r Q e.m wx a uoa® mnaw� anz r:x w..c rwt rw uanAnfo�atsArstxttm� FIRE SPRINKLER REWREMENFS "'wwmE�roamti uIMA n.... .a gym.. ww na �aees t J J Pm+�m VICINITY MAP N.T.s. ® [41 0 !` V avn.rcac ..at<m.,+ �oR P'i..["�aub� e.sn• c wtwt¢ a'wvw '°°"M4.� �um�on M vnc a M°R��`nnl�nid°�i"`rc II'�°�'`nHO1Y inL � .m.ar vrY - 7^ S.Sm, SYV1 rc11w6 �MaAw 5vx Y ,fln F .SY MFai N M (i] T Q mmmtcro. .moo e.n� w�i C evd watU �[ i�voevea [ t'1'et ®mM i �iao� 11 I � � Y � iws.�1 w.IwoPG to eE e�wm shoe to tw• tarxerd. n u x.,a..�r �` `umioan+ t" uaw :mtitis. swa o�.c me �'��rpgb� yp� g�jy� °.� srrwir � .nex�wai�m.�eM ¢� nf�f w.ce >.xu tc tam x P6EMID 91BYITUA 1 1 1 1 I �E Vlwn on.tt PT.R ,i . .,a maa trmc ao 4 r ova rwwsxs wow x a .v �k � a�otlt ss- oo+aE a uaum_ ow.r w .nrrra.m a.����... mtorm ewtt•..x w nm twa�w r�wa�ow T -1 GENERAL NOTES 8 FIRE DEPT. REQUIREMENT DEFERRED SUBMITTALS 6 AVE. FRONT SETBACK 40'-0" 5 Arbor Care Inc. Arboricultural Consulting & Plant Health Care info @ArborCarelnc. net 626- 737 -4007 August 6, 2014 TO: City of Arcadia Planning Division 240 W. Huntington Drive, P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91007 FROM: SUBJECT: Michael Crane Arbor Care, Inc. Project's Arborist of Record RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2014 Planning Services ,ity of Arcadia Recommended Parameters for Grading around Tree #1 1717 Alta Oaks Dr. (Refer to Original Protected Tree Report, Dated March 2014) To whom it may concern: This letter is meant to inform you that I have received the most recent grading plan from the engineer, EGL and Associates, for the proposed home at 1717 Alta Oaks Dr. A copy of the new grading plan is attached to this letter. I have analyzed this plan as it relates to the encroachment of Protected Oak Trees on site, particularly Tree #1, and I have compared these new plans with the plans, which I originally analyzed for the Oak Tree Report that was submitted to the Planning Division for the Oak Tree Permit application. My findings are that the new plans will impact the Protected Oak Trees very similarly to what I originally reported and no additional or more severe impacts will occur other than the ones which are presented in my report. The grading that is planned on the south side of Tree #1, including required overexcavation, shall not occur closer than 15 feet from the trunk. Excavation that occurs at or beyond 15 feet from the trunk may be done to any depth. The area within the 15 -foot radius near the tree shall remain at or very near the existing grade. The existing hardscape shall be removed by hand and the new hardscape shall be constructed with semipervious material, e.g., paving stones, set on a water - rolled or lightly compacted sand base. The recommended placement of protective fencing is indicated on the attached grading plan, which is at least 15 feet from the trunk; however, it is the identical fence placement locations that were recommended in the original Protected Tree Report. Please feel free to call or email me with any questions regarding the Protected Oaks on this project. Sincerely, Michael Crane Project's aborist of record. GPLIFOR�,j9'y�f F . «a A.sg— u�[ 5, MEMORANDUM Development Services Department DATE: September 2, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR APPEALS IN THE HIGHLANDS AREA The attached material was submitted by Ms. April A. Seymour for the design review appeals in the Highlands area. These items were received too late to be included in the staff reports, but will be addressed at the meeting. A. W. SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMIS Re: 1717 Alta Oaks Drive Review No.: HOA 14 -02 APPELLANTS: Jun Segimoto Grace Lee April A. Seymour APPEA r,- y°` 1 ° 7 AUG 27 2014 Planning Services City of Arcadia RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY IN THE HIGHLANDS Single story not to exceed 19' in height. •* Two story with the following conditions: By increasing the second floor side yard setback on the south side of the property to 25 feet the impact on the rear neighbor's views would be mitigated. 2. The height on the south side of the structure reduce to 17' and the height on the north side reduce to 23' to accommodate a second story. These minimal height differences would reduce the disparity between adjacent homes and create visual interest. Obtain an independent, second opinion by Rebecca Latta, certified arborist, as to what effect the soil removal and trimming of crown would have on the oak tree before such condition is approved. See #13 4. Reduce the height of the plate on the 1st floor to 8' and the height of the plate on the 2nd floor to 8', not to exceed 23 overall height and reduce the height of front doors to 7' tall. This would mitigate the disparity in height and mass of adjacent properties. 5. Remove second floor dormer with 20' high entry area. b. Recess the second floor over the doorway by 8'. The space above is not usable living space and recessing this area would mitigate massing and add visual interest. Stone clad columns reinforce verticality. 7. Use less brick on the facade. Adjacent properties have little masonry and reducing the amount would mitigate the "weight" added by the excessive use of brick on the subject property. 8. Maintain a rear yard setback of the second floor that is at the same line as adjacent structures to mitigate affect on privacy and views of adjacent neighbors. 9. Maintain elevation symmetry. A hallmark of homes in the Highlands. 10. Pull out dead tree in backyard, replace. 11. Reduce height of windows to be less than width. This will emphasize a horizontal line which is consistent with adjacent homes. 12. Add a 3`d car garage due to additional bedroom labeled media room with full bath and additional bedroom labeled loft. 13. 2' reduction of site pad could alter storm water flows to adjacent properties. Slopes to adjacent properties need to be studied. Respectfully Sub�rnatt, `i g ppellant 10 Elevado Grace Lee, Appellant 1709 Alta Oaks Drive John Uniack Highlands HOA ARB Chair April A. Verlato Seymour, Appellant 1614 Highland Oaks Drive RECEIVED AUG 272014 Planning Services City of Arcadia