Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a - Continued Appeal 29 E Orange Grove�� � GPL1POft1�*Iq"j,� f -r a 1--poe via Flu goat 5, 1— 42u'tt STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: February 3, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO OVERTURN THE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DENIAL AND APPROVE THE DESIGN PLANS, AN OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK MODIFICATIONS FOR A NEW ONE -STORY RESIDENCE AT 29 E. ORANGE GROVE AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 20, 2015 MEETING) Recommendation: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission Decision SUMMARY At the January 20, 2015 meeting, the City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to overturn the Highlands Homeowners' Association's denial of a proposed new residence at 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue. Applications also included a modification to the front yard setback requirement, and an encroachment into a healthy oak tree. The case numbers for the project are HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, and THE 14 -65. At the January 20 public hearing, the City Council heard a staff presentation on the matter and took testimony from the public on the subject applications. In addition, the City Council received information in writing from the public. One item received was a letter from the law offices of Chatten -Brown & Carstens outlining arguments related to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), among other arguments. This document was provided to the City Council in a supplemental packet, following the release of the agenda materials, and the City did not have time to prepare a response to the document prior to the public hearing. As a result, the City Council chose to continue the public hearing on the item to the February 3, 2015, meeting. Attached to this Staff Report is a response from Best Best and Krieger to the Chatten Brown & Carstens letter, as well as additional information received since the January 20 public hearing. This information will be discussed at the upcoming public hearing. Also attached is the information that was provided prior to the January 20 public hearing, the Appeal of Planning Commission Decision 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue February 3, 2015 Page 2 of 2 original Staff Report for the January 20 hearing, and all relevant attachments to the original Staff Report. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision. Approved- Dominic LazzarA6 City Manager Attachments: Letter from Best Best and Krieger dated January 28, 2015 in response to Chatten- Brown Letter dated January 14, 2015 Chatten -Brown & Carstens letter dated January 14, 2015 Appeal Letter from April Verlato dated January 15, 2015 and Correction to this letter Certificate of Demolition (COD No. 14 -167) for 29 E. Orange Grove Letter from Bruce McCallum in favor of the Planning Commission's decision January 20, 2015 City Council Staff Report Architectural Plans * *All materials included for the January 20, 2015 City Council public hearing, including all supplemental information, are available at the City's website and at the City Clerk's office. * *The Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 6665), and City Council Resolution No. 6770 are available at the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website. Indian Wells 1 •1.11 (760) 568 -2611 Irvine BEST BEST & KmEGER; (949) 263 -2600 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los Angeles (213) 617 -8100 Riverside 2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 400, Ontario, CA 91761 (951) 686 -1450 Phone: (949) 989 -8584 1 Fax: (909) 944 -1441 1 www.bbklaw.com Stephen P. Deftsch (909)483 -6642 stephen.deitsch@bbklaw.com File No. 24347.00600 January 28, 2015 Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Re- Appeal No. HOE 14 -5 — 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue: California Environmental Quality Act Claims Mr. Lazzaretto: Sacramento (916) 325 -4000 San Diego (619) 525 -1300 Walnut Creek (925) 977 -3300 Washington, DC (202) 785 -0600 At your request, we have reviewed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims of Appellant April A. Verlato and her legal counsel, the firm of Chatten -Brown & Carstens LLP, as they pertain to Appeal No. HOA 14 -05, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the development permits for the property located at E. Orange Grove Avenue (Project). Based on our review of the claims, we have concluded that it is appropriate to exempt the Project, a proposed single family home, from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303, an exemption which expressly includes single- family residences. Ms. Verlato and her legal counsel (collectively referred to as Appellant) raise multiple objections to the City's determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA, each of which we address below. Cumulative Impacts Appellant asserts that the Project should not be found exempt from CEQA because it will result in significant cumulative impacts from multiple projects of the same type. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b).) Specifically, Appellant asserts that the City's "approval of plans for nearly 30 homes" in Arcadia Highlands since 2012 will, if the Project is approved, result in cumulative impacts related to increased population density, aesthetics, traffic generation, noise and other environmental topics because these homes have "footprints that are two to three times the surface area of existing home footprints" and are "meant to serve multiple or extended families" with "multiple kitchens and multiple entrances." (January 14, 2015 Letter to City Council from Chatten -Brown & Carsten LLP.) However, as approved by the PIanning Commission, the Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's planning and zoning laws for the Project site and overall area and thus 24347.0060019528247.1 I IRA W BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager January 28, 2015 Page 2 would not contribute (cumulatively or otherwise) to a level of development beyond that which has already been evaluated under CEQA as part of the City's General Plan and, in particular, its 2013 Housing EIement Update process. Appellant's references to "multiple or extended families" appears to be a suggestion that the Project will result in significant impacts because it is actually multi - family housing in a single - family housing neighborhood, but this is not correct. The plans approved for the Project reflect that it is a single - family home in compliance with the definitions of a One - Family and a Single- Family Dwelling, as set forth in Municipal Code sections 9220.21 and 9220.21.1. Appellant has submitted no evidence that the Project will result in a cumulatively considerable increase in traffic, water or energy usage, instead offering only speculation. Argument, speculation, and unsubstantiated narrative do not constitute "substantial evidence" under CEQA and cannot be relied upon by the City. (Pub. Res. Code §§21080(e)(2), 21082.2(c).) Indeed, some of Appellant's contentions are illogical on their face, such as the allegation that a home constructed in compliance with current California Building Code standards, which contain stringent energy efficiency requirements, would result in a substantial increase in energy usage as compared to the environmental baseline — a home constructed in 1941, prior to the modern -era of energy efficient utilities, water efficient landscaping requirements and building construction methods. As well, Appellant's claim that the Project would "accommodate multiple families" with two master bedrooms, multiple kitchens, multiple entrances and four air conditioning condensers is false. The plans approved for the Project by the Planning Commission reflect that it will have one master bedroom, one kitchen, three air condensers and one main entrance. Further, simply listing other new single family homes in the Arcadia Highlands area (which is over 800 acres in size) that Appellant thinks might cause significant cumulative impacts is not evidence that the Project will have adverse impacts or that the impacts are cumulatively considerable. (Hines v California Coastal Comm'n (2010) 186 Cal.AppAth 830, 857.) Ultimately, Appellant's assertion that significant cumulative impacts will occur simply because other new homes have been approved within Arcadia Highlands does not trigger the cumulative impacts exception in State CEQA Guidelines section 15301.2(b). Unusual Circumstances Appellant argues that because the Project proposes a single- family home over 5,000 square feet in size, a size larger than the average size of homes in the Arcadia Highlands area, State CEQA Guideline section 15300.2(c) precludes the use of a CEQA exemption such as the single - family home exemption found in State CEQA Guideline section 15303. Section 15300.3(c) provides that an activity that would otherwise be subject to a categorical exemption is excluded from the exemption if "there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." Application of this test 24347.0060019528247.1 IMIk BEST BEST & "IEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager January 28, 2015 Page 3 involves two distinct inquiries: (1) whether the project presents unusual circumstances and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result from those unusual circumstances. (Voices for Rural Living v El Dorado Irrig. Dist. (2012) 209 CalAppAth 1096; Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, Park W. Community Preservation Group v City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.AppAth 249, 261. "A negative answer to either question means the exception does not apply." (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.AppAth 786, 800. For example, in Wollmer v City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1351, the court rejected claims that the location of an infill project at a crowded intersection was an unusual circumstance, noting that this type of circumstance is precisely what is expected in the infill development context. Here, Appellant is arguing that a single - family home that is consistent with the City's planning and zoning laws is "unusual" only because it is larger than other homes in Arcadia Highlands. But the square footage, height and size of the Project comply with the City's Zoning Code — Codes which apply to the whole of the Arcadia Highlands Area. Thus, by definition, the Project is not out of the normal or "unusual" for the City. The Project is typical of the type of development the single - family home exemption was designed for: a single family home. Accordingly, the "unusual circumstance" exception is not triggered. Based on the foregoing, we again confirm that it is appropriate to exempt the Project from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303. Sincerely, Stephen P. Deitsch of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP cc: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Michelle Ouellette, Best Best & Krieger LLP 24347.0060019528247.1 CHATTEN -BROWN & CARSTENS LLP 2200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TELEPHONE:(310) 798 -2400 SUITE 318 FACSIMILE: (310) 798 -2402 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 www.cbecarthlaw.com January 14, 2014 City Council City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 E -mail: MNBCCBCPARTHLAW.COM Re: Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission Determinations Approving 29 E. Orange Grove (Appeal No. HOA 14 -05) and 1600 Highlands Oak Drive (Appeal No. HOA 14 -07) Dear Honorable Councilmembers: On behalf of appellant April A. Verlato, we submit the following comments regarding the City's consideration of architectural review for new houses ( "projects ") proposed at 29 E. Orange Grove and 1600 Highlands Oak Drive. The plans for these projects were properly rejected by the Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association Architectural Review Board due to their failure to provide "harmonious design" and compatibility with neighboring properties. The Architectural Review Board's decisions were firmly grounded in the policies of the General Plan, the applicable Design Review Guidelines and City Council Resolution 6770. Even so, on December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission overturned the Architectural Review Board's denials and approved the plans for both homes, forcing Appellants Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association and resident April A. Verlato to file this appeal. The projects proposed at 29 E. Orange Grove and 1600 Highlands Oak Drive remain incompatible with adjacent structures and are not designed in a manner that is harmonious with the existing Arcadia Highlands neighborhood. As explained further in the appeal itself, the houses are more than twice the size of the typical home in the neighborhood and fail to respect design elements of the neighborhood including appropriate side yard setbacks, view preservation, and front yard setbacks. Approval of these projects over the objection of the Architectural Review Board violates Resolution 6770, which delegates design review to the Board, as well as review for consistency with the City's General Plan and Arcadia's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines. These new houses, which are of much larger mass and scale than existing homes in the Arcadia Highlands neighborhood, are part of a City pattern and practice of mansionization of the Arcadia Highlands without land use planning or environmental review. Many of the homes being demolished are over 50 years old and are potential City of Arcadia January 14, 2015 Page 2 historic resources. Since July 2012, the Architectural Review Board has reviewed applications to replace or remodel 30 homes in the Arcadia Highlands. (See, Exhibit C to brief of April A. Verlato.) Nearly all of these applications sought drastic increases in square footage, and many applications more than doubled the size of the existing homes. In contrast to the neighborhood's existing 850 homes, which average closer to 2,600 square feet, the new houses under consideration by the City often exceed 6,000 square feet and contain up to four bedrooms in addition to two master bedroom suites, multiple kitchens, and multiple entrances. (See, Exhibit B to brief of April A. Verlato.) The cumulative change in neighborhood character, aesthetics, and environmental impacts due to the approval of these larger homes has not been analyzed by the City. This is important because these new homes are designed to accommodate at least four to six adults, double that of the more modest existing neighborhood homes. The City's approvals of homes like those at issue in this appeal will continue to increase the population density of the Highlands from 6 -12 persons per acre to 12 -24 persons per acre. These approvals will therefore induce increases in traffic, noise, demand for city services and parkland, and energy use and greenhouse gas generation. The City's failure to study the likely impacts of larger homes meant to accommodate extended and multiple families has resulted in the City's failure to mitigate the adverse impacts these homes may cause, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City may not lawfully approve these homes without preparation of CEQA- compliant environmental review that analyzes the total and cumulative impacts of changes to the Arcadia Highlands neighborhood and without redesign of these projects to comply with the General Plan and Resolution 6770. Appellants therefore respectfully request that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's decision and reinstate the well- supported findings of the Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association denying the plans for 29 E. Orange Grove and 1600 Highlands Oak Drive. L The Planning Commission's Reversal of the Architectural Review Board Decisions Circumvents City Council Resolution No. 6770. On July 3, 2012, the City Council passed Resolution No. 6770, which delegates design review responsibility in the Arcadia Highlands to the Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association Architectural Review Board. The Board consists of five elected residents of the Highlands. Pursuant to Resolution 6770, the Architectural Review Board is charged with reviewing building plans for consistency with the principles of "harmonious design" directed by the Arcadia General Plan and Arcadia's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines. The Residential Design Guidelines were established in 2006 to curb concerns about increased mansionization that was negatively impacting the City and home values. In each of these appeals, the Architectural Review Board requested meetings with the developer to discuss projects prior to the Board's hearing, but the developers declined. With regard to 29 E. Orange Grove, the developer declined multiple meeting requests with the Architectural Review Board, claiming that if City of Arcadia January 14, 2015 Page 3 his plans were denied, he would simply appeal to the City Planning Commission. Based on the actions of the Planning Commission and the developers' reliance on the Planning Commission to override Architectural Review Board decisions, Resolution 6770 is rendered meaningless for achieving its stated goal of reducing mansionization. In November 2014, the Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association Architectural Review Board voted almost unanimously to deny the plans for both 29 E. Orange Grove and 1600 Highlands Oak Drive after determining that the projects were not harmonious and compatible with adjacent structures and that their design was inconsistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential. The proposal for 29 E. Orange Grove would replace a 1,855 square foot home with a 6,522 square foot home, more than triple the current size. The proposal would encroach on two protected oak trees, and requests a front yard setback that is half of the average setback of the adjacent properties. The reduced setback would prevent future planned street widening. The proposed home also extends much further to the rear than neighboring properties, resulting in a much smaller backyard than is typical for the neighborhood. In denying the project, the Architectural Review Board found the proposed project to be too massive and bulky for the site, which resulted in incompatibility and a lack of harmony with neighboring homes. The proposal for 1600 Highlands Oak Drive would replace a 2,624 square foot home with a 6,149 square foot home, an increase of 4,667 square feet, which itself is much larger than the typical Arcadia Highlands Home The proposal will obstruct the views of adjacent properties which is a protected feature under Resolution 6770. A petition signed by 313 neighbors objected to the proposal. After a hearing on the matter, the Architectural Review Board found that the proposed project was inconsistent with Design Review Guidelines associated with site planning, massing, roofs, fagade design, streetscape, and the affect on adjacent properties and neighborhood. The Architectural Review Board's findings in support of denial of the projects are grounded clearly in the authority delegated to the Board by Resolution 6770 and in the City's Single- Family Residential Design Review Guidelines. Nothing in the Planning Commission's findings reversing the Board's determination demonstrates that the proposed projects are harmonious and compatible with adjacent residences, as required. Thus, Appellants request that the City reverse the Planning Commission's approval of the plans and reinstate the findings and determination of the Architectural Review Board. Nothing prevents the developers from incorporating the Architectural Review Board's feedback and revising their plans to conform with the Design Review Guidelines and General Plan. II. The Project Approvals Violate the California Environmental Quality Act. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection and encouraging governmental City of Arcadia January 14, 2015 Page 4 transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) CEQA requires full disclosure of a project's significant environmental effects so that decision - makers and the public are informed of these consequences before the project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) When substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, an environmental impact report is required. A fair argument for the projects' cumulative environmental impact is found in the declaration of John Uniack, an urban planner, residential designer, and member of the Architectural Review Board. Despite the City's approval of plans for nearly 30 homes that will result in the mansionization of much of the Arcadia Highlands, the City has conducted no environmental review. The City has not assessed impacts on aesthetics, neighborhood character, traffic generation and congestion, noise, or any other impact area mandated by CEQA. Instead, the City has approached each approval on a case -by -case basis, deeming each individual home exempt from environmental review. The City has exempted each of the approved houses under the Class 3 categorical exemption for new construction of single - family residences. However, it is the City's burden to prove that the proposed project fits within this class of categorical exemption. (California Farm Bureau Fed'n v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd., (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 173, 186.) The City has failed to meet this burden. The new houses are several times larger than the typical single - family homes contemplated by the Class 3 exemption, are meant to serve multiple or extended families, and will have several times the environmental impact of a typical single - family home. Additionally, even if the projects fit within the definition of a Class 3 project, the developers cannot rely on a categorical exemption to CEQA when there is evidence the project may have identified impacts. A categorical exemption is "inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant." (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b).) So far, nearly 30 mansionization projects have been approved in the Arcadia Highlands, and 39 additional developer -owned residences in the area have been purchased for the same purposes. As City housing prices rise, it is likely that far more of these mansionization projects will be proposed and approved. Even without additional approvals, however, the City's approval of these mansionization projects has resulted in significant, cumulative impacts that require consideration in an environmental impact report. As defined by CEQA, "The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b).) City of Arcadia January 14, 2015 Page 5 Cumulative impact analysis is important because "One of the most important environmental lessons evident from past experience is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) Here, the City has failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of 30 mansionization projects that have been approved as well as an additional 39 that are reasonably foreseeable based on the acquisition of smaller, older Arcadia homes by known developers. Far more projects are likely as the City's housing values increase and longstanding residents sell their properties to developers. Each of these projects is associated with up to a doubling of the resident population, the number of vehicles, trip generation, use of City services, water use, and energy use. In addition to environmental impacts caused by increased population density, the mansionization projects will cause significant environmental impacts related to the size of the new homes. For example, the projects have building footprints that are two to three times the surface area of the existing home footprints. (See, Exhibit D to brief of April A. Verlato, Declaration of John Uniack.) This greatly increases the impervious surfaces, which will increase the runoff from these properties during storm events. Without sufficient mitigation and the implementation of low impact development strategies, these homes will have significant water quality impacts that require preparation of an environmental impact report. Greenhouse gases and energy use will also increase. While the existing homes generally require only one or two air conditioning condensers, the project homes require four to cool the increased square footage sufficiently. Thus, the electricity use of these homes on hot summer days may be up to four times that of the existing housing stock. This is a significant impact on greenhouse gas generation that must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an environmental impact report. It must be noted that the City's failure to consider impacts "enlarge[s] the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 311.) The City cannot hide behind its failure to gather information required by CEQA. In San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, the Court of Appeal found that, absent meaningful cumulative analysis, there would never be any awareness or control over the speed and manner of development in downtown San Francisco. In that case, the court found the city's refusal to take into account other similar development projects to be a violation of CEQA. (Id at 634.) "Without that control, `piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the urban environment. "' (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) Similarly, without adequate cumulative analysis of the mansionization of the Highlands, the City will lose control over development of one of its prized neighborhoods. The City's reliance on a categorical exemption for single - family homes fiu Cher City of Arcadia January 14, 2015 Page 6 violates CEQA because the mansionization projects are having both direct and cumulative impacts on historic resources. According to urban planner, John Uniack, the Highlands "has one of the finest intact collections of mid - century suburban houses in Southern California." (Exhibit D to brief of April A. Verlato.) The neighborhood's homes are unique, architect- designed homes, some by noted architects. The original homes being targeted by these mansionization projects are over 50 years old, thereby reaching the threshold for a historic resource review. Since mid -2012, 30 of these homes have already been slated for demolition, with at least 39 more in the works. The existing home at 1600 Highland Oaks Drive was designed by noted architect, John Galbraith, contains unique features of the era in which it was designed, including glass windows with extended beams on the gabled end of the garage and a large opening in the roof eave. While the Highlands contain four Galbraith designs, 1600 Highland Oaks Drive is the only unaltered home standing in its original state. There is therefore a fair argument that the loss of potentially historic homes without any CEQA review will have significant environmental impacts on each individual home, as well as on the historic nature and character of the Arcadia Highlands neighborhood. An environmental impact report discussing the impact of the mansionization project is required. As discussed above, this rampant mansionization is unlikely to end soon. Attached as Exhibit E to April A. Verlato's brief is a list of 39 residences in the City that have been purchased by developers this year. The City must prepare an EIR to assess and mitigate the impacts of these continued changes in the City's aesthetics, traffic, demand for City services, energy use, and other likely significant environmental impacts. The City's failure to subject these projects to CEQA review has also resulted in impermissible project segmentation or "piecemealing." CEQA requires environmental review to evaluate the "whole of a project" and not simply its constituent parks when determining whether it will have a significant environmental effect. (CEQA Guidelines § 15003(h).) Here, the City's pattern of individual approvals — each done in the absence of environmental review — has led to widespread mansionization in the Arcadia Highlands without any consideration of the aesthetic, traffic, noise, energy, or other impacts of increased population density in the neighborhood. The case -by -case allowance of increased building size and reduced setbacks, without consideration of whether the projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, has essentially revised the design guidelines for the Highlands prior to environmental review of those revisions. The California Supreme Court has opined, "environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential impact on the environment -- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 284.) Simply put, "A public agency is not permitted to subdivide a single project into smaller individual subprojects in order to avoid the responsibility of considering the environmental impact of the project as a whole." (Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors (198 6) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171.) In addition to the 30 sets of plans that have already City of Arcadia January 14, 2015 Page 7 been submitted to the Architectural Review Board, there are at least 39 other developer - owned residential properties in the City for which similar proposals are expected. (Exhibit E to brief of April A. Verlato.) Given the rise in home prices in the City recently, additional properties are certainly being acquired for similar mansionization. Before the City may lawfully approve the projects proposed for 29 E. Orange Grove and 1600 Highlands Oak Drive, an environmental impact report must be prepared that addresses all potentially significant impacts of rampant mansionization in the Arcadia Highlands. "The fundamental goals of environmental review under CEQA are information, participation, mitigation, and accountability." (Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.AppAth 425, 443 -444.) The City's process fails on all accounts. III. The Approved Projects are Inconsistent with the City of Arcadia General Plan. The Declaration of John Uniack and the Brief of April A. Verlato list General Plan policies with which the proposed projects are inconsistent. "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) All projects approved in a city must be consistent with its general plan. For this reason, the General Plan has been described "the constitution for future development." (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763, 773, internal citations omitted.) Thus, the City may not approve these projects until their plans have been redesigned to accommodate consistency and neighborhood harmony. Conclusion Appellants thank the City for its consideration of this appeal and urge the councilmembers to vote in support of upholding Resolution 6770, the Design Review Guidelines, and the City's General Plan by reinstating the Architectural Review Board's findings denying the projects proposed for 29 E. Orange Grove and 1600 Highland Oaks. Sincerely, Michelle Blac , on behalf of appellant April A. Verlato January 15, 2015 City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 APPEAL OF 29 E. ORANGE GROVE APPEAL NO: HOA 14 -05 Applicant: Sanyao Intl. Mur -sol Appellant: Arcadia Highlands HOA April A. Verlato SUMMARY OF ACTION On November 12, 2014, the Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed architectural review hearing regarding a proposed new single story residence at 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue. The architectural review board denied the plans 4 -1 on the grounds that the proposal was not harmonious and compatible to adjacent structures pursuant to Resolution 6770. The Findings noted the following inconsistencies with Resolution 6770: 1. Mass and Scale; 2. Length and Width; 3. Height; and 4. usable Green Space Applicant Sanyao Intl appealed the Architectural Review Board's decision to the City of Arcadia Planning Commission. On December 9, 2014 the Planning Commission granted the appeal of applicant Sanyao Intl, overturning the Architectural Review Board's decision and approved the plans subject to conditions which changed the mass and scale, length and width, height and useable green space of the proposed project from what had been submitted to the Arcadia Highlands Homeowners Association. The Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association timely filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. April A. Verlato, resident of the Highlands, joined in the appeal. APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS CREATES NEW DESIGN Pursuant to Resolution 6770, Section 5 "no structure, roof, wall or fence greater than 2 feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the ARB." Resolution 6770 does not provide that the body hearing an appeal may change the plans and then approve the plans "on conditions." Such action circumvents the power and authority granted to the Homeowner's Associations under Resolution 6770. Substantial changes made to plans is in effect new plans that require submission to the appropriate homeowner's association for a hearing. The plans before City Council are not the plans the Highlands Homeowner's Association denied. With the changes to the plans, there may be reason for the Highlands Homeowner's Association ARB to deny these new plans. Without an appropriate hearing, there is no consensus from the ARB. This action of approving plans with substantial changes is indirect conflict with Resolution 6770. "Design Review" is within the purview of the ARB. The City is superseding the ARB and doing the design review of this project. Therefore, the plans for 29 E. Orange Grove should be denied by City Council. CEQA EXEMPTION This project is not exempt under CEQA. Exceptions to the CEQA exemption include whether the presence of unusual circumstances, cumulative impacts, or historic resources may result in environmental impacts. The "fair argument standard applies to determining whether or not an exception exists. The fair argument standard is met unless" there is no substantial evidence that a project "may have significant effect on the environment". Public Resources Code § §21080 and 21100. If there is a showing of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact, then an environmental impact report must be prepared. It does not matter if there is substantial evidence that the report would not have an impact. Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988. Public Resources Code §21080(e) defines substantial evidence sufficient to support a fair argument of potentially significant environmental impact as "fact, a reasonable assumption predicated on fact, or expert opinion supported by fact." CEQA guideline §15064(g) provides that "if there is a disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency shall treat the effect as significant..." A. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES — SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Typical Highlands Home Attached as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" to this letter is a graph and chart showing the distribution in size of homes in the Highlands. There are only 16 homes over 5,000 square feet in the 2 Highlands out of 850. 98% of all homes in the Highlands are less than 5,000 square feet. The average square footage of homes in the Highlands is 2,600 square feet. The home being proposed at 29 E. Orange Grove is 6,522 square feet. This size of home is statistically atypical of the Highlands and an unusual circumstance. 2. Inconsistencies with the General Plan "While properties are privately owned, the City can define its expectations through zoning regulations and design guidelines..,No development exists in isolation. Every act of construction affects and is affected by its surroundings. Every development, therefore, should be evaluated for its compatibility in terms of use, scale, and aesthetics with the neighborhood or district in which it is located. For small projects, this area of influence may be considered to be as small as to only include the buildings directly next door." [Page 2 -22 (Land Use and Community Design) of Arcadia General Plan]. "Arcadia's long - established, single family residential neighborhoods are at the core of the City's identity. These stable neighborhoods, many of which boast block after block of mature trees planted in the public right -of -way, are what the City means when it refers to itself as a'Community of domes'. Protection of these most prized assets of the City is a primary objective of this General Plan. In 2006, largely as a response to community concern over "mansionization" and tree destruction on single - family properties, the City adopted Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines. The core issues that these guidelines address are: Mass and Scale: Building mass and scale are required to relate to established homes in the neighborhood and natural site features...,. Garages: As street - facing garages tend to be uninviting and have the potential to dominate the front elevation of a house, the guidelines encourage garages to be set back from the front facade or tucked in the backyard." (Page 2 -26 (Land Use and Community Design) of Arcadia General Plan]. "In addition to application of the City's guidelines, five homeowners associations in Arcadia enforce private, neighborhood- specific design standards through adopted covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC &Rs). These associations have played an important role in preserving the character of the residential neighborhoods in the northern portion of the City." [Page2 -27 (Land Use and Community Design) of Arcadia General Plan]. Arcadia's General Plan Goal LU -3: Preservation and enhancement of Arcadia's single- family residences, which are an essential part of the City's core identity states in part; "Policy LU -3.1: Protect the character of single - family residential neighborhoods through the preservation and improvement of their character- defining features. Such features include but are not limited to tree -lined streets, building orientation, sidewalks, and architectural scale and quality. Policy LU -3.2: Implement design guidelines to keep new homes and home additions consistent in scale, massing, and architectural quality with prevailing conditions in a neighborhood. Policy LU -3.4: Strengthen neighborhood identity with new development that is compatible with surrounding structures through scale, massing and preferred architectural style. 3 Policy LU -3.5: Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to neighborhood context, building forms, scale, and colors. Policy LU -3.7: Ensure that the design and scale of new and remodeled single- family residential buildings are appropriate to their context. [Page 2 -27 & 2 -28 (Land Use and Community Design) of Arcadia's General Plan]. California Government Code Section 65580(d) describes the State's housing goals as follows: "Local and state government have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of all economic segments of the community." Arcadia's General Plan Goal PR -9: Retention and proper stewardship of historical and cultural resources states in part: "Policy PR -9.1 Encourage the maintenance and preservation of historically, culturally, and /or architecturally significant structures and sites in the community ..... Policy PR -9.5: Identify historic sites, structures, neighborhoods, and other resources through a Historic Resources Inventory..... Policy PR -9.7: Develop incentives that promote preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures, sites, and other resources." [Page 7 -51 of Arcadia General Plan]. The proposed project for 29 E. Orange Grove is inconsistent with the General Plan update of 2010 and the purpose of the Design Review Guidelines established in 2006. The Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association ARB has denied these plans based on Findings that are consistent with Resolution 6770. Deference to the HOA is meant to be given. It is the neighborhood that determines compatibility and harmony, not City Council. This project embodies "mansionization" of the Highlands, exactly what the General Plan and Design Review Guidelines purport to prohibit. The mass and scale of the proposed project is not consistent with the prevailing conditions of the neighborhood. The allure of the Highlands is that its housing stock has remained consistent in mass and scale throughout the years. Residents who have purchased homes in the Highlands bought in the Highlands because it had a design review zone that prohibited homes that were disproportionate in mass and scale. Home values in the Highlands have historically been stable and higher than those areas of Arcadia where there was no design review and a disproportionate massing and scale was allowed. Mansionization has occurred in those other areas and property values have suffered because of it. B. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS — SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 1. Change in Density In the General Plan at page 2 -9 "Density is described in terms of the dwelling units that can be accommodated on one acre of land (dwelling units per acre or du /ac) and the population associated with that density (population per acre or pop /ac)." "Development intensity refers to the extent to which a property is or can be developed." The Highlands is designated "VLDR -Very Low Density Residential: The VLDR designation accommodates low density single - family residential neighborhoods. Development is typified by large lot, detached single - family residences on lots ranging from 10,000 to 22,OOO square feet or larger. Permitted uses include single - family residences on a single lot and private tennis court and similar facilities. " Unit density up to 4 du /ac Typical Population Density: 6 -12 persons per acre. The proposed project along with the other projects proposed since 2012, are designed for 4 -6 adults, not the typical 3 that is prevalent currently. These homes provide 2 master suites and 2 -4 additional bedrooms. This increases population density from 6 -12 persons per acre to 12 -24 persons per acre. This increase in population density affects the environment in a number of ways. Increased population affects land use designation, electric usage, water usage, sewer usage and traffic. Attached as Exhibit "D" is the list of new projects in the Highlands contributing to the cumulative effect on the environment. Attached as Exhibit "E" is the declaration of John Unlack, Residential Designer and Planner with over 18 years of experience in this area. 2. Increase in Electric Usage, Water Usage, Sewer Usage, Traffic The proposed project in its aggregate with other projects in the last 2 years as identified in Exhibit "D" poses a substantial impact on electrical usage, water usage, sewer usage and increase vehicular traffic as outlined in the Declaration of John Uniack attached herein as Exhibit "E ". 3. Multiple Parcels —One Developer Several of the projects within the last 2 years have involved multiple parcels being developed and owned by Mur -Sol. Attached as Exhibit "F" is a list of the developer owned properties for the last 2 years. Also, several of these properties are contiguous or in close proximity. 1800 Wilson and 1760 Wilson are contiguous. 1717 Alta Oaks and 1716 Alta Oaks are across the street from each other. 1350 Highland Oaks is across the street from 1343 Highland Oaks. 1343 Highland Oaks is 2 doors away from 29 E. Orange Grove. 1141 Highland Oaks is across the street from 1203 Highland Oaks. There has been an unprecedented amount of development in the Highlands in the last 2 years represented in Exhibit "D ". This has turned into a "development project" orchestrated by the City which is approving these plans over the appeals of the residents. IV. HARMONY AND COMPATIBILITY The proposed project does not "blend" with the other structures on the street. The proposed project would stretch property line to property line across the front of the lot. All other homes on Orange Grove between Santa Anita and Highland Oaks Drive have a side yard of approximately 25 feet on one side of the house where the driveway goes into the backyard beyond the street view. The Planning Commission approved increasing side yard setbacks on both sides of the project at the rear of the house. This condition does not correct the incompatibility of the street view. The recommendation should be to increase the side yard on one side to 25 feet at the front of the house, pushing back the garage about 90 feet from the front property line to create harmony of the street view for Orange Grove. A good example is the home at 43 E. Orange Grove which was built by Mur -Sol in 1988 before Orange Grove was added to the Highlands HOA. The increase of the inner courtyard to 15' was an appropriate recommendation. The proposed 10' wide courtyard was an ineffective, unusable space. Reducing the plate height from 10' to 9' was also an appropriate recommendation. City Council should deny the project as proposed and allow the Highlands ARB to set the standard for compatible and harmonious design in the Highlands. V. DESIGN REVIEW The Highlands ARB should be allowed the opportunity to work with Mur -Sol and Sanyao Intl to develop a design that meets the ARB's standard of harmony and compatibility for the Highlands. Upon receipt of the plans for 29 E. Orange Grove, Robert Tong was asked if he would meet with the ARB Chair, John Uniack, to discuss the project. Mr. Tong declined the invitation. At the hearing before the ARB rendered its decision, the ARB Chair asked Mur -Sol's representative, Josh Grohs, if they wanted to continue the hearing in order to submit new plans based on the comments made by the Board members. Josh declined the invitation stating his plans were fine and he would appeal the denial. Robert Tong /Mur -Sal only had this one hearing/submission for the project at 29 E. Orange Grove. Typically, the City when the City does review, there are 2 -3 iterations. The applicant in this case declined to make any changes or submit another Iteration to the Highlands ARB. If City Council approves these plans, they will be sending the message to Robert Tong that he does not need to meet with the ARB Chair and comply with the standard of compatibility and harmony established by the body elected by the residents of the HOA. This will undermine the power and authority of the neighborhood associations thus making them irrelevant. Josh Grohs is under the impression that our ARB only approves plans that are single story. Because Mr. Grohs has refused to meet with our ARB Chair he has somehow formed a misconception. Our ARB has approved approximately six (6) two story homes in the last six (6) months. Mr. Grohs referred to discussions he had with me regarding 1523 Highland Oaks. Mr. Grohs has no understanding of the CC &Rs applicable to 1523 Highland Oaks. There exists a single tract of 13 homes in the middle of the highlands HOA which did not `join" the Highlands HOA. Their CC &Rs for single story homes are still applicable and enforced among those 13 homes. The Highlands HOA does not have that express, written restriction recorded against its properties. The Highlands ARB is an elected body of 5 neighbors that give great deference to the prevailing opinion of the adjacent property owners and secondly to the neighbors within the notification area. The ARB represents the neighbor's opinions by way of an election much in the same way City Council represents the residents of Arcadia. The plans for 29 E. Orange Grove were denied, not only for the reasons stated in the ARB's Findings but also because of the overwhelming majority present at the hearing voicing their opinion that the mass and scale of the proposal was not harmonious and compatible to the homes on Orange Grove. 6 The Planning Commission's approval of the plans with conditions in essence circumvented the ARB and was the design review for this project. There was no design review between the Highlands HOA and Robert Tong. There has never been a meeting with Robert Tong and the Highlands ARB Chair on any project presented by Robert Tong_ It is respectfully requested that City Council deny the plans for 29 E. Orange Grove and that the Applicant participate in the design review process adopted in Resolution 6770. jr�jl TAV!erlato r , 7 1200 Highlands Home Size Distribution (n= 839) Typical Horne 2200 3200 Home Sq Ft 5200 only 16 homes > 5,000 sq ft 6200 1 home 8,560 Sq ft EXHIBIT A 2006 - SqFt © Avg SD RVERRGE 51ZE 141G1- &RAID5 1401AE 839 Highlands Homes = 6 LOTACRES LOTSQFT TOTALSF RATIOSF AVG 0.34 14,696 2,600 18.8% SD 0.14 5,889 808 5.8% MIN SF 0.20 8505 1,375 16.2% MAX SF 0.96 41653 8,557 20.5% AVG +isd 68.0% 20,585 3,408 24.6% AVG +2sd 95.0% 26,475 4,217 30.4% AVG +3sd 99.7% 1 32,364 5,025 36.2% # > 5000 sf = 6 # >5400sf= 4 # > 6000 sf = 7 23 Highlands Estates Homes (above Foothills MS) AVG 1.34 58,242 7,139 17.2% SD 0.88 38,485 1,709 11.2% MIN SF 1.34 58397 4,157 7.1% MAX SF 0.91 39811 11,178 28.1% All data was used except: 4 homes had missing data (Highlands) 2 homes were statistical outliers (i Highlands, 1 Estates) Most of the data is pre -2006 the "Typical" Highlands Home 98% of all homes are < 5000 sgft the "Typical" Estates Home properties are 4x larger homes are 2.7x larger EXHIBIT B ARCADIA HIGHLANDS' ARB END OF YEAR REPORT IN 2013 The Highlands received 7 submissions fat new homes: Project Address New Sq. Ft. Old Sq. Ft. Increase 2081 Carolwood 4,051 2,377 1,674 1841 Highland Oaks 4,621 1,933 2,688 2251 Highland Oaks remodel 43900 3,482 1,418 1667 Oakwood 4,763 2,123 2,640 1770 Oakwood 5,657 2,542 3,115 1141 Highland Oaks 6,255 2,343 3,912 1668 Highland Oaks 6,660 2,576 4,084 1244 Santa Anita 6,700 2,558 4,142 Total Sq. Ft Increase: 221255 Plus 4 remodels adding square footage. IN 2014 The Highlands received 15 submissions for new homes: EXHIBITi Project Address New Sq. Ft. Old Sq. Ft. Increase Action Taken 234 E. Sycamore 3,719 1,798 1,921 Approved b HOA 1716 Alta Oaks 3,867 1,647 2,220 Approvcd b City 1838 Santa Anita 3,868 1,736 2,132 Continued 164 Elkins 4,506 2,166 2,340 Approved b HOA 1717 Alta Oaks 5,064 2,644 2,420 Approved b HOA, appcal denied 69 E. Grandview 5,172 2,818 2,354 Approved b t -10A 1701 Oakwood 5,458 2,299 3,159 Approved by 110A, denied by ]Tannin 1 1760 Wilson 5,526 1,696 3,830 Approved b 110A 1800 Wilson 6,025 1,722 4,303 Approved b Ci , a cal denied 1600 Highland Oaks 6,149 2,624 3,525 Denied by l 10A, Approved b Planning 29 E. Orange Grove 6,522 1,855 4,667 Denied by I-10A, Approved b PC 1350 Highland Oaks 6,547 2,385 4,162 Approved b City, appeal denied 211 Monte Place 6,967 2,876 4,091 Denied, appeal denied 1203 Highland Oaks 7,096 1,716 5,380 Approved b City, appeal denial 1835 Wilson 27266 Abandoned Total Sq. Ft Increase: 461504 In addition 4 remodels: 276 Monte Place 6,201 4,325 1,876 Continued 2146 Canyon Road 4,946 2,529 2,417 Approved by HOA 2207 Canyon Road 3,795 2,115 1,680 Approved by HOA 2029 Highland Oaks 2,838 2,633 205 Approved by 1 -10A 1806 Oakwood 4,247 3,827 420 Approved by I 10A Total Sq. Ft Increase: 6,598 *1523 Highland Oaks 1 6,087 1 1,826 1 4,261 Approved by Tract, Not in F10:1 AFTER Tuly 2012 Project Address 1 New Sq. Ft. Old Sq. Ft. Increase 1734 Oakwood 5,498 1,544 3,954 1343 Highland Oaks 5,806 2,177 3,629 1134 Oakwood 6,151 1,986 4,165 Total Sq. Ft Increase: 11,748 IN 2011 0 New Homes IN 2010 1 New Home 2222 Highland Oaks Dr. IN 2009 1 New Home 2133 Highland Oaks Dr. IN 2008 0 New Homes IN 2007 2 New Homes 2038 Elkins Ave. 2036 Canyon Rd. IN 2006 1 New Home 1729 Alta Oaks IN 2005 0 New Homes IN 200 1 New Home 100 White Oak IN 2003 2 New Homes 1830 Oakwood 2251 Highland Oaks IN 2002 0 New Homes 4,740 sq. ft. Two story 4,542 sq. ft. Two story 4,542 sq. ft. 4,375 sq. ft. 3,970 sq. ft. Two story Two story Two story 4,072 sq. ft. Two story 4,502 sq. ft. Two story 4,172 sq. ft. Two story EEXHIBi 1 DECLARATION OF JOHN UNIACK I, John Uniack, declare, as follows: 1. 1 am a resident of the County of Los Angeles and over the age of eighteen (18). If called to testify, I could and would testify competently thereto. The foregoing is based on my personal knowledge, belief, training, education and experience as a residential designer and urban planner. 2. 1 am a resident of the City of Arcadia and a member of the Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association. I am board member of the AHHOA and Architectural Review Board Chair. 3. Attached as Exhibit "1" to this declaration is my curriculum vitae. 4. A majority of the homes being submitted since I was elected to the ARS exhibit a lack of sensitivity to the character and quality of the neighborhood. S. The full implementation of allowed development is inconsistent with the Arcadia Highlands Land Use Designation, Very Low Density Residential (VLDRj identified in the Arcadia General Plan adopted in 2010. 6. Projects submitted to the Highlands since 2012 have a significantly larger unit size than the prevailing Highlands' development allowing for a greater population density. Prior to 2012, the prevailing Highlands' development size and population density was consistent with the land use designation identified in the Arcadia General Plan adopted in 2010. 7. From Chapter 2 of The Arcadia General Plan, residential land use is described as follows: Five residential land use designations ollow for a range of housing types and densities, largely reflective of long - established development approaches. ...To describe the level of use, that is, how much development is allowed on a property (and presumably, what the associated activity level is), land use planners have developed measures called density and intensity. The term density, illustrated in Figure LU -3, typically applies to residential uses and refers to the population and development capacity of residential land Density is described in terms of the dwelling units that can be accommodated on one acre of land (dwelling units per acre or du/oc) and the population associated with that density (population per acre or pop /ac). 8. One measurement of the Highlands' character is its density. The Arcadia General Plan designates the Highlands land use as "Very Low Density Residential ". A description of the density for the Highlands is as follows from the Arcadia General Plan: The Very Low Density Residential designation accommodates low- density single-family residential neighborhoods. Development is typified by large lot, detached single-family residences on lots ranging from 10,000 to 22,000 square feet or larger. Permitted uses include single-family residences on a single lot and private tennis courts and similar facilities. ...Unit Density., up to 4 du /ac Typical Population Density, 6 -12 persons per acre 9. While the number of dwelling units per acre has remained the same (no change of lot size) the floor area of the proposed projects has increased two, three, or more times. This results in an increase in the number of bedrooms, bathrooms and other habitable rooms within a single house. 10. The proposed projects, along with the other projects proposed since 2012, are designed at a minimum for 4 -6 adults, not the typical 3 adult designation that is associated with the term Single Family. These homes provide 2 master suites plus 2-4 additional bedrooms. This increases population density from 6 -12 persons per acre to 12 -24 persons per acre, exceeding the population density in the next level of Arcadia land use, the designation of Low Density Residential (LDR). 11. The proposed projects in their aggregate with other projects submitted in the last 2 years poses a substantial impact on City services such as Fire and Police protection, hospitals, school and community college districts, parks and recreational services. Utilities including, electrical, gas, water, sewer usage will have increased demands. This, at a time when there is a critical shortage of resources. To cool these new high volume projects, four air - conditioning condensers are required compared to the typical one or two, which the prior homes required. Environmentally, these larger structures result in increased storm water runoff placing further demands on stormwater systems as well as contributing to the urban heat island effect increasing ambient summertime temperatures. 12. The projects proposed since 2012 will cause an increase in vehicular traffic because they are designed to allow for an increase in the adult population. 13. The Highlands has one of the finest intact collections of mid - century suburban houses in Southern California. All are unique Architect- designed homes, some by unknowns, others by noted practitioners of the craft. Houses built during the original development are over SO years old and have reached the threshold for a State- mandated, Historical Resource Review when a demolition permit is applied for. An Architectural Historian prepares a report of architectural significance determining artistic merit. The applicant pays these consultants, With an insignificant determination, a demolition permit is issued. Prior to a project's submission to the HOA's Architectural Review Board, the applicant must obtain a demolition permit. At the time of submission, this is the first that the HOA has knowledge of a demolition permit, thus having no say on the architectural significance prior to issuance. 14. Noted residential architect John Galbraith designed the existing home at 1600 Highland Oaks Drive. One of four homes he is known to have designed in the Highlands. This one is in a rare unaltered state. Set amongst mature oak trees and undulating landscape, it has a striking yet understated presence. The asymmetrical elevation made up of vertical boards and stucco with a simple front door and large sidelight, are all elements of a classic Highlands home but with a modern interpretation. A large opening in the roof eave and glass windows with extended beams on the gabled end of the garage are unique features of the era in which this home was designed. 1s. 1600 Highland Oaks Drive is one of the finest examples of mid- century modern architecture in the Highlands with substantial evidence of architectural significance. It is unequivocally a contributing element to the artistic and cultural history of the Arcadia Highlands. This, along with its well maintained condition, make it difficult to understand why it has been slated for demolition. 16. Neighborhoods with consistent density are desirable. Current homeowners and potential buyers want to know that the location of their investment is stable and will remain so. Change, 'r if desired, must have a direction and defined limitations. Investors and developers must know what is expected of them and what to expect from their investment's location. Land use designations, design guidelines, respect for historical significance, homeowner's associations and architectural review boards are the elements that ensure stability, consistency and expectations. All of these elements must work together and be compatible with each other to be effective for all constituents. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Cafflornia that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: January, 2015 3 JOHN UNIACK EXHIBIT I Curriculum Vitae John L. Uniack Arcadia, California 91006 Education: UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Bachelor of Architecture, cum laude, 1996 Los Angeles, California USG Study Abroad Program, Como, Italy Architecture and Planning ART CENTER COLLEGE OF DESIGN Pasadena, California Employment: MAD WORKSHOP FOUNDATION Los Angeles, California Director of Design UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA School of Architecture Lecturer A.C. MARTIN PARTNERS Los Angeles, California Architectural Design and Urban Planning Spring Semester, 1995 Photography Studies, 1976 -1980 July 2014 - present September 2011- present May 1996 —June 2014 Responsibilities included the preparation of schematic and CD design packages, master planning, review of submittals, contractor interface, model making, computer - generated modeling color selection, conference display design and fabrication, and photography. Proficiency in the use of Microstation, Photoshop and Form Z, CAD, Sketch -up, Illustrator design software. Project experience includes: Planning and Development Analysis • New Town Master Plan (Residences 200,000) Seoul, South Korea • South Park Development Project Master Plan, Los Angeles, California • Wilshire Grand Development Site Analysis & CEQA Support, Los Angeles, California • New University in Songdo, South Korea Master Plan • Restoration of home in historic district of Bungalow Heaven, Pasadena, California • USC Master Plan, Los Angeles, California • CSU Dominguez Hills Master Plan, Carson, California • UC Merced Site Analysis, Merced, California / °0 T • Bundy Village & Medical Park Entitlement, West Los Angeles, California • Pacer Ranch Master Plan, Sacramento, California • Rocklin Resort Site Analysis, Rocklin, California • Pershing Square Development Plan, Los Angeles, California • Grand Avenue Master Plan, Los Angeles, California • CSU Northridge Master Plan, Northridge, California • Caltech /Saint Luke Site Due Diligence, Pasadena, California • Chapman College Master Plan, Orange, California • Santa Clarita Transit Site Analysis, Santa Clarita, California • Ambassador Campus Master Plan, Pasadena, California • Burbank Plaza Development Plan, Burbank, California • Riverpark Master Plan, Oxnard, California • CSU Chico Master Plan, Chico, California Architecture • Saint Maximilian Kolbe Catholic Church, Thousand Oaks, California • Rustic Canyon Residence, Santa Monica, California • Blessed Katerie Catholic Church, Santa Clarita, California • Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Revaluaiton, Los Angeles, California • New Science Building, CSU Long Beach, California • Simi Valley Residence, Simi Valley, California • Ventura High School Upgrade, Ventura, California • Hughes Space and Communications, El Segundo, California • Temecula Hotel and Spa, Temecula, California 14 LIST OF DEVELOPER OWNED PROPERTIES IN ARCADIA MUR -SOL Address Year Area Title 1427 San Carlos 2014 Santa Anita Oaks Mur Sol Development LLC 1409 San Carlos 2014 Santa Anita Oaks S G V Property Fund LLC 265 Hacienda 2014 Santa Anita Oaks S G V Property Fund 11 LLC & Dexter 265 Hacienda LLC 641 Gloria 2014 Santa Anita Oaks S G V Property Fund li LLC 1131 Oak Meadow 2014 Santa Anita Oaks 450 Arbolada 2014 Santa Anita Oaks S G V Property Fund LLC 325 S. Old Ranch Rd 2013 Village HCD Investments LLC 1635 Perkins Dr 2014 Non -HOA S G V Property Fund LLC 1410 Santa Margarita Dr 2014 Upper Rancho S G V Property Fund LLC 1042 Don Ricardo Dr 2014 Nan -HOA SG V Property Fund LLC 1225 Ramona Rd 2014 Santa Anita Oaks S G V Property Fund LLC & Dexter Ramona LLC 1523 Highland Oaks Dr 2014 Tract 15073 S G V Property Fund 11 LLC 112 San Miguel Dr 2014 Non -HOA S G V Property Fund LLC 148 El Dorado St 2014 Non -HOA S G V Property Fund LLC 1414 Carmelita PI 2013 Santa Anita Oaks S G V Property Fund LLC 405 San Antonio Rd 2012 Non -HOA Mur Sol Development LLC 46 W Sycamore Ave 2013 Santa Anita Oaks S G V Property Fund LLC 1805 S Santa Anita Ave 2013 Non -HOA S G V Property Fund LLC 1000 Panorama Dr 2014 Lower Rancho 5 G V Property Fund LLC 1101 Singing Wood Dr 2014 Upper Rancho Mur Sol Development LLC 729 Anoakia Ln 2014 Nan -HOA Mur Sol Development LLC 155 W Naomi Ave 2014 Non -HOA Mur Sol Development LLC 1742 Claridge St 2013 Village Mur Sol Development LLC EXHIBIT F it BOWDEN Address Year Area Title 1800 Wilson Ave 2014 Highlands Bowden Development Inc. 1600 Highland Oaks Dr 2014 Highlands Bowden Development Inc. 153 W Magna Vista Ave 2014 Non -HOA Bowden Development Inc. 429 W Lemon Ave 2014 Nan -HOA Bowden Development Inc_ 2215 S Santa Anita Ave 2014 Non -HOA Bowden Development Inc. 2411 Doolittle Ave 2014 Nan -HOA Bowden Development Inc. 1837 Stonehouse Rd 2014 Non -HOA Bowden Development Inc. ELDORADO Address Year Area Title 428 Cambridge Dr 2013 Upper Rancho 428 Cambridge Drive Homes LLC 216 W Palm Dr 2013 Non -HOA 216 Palm Development LLC 1716 Alta Oaks 2013 Highlands 1716 Alta Oaks Development LLC 1760 Wilson 2013 Highlands 1760 Wilson Development LLC 164 Elkins 2014 Highlands 164 Elkins Development LtC DEXTER Address Year Area Title 428 Los Altos Ave 2014 Dexter Los Altos LLC 209 Hacienda Dr 2014 Santa Anita Oaks Cerk Hacienda LLC 265 Hacienda 2014 Santa Anita Oaks S G V Property Fund If LLC & Dexter 265 Hacienda LLC 1225 Ramona Rd 2014 Santa Anita Oaks 5 G V Property Fund 11 LLC & Dexter Ramona LLC January 16, 2015 City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 APPEAL OF 29 E. ORANGE GROVE APPEAL NO: HOA 14-05 Applicant: Sanyao Intl. Mur -sol Appellant: Arcadia Highlands HOA April A. Verlato CORRECTION I miscalculated my recommendation regarding the set back of the garage. The recommendation is to set back the garage 135' from the front property line (or 90' from the front yard set back). Also, the front will appear too symmetrical and excessively articulated. It would be recommended that the center "pop -out" be eliminated and the theater room be flush with the 2 -car garage. If these recommendations are not acceptable to the applicant, a meeting between the ARB Chair and applicant should be conducted in the hopes that some other recommendation could be proposed that would be acceptable to the applicant. �� erlato CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: PROJECT ADDRESS DATE STRUCTURE Bi1lLTl'`'1 ZONE CLASSIFICATION APPLICANT ADDRESS Zss F, . sa'" to, _ Nmr- - 5-f # I � ��** CITY 6G TY & STATE CA, ZIP' p ! l a-V TELEPHONE NO. L b36 446-904-f E -MAIL ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME _ 21 F-45-f_ OrdA4C 6FrOil,4 f Z1- r, PROPERTY OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS _ & ! ,5 'T'Sep&`61. CITY CA d; A. STATE CA zip-- ?/0-V4 TELEPHONE NO. L7b -- 44 7' a SSA E -NWL ADDRESS The applicant and property owner hereby declare under penalty of perjury that all the inf alion submitted for this application is true and correct. Applicant's 5i r Date - il �- „ - Properfy OvArqqe ~sture i� i Date For Office Use Only ACTION: ❑ Approved Conditionally Approveddt.1 ❑ Referred to Planning, Commission By: 2i= Date. l f `l Date filed F.`; ' -' Amount paid ,f/ Y Receipt No. { Received By -1- 7111 State of California —The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Other Listings Review Code Paoe 1 Primary # HRI # Trinomial NRHP Status Code Resource Name or #: P1. Other Identifier: W. Location: 0 Not for Publication © Unrestricted *a. County: Los An eles and (P2b and Plc or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) =b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Wilson, CA _ Date: 1961 PR 1988 T 1N; R -11W; S.B,$.M. c. Address: 29 East Orange Grove Avenue City: Arcadia Zip: 91006. d. UTM: Zone: 11; mE1 mN (G.P.S) e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN: 5771 -014 -004 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This one -story Ranch style residence is located on the north side of East Orange Grove Avenue in a residential neighborhood, It is roughly L- shaped in plan and is surmounted by a moderately- pitched, side -gable roof sheathed with wood shingles It has narrow eaves and a brick chimney. The exterior walls are clad with horizontal boards. The asymmetrical, south- facing fagade includes four, wood- framed, double -hung windows, a recessed modern front door with a screen, and a partial -width porch with three, square, wood roof supports. Two of the windows are diamond -paned and the other two are flanked by decorative shutters_ Based on aerial photographs, the property includes a swimming pool and the residence appears to have several rear additions. The residence is in good condition, but is a common type and style. Based on its architecture, it does not appear to be historically significant. "123b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2- Single- family property *P4. Resources Present: ®Building ❑Structure ❑Object []Site 00istrict ❑Element of District ❑Other (isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo or Drawing (photo required for buildings, structures, and objects ) W PSb. Description of Photo: (View, date: accession #) Fagade, view to the north *P6. Date Constructed /Age and Sources: [RI Historic ❑Prehistoric ❑Both 1941 (Los Angeles County Assessor) *P7. Owner and Address: 29 East Orange Grove Avenue, LLC 119 East St, Joseph Street Arcadia, CA 91006 'P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Casey Tibbet, M.A. LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92507 'P9. Date Recorded: April 25, 2014 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance -level architectural survey for City of Arcadia demolition process compliance *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and ether sources, or enter "none. ") None. *Attachments: ❑NONE OLocation Map ❑Sketch Map ❑Continuation Sheet ❑Building, Structure, and Object Record ©Archaeological Record ❑ District Record []Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock Art Record []Artifact Record []Photograph Record [] Other (List): DPR 523A (1195) "Required information state orCalifornia - Resource Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 29 East Orange Grove Avenue *Map Name: USGS 7.5' Quad, Mt. Wilson *Scale: 1:24000 *Date of Map: 1988 1. 1SPF14051ReportU TPRlocation_5771014004 29 F 0rangeGroveAve.mxd(4C4/2014) DPR 523J (2/95) *Required Infonnation 0 Dear Mayor Wuo ,,�t M RECEIVED ITS' OF ARCADU mss` i JAI 2 12015 CITY COUNCIL 1730 Alta Oaks Arcadia, CA 91006 January 21, 2015 I thought 1 would have five minutes for my presentation last night so when I heard it was to be three minutes 1 tried to eliminate some of it but I'm afraid 1 did not do a very good job of it. So, I'd sure appreciate you reading the material I had prepared and will attach to this note. Thanks very much John. Bruce McCallum City Council Hearin 1 -20 -15 Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of the city council My name is Bruce McCallum. I have lived in the Highlands for over 42 years. I am here to speak in favor of the Planning Commission's decision and to discuss the grossly improper actions of the Highlands Homeowners Assn. and its ARB. The Association does not represent me nor does it represent any of my friends who live in the Highlands. Most of the 850 property owners in the Highlands have no idea what is going on with the ARB and that their property values are being eroded by the actions of a very few people. I sent you the results of a study I did in our area. I would like to take a few moments to summarize the results of that study. I took 20 streets at random from the Highlands and selected one house on each street at random. I then went to Zillow.com and looked at the value of each house one year ago, just before the present ARB took over. I then looked at the value of the same houses last week. The results for these homes was an almost 12% decrease in value. Is this part of a general trend in the area? Absolutely not. Ziliow shows that for the 92006 Zip code in total, property values have increased almost 10 %. So the values in the Highlands have had a net loss of about 20% since the present ARB has been in control. Based on property values in December a year ago each of the property owners have lost about $150,000 to $200,000 in value. One of the important functions of the city council is to protect property values. Yet a small group of people who have taken over our ARB — using the authority delegated to them by the city council — is significantly eroding our property values. It's no wonder this is happening. To my knowledge our ARB has not approved a single design presented to it. In fact, even after the property owner makes the changes the ARB asked for, the ARB finds even more changes it wants made. The city council and planning commission have heard several appeals already and there is every indication that this will continue. I and many property owners are turning to you for protection. I know the members of this council are vigilant about keeping water rates and trash rates at the lowest possible level. And I appreciate that. But a savings of $30 - $40 a year in these bills pales in comparison to a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in property value. Therefore, I respectfully request the council immediately retract the authority previously granted to this Assn. and its ARB. Were the council to do this I am of the opinion our home values would immediately increase and reflect their true value. You may be hesitant to do this feeling we residents should solve our own problems. Normally I would agree. But I'll tell you why that simply cannot be done. You will recall how loud, outspoken, completely out of control some of these people have been at recent street hearings. Remember that at one such hearing one member of the previous ARB resigned on the spot saying --- I won't take this "stuff" any more. A second member resigned the following day and about a week later the chair of the ARB resigned ................ Unbelievably, the Bd of Dir. of the Assn. subsequently appointed several of these outspoken people to the ARB. Unbelievable ........ but true. During the annual meeting of the Assn. last month each person up for election to this year's Bd was asked to talk about their qualifications and thoughts about development of the Highlands. When the chair of the ARB had the floor, John Murphy asked if he could ask a few questions. The candidate said yes. But when John began to ask some questions he was cut short when the ARB chair said........... Quote "We don't need a heckler." This comment effectively ended the discussion. I suggest no one, repeat, no one could ever accurately described John Murphy as a "heckler." Anyone who knows John knows he is a true gentleman. This is another example of the arrogance of this Assn. and its ARB With this control and attitude on the part of a few people I again respectfully suggest this council immediately retract the authority it previously granted this Assn. and its ARB. It is proven that we citizens cannot correct the situation. This council _is_our last hope for relief from the few. Thank you for your kind consideration of my opinions. ALBruce McCallum 1730 Alta Oaks Dr. . Arcadia, CA 91006 -1701 . GQsLIFORN —�9 A.6ust 5, 1903 V DATE: January 20, 2015 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO OVERTURN THE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DENIAL AND APPROVE THE DESIGN PLANS, AN OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK MODIFICATIONS FOR A NEW ONE -STORY RESIDENCE AT 29 E. ORANGE GROVE AVENUE Recommendation: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission Decision SUMMARY The subject design review was submitted by project designer, Mr. Robert Tong, for a new one -story, 6,522 square -foot, single - family residence at 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue. On November 12, 2014, the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) held a public hearing and denied the proposed design plans. The applicant filed an appeal of the ARB denial on November 18, 2014. Concurrently, the applicant requested approval of an Oak Tree Encroachment Permit for construction within the protected area of two oak trees and front yard setback Zoning Modifications. At its December 9, 2014, regular meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve the appeal and conditionally approve the design plans, Oak Tree encroachments, and front yard setback Modifications. On December 17, 2014, the Highlands Homeowners' Association filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve the subject applications — see Attachment No. 1, Appeal Letter to the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision. HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, & THE 14 -65 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue January 20, 2015 Page 2 of 9 BACKGROUND City Council Resolution No. 6665 sets forth the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines, and City Council Resolution No. 6770 establishes guidelines and design review procedures for properties within the five, City- designated, Homeowners' Association areas. The Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 6665), and City Council Resolution No. 6770 are available at the City Clerk's Office, and are on the City's website. On November 12, 2014, the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) held a noticed public hearing for design review of a new residence at 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue. By a vote of 3 to 1, the ARB denied the proposal based on the finding that it is not consistent with the established design guidelines, specifically in the following categories: Site Planning and Massing - refer to Attachment No. 2 for the ARB's Findings and Action Report. The ARB commented that the proposed house is too bulky and massive and that the size of the home results in minimal back yard space, which is not typical for homes within the Highlands area. Also, the ten -foot top plate height is too tall compared to the neighboring homes, which have eight -foot plate heights. A copy of the ARB meeting minutes is included as Attachment No. 3. The applicant, who is the project designer, Mr. Robert Tong, filed an appeal of the ARB decision on November 18, 2014 — see Attachment No. 4 for the Planning Commission Appeal Letter. In the appeal letter, Mr. Tong rebuts the ARB findings that the proposal is not consistent with the established Design Guidelines. A letter was also submitted by the neighboring property owner to the west in support of the proposed project — refer to Attachment No. 5. The applicant states that, from the street, it would not be possible to determine the square footage of the proposed home. Also, an inner courtyard is part of the design, which adds articulation and separates the residence into two areas, which enables the two roof areas to have lower heights, thus reducing the overall height to 17' -2 ". The courtyard is one reason for the length of the proposed home. But, there is still a 28' -0" to 36' -0" rear yard setback, which is more than the 25' -0" minimum required by Code. Also, the two adjacent properties are two -story homes built on raised foundations, which add to the height of their first floor top plates when measured from finished grade, rather than finished floor level. HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, & THE 14 -65 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue January 20, 2015 Page 3 of 9 After careful analysis, staff found the proposed residence to be well designed and consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines, and the design standards in City Council Resolution No. 6770. However, the following minor changes to the proposed design were recommended to address site planning issues, to create a more effective open space, and further the harmony and compatibility of the design with the adjacent properties and the neighborhood: 1. The top plate height shall be lowered from 10' -0" to 9' -0" as measured from the finished floor level. 2. The inner courtyard shall be widened to at least 15' -0" to provide an effective open space. 3. The easterly and westerly side yard setbacks shall be increased from 10' -0 to 12' -0" along the rear portion of the house, beginning approximately 100' -0" from the front property line. Adequate wall and roof articulation shall be maintained. The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting on December 9, 2014, considered the appeal at a public hearing and unanimously approved the appeal and conditionally approved the design plans, front yard setback Modifications, and Oak Tree encroachments. During the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant and owner /developer agreed to the proposed changes to the inner courtyard and side yard setbacks, but requested that the plate height not be lowered. They felt it would not address massing concerns or result in a better design. The Commission found the design of the proposal, with the recommended conditions, to be consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770 — an excerpt of the minutes of the December 9, 2014, Planning Commission meeting is provided as Attachment No. 6. The owner wishes to retain the ten -foot plate height, and submitted the attached letter with examples of one -story homes with ten -foot plate heights that have been approved for other locations throughout the City, including the Highlands — Attachment No. 13. The Highlands Homeowners' Association filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on December 17, 2014 — refer to Attachment No. 1. In the appeal letter, the appellant states that the Planning Commission was misinformed that the ARB cannot deny plans because of size, that the proposed plans are not compatible and harmonious under Resolution 6770, and that the Planning Commission acted outside of its authority by approving plans with conditions that altered the design. HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, & THE 14 -65 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue January 20, 2015 Page 4 of 9 DISCUSSION The subject property is a 17,779 square -foot interior lot zoned R -1- 12,500 &D — refer to Attachment No. 7 for an aerial photo with zoning information and photos of the subject property and surrounding properties. The subject property is currently improved with a 1,855 square -foot, one -story residence built in 1941. The proposal is to demolish the existing residence and build a 6,522 square -foot, one - story, single - family residence, with attached one- and two -car garages — refer to Attachment No. 8 for the Proposed Architectural Plans. The proposed architectural style is described as Tuscan, with architectural features that include S -tile roofing, exposed rafter tails, stone veneer, and smooth stucco finish. The overall building height is 17' -2" as measured from the average existing grade, where a maximum of 30' -0" is permitted by Code. The proposed new residence would have an overall lot coverage of approximately 41%, where a maximum of 45% is permitted by Code for a one -story residence. With the design changes included with the approval by the Planning Commission, the open space in the courtyard and side yards would increase by approximately 330 square feet, and the square- footage of the residence would similarly decrease from 6,522 square feet to 6,192 square feet. The lot coverage would decrease from 41% to 39 %. The changes would not decrease the amount of rear yard area. Zoning Modifications Concurrently, the applicant is requesting approval of the following front yard setback Modifications for a more reasonable building area: a. A 45' -0" front yard setback in lieu of the 73' -10" average of the two adjacent properties; and b. A 45' -0" front yard setback in lieu of the 50' -0" special setback required for this portion of E. Orange Grove Avenue. The R -1 zoning regulations require a minimum front yard setback of 25' -0 ", or the average of the front yard setbacks of the two adjacent neighbors, whichever is greater. The adjacent neighbors have front yard setbacks of 104' -2" and 43' -6 ", for an average of 73' -10 ". The existing home on the subject property has a front yard setback of 42' -1 ". The intent of the requirement of the average of the two adjacent neighbors is to promote a consistent streetscape. The subject property is located on a block developed with seven other single - family residences that front E. Orange Grove Avenue. The setbacks range from 25' -0" to 104' -2" with an overall average of approximately 60' -2 ". The two neighboring properties to the west have front yard setbacks of 104' -2" and 92' -5" due to HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, & THE 14 -65 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue January 20, 2015 Page 5 of 9 a flood - control easement across the front yard of one of the properties, and large oak trees in the front yard of the other property. This resulted in these two homes being built with much greater front yard setbacks than the other five homes on the block, which have an average front yard setback of 44'-11". The proposed 45' setback meets this average. There is also a special setback of 50' -0" along this portion of E. Orange Grove Avenue. The intent of the special setback is for future street widening and to promote a consistent streetscape. An encroachment into a special setback is typically handled administratively, but is included here because the project is subject to the Council's review. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to the requested setback Modifications as there are no plans to widen this portion of E. Orange Grove Avenue. Oak Tree Encroachment There are two mature 40 -inch diameter Coast Live Oak trees located on the neighboring property to the east that would have their canopies encroached upon by the proposed development. The proposed residence, walkways, and landscaping will encroach into the protected zone of the Oak trees. A Certified Arborist analyzed the development proposal and determined that the proposed encroachments will be tolerable, provided that the protective measures prescribed in the Arborist's Report are followed — refer to Attachment No. 9 for the Arborist's Report. As previously mentioned, the ARB found the plans to be inconsistent with the established Design Guidelines. The design was found to be too massive and bulky for the site and is not compatible and harmonious with the surrounding properties. City Council Resolution No. 6770 sets forth that any body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision shall be guided by the following principles: • Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. • Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, & THE 14 -65 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue January 20, 2015 Page 6 of 9 • A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. • A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. The proposed 45' -0" front yard setback would secure an appropriate improvement of the lot because it would promote uniformity of development with the majority of the homes on the block, and maintain a consistent streetscape. Due to the situation in which two of the other seven homes on the block have significantly greater front yard setbacks, it is appropriate to look to the prevailing setback of the majority of the homes and apply that to the subject property. The proposed front yard setback will be in line with the majority of the homes on E. Orange Grove Avenue, and is slightly greater than the existing setback. The Oak Tree encroachments will be tolerable with the protective measures prescribed by the Certified Arborist. With the design changes recommended by staff, and approved by the Planning Commission, the resulting design was found to be consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines, and the design standards in City Council Resolution No. 6770. The revisions address some of the concerns stated by the ARB, and reduce the massing, increase the open space, and make the design more consistent and compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission approved the project, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following revisions, which shall be approved by the Development Services Director or designee, shall be made to the plans prior to submitting plans for plan check to Building Services: a. The top plate height shall be lowered from 10' -0" to 9' -0" as measured from the finished floor level. b. The inner courtyard shall be widened to at least 15' -0" to provide an effective open space. c. The easterly and westerly side yard setbacks shall be increased from 10' -0 to 12' -0" along the rear portion of the house, beginning approximately 100' -0" from the front property line. Adequate wall and roof articulation shall be maintained. HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, & THE 14 -65 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue January 20, 2015 Page 7 of 9 2. The project shall be developed and maintained by the applicant/property owner in a manner that is consistent with the revised plans submitted and conditionally approved for HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, and THE 14 -65, subject to the approval of the Development Services Director or designee. 3. The project shall be developed and maintained by the applicant/property owner in compliance with all of the recommended tree protection measures listed in the Oak Tree Report prepared for this project. 4. 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. 5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 6. Approval of HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, and THE 14 -65 shall not take effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after City Council 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. HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, & THE 14 -65 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue January 20, 2015 Page 8 of 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) it is determined that the development of a single - family residence is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Preliminary Exemption Assessment is included as Attachment No. 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS /NOTICE Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on January 8, 2015, to the owners of those properties within the required notification area — refer to Attachment No. 11 for the Notification Area Map. The notice was also sent to the HOA President and ARB Chairperson. Staff received a comment from the neighboring property owner following the Planning Commission meeting — refer to Attachment No. 12. In the letter the neighbor explained that they were not in support of the proposed project, despite possibly, and unintentionally, giving that impression during the Planning Commission meeting. The neighbor expressed concerns regarding the size of the proposal and supports the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have no significant fiscal impact on the City. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision. Approved: Dominic LazzarAd City Manager Attachment No. 1: Appeal Letter to City Council Attachment No. 2: ARB Findings and Action Form Attachment No. 3: ARB Meeting Minutes Attachment No. 4: Appeal Letter to Planning Commission HOA 14 -05, MP 14 -21, & THE 14 -65 29 E. Orange Grove Avenue January 20, 2015 Page 9 of 9 Attachment No. 5 Attachment No. 6 Attachment No. 7 Attachment No. 8: Attachment No. 9: Attachment No. 10 Attachment No. 11 Attachment No. 12 Attachment No. 13 Letter of Support from Neighboring Property Owner Minutes from the December 9, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property and Surrounding Properties Proposed Architectural Plans Certified Arborist's Report Preliminary Exemption Assessment Notification Area Map Letter from Neighboring Property Owner Letter from Owner with Examples The Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 6665), and City Council Resolution No. 6770 are available at the City Clerk's Office, and are on the City's website. � PROJECT SUMMARY °, 1-CAR GARAGE RIO 2-CAR GARAGE ESIDENCE PO H I PLANT LEGEND (NIT 011) VICINITY MAP N.T.S. 4 EX ­E1 HOUSE SITE PLAN AVE. FRONT SETBACK 73'-10" = {I`T - PR0.1. SRE I I r ° VICINITY MAP P I' \ PtorPLAN N.T.S. 21 E. ORANGE GROVE _ ...:. .. 35 E. ORANGE GROVE... STREETSCAPE REVIMNS DATE NO Q Q Q Q Q ti q z _ a z $_ z v^ IX € d <LL a =- r £x sQ e1.a ,l lo 3g91eG €sg; lip . y�il'f °ypypTFI W co W 2 0' J W Z U ce LU J o Q Ld Z m Z fA N Q tanazata �— M.R. Jab 201488 ST -1 IL j =1 / I / � I � I / {I`T - PR0.1. SRE I I r ° VICINITY MAP P I' \ PtorPLAN N.T.S. 21 E. ORANGE GROVE _ ...:. .. 35 E. ORANGE GROVE... STREETSCAPE REVIMNS DATE NO Q Q Q Q Q ti q z _ a z $_ z v^ IX € d <LL a =- r £x sQ e1.a ,l lo 3g91eG €sg; lip . y�il'f °ypypTFI W co W 2 0' J W Z U ce LU J o Q Ld Z m Z fA N Q tanazata �— M.R. Jab 201488 ST -1 REVISIONS DATE NO I O n eAina I I F i Z q L) O O MASTER BEDRM. o — 2 a�+ �w« _ w II Z i o. O 9� I BEDRM, #3 BEDRM.#2 — — 2CAR GARAGE a BEDRM_it4 s I b m BEDRM. #1 1i$ THEATER WINE I i i II ceLLAR IYLFAMIlY RM_ Y� $a € ` weraw u 0L % � FOYER M I s cal i I i uj Q 1 769 w NOOK KITCH� a DINING RM. aaNl LIVING RM_ LIBRARY I,S j _ — d Q WOK 19 `�' ♦'^^ -- J L a —_ L� LL 9 a + ; I a_ a FIRST FLOOR PLAN _ •• 6,522 m. F.. 10110rz014 SEE PLAN M R. 201466 A -1 REVISIONS DATE NO 0 0 0 yl l i I I r w Z q T II > o se r!' _ a • do = qm �if I • - hJ 9 T �I va.Aahk�3pdgs'^g -� III gg ' 6. '35�8£r�e 3�3g3e�& pI ; n�€ $Wkai $. uj I li 1 -- IdII q T Q :III E N W c� — J W -__ W J Q Q Z W fA N Q ROOF PLAN lonorzm4 m SEE PLAN M.R. 2014-66 i A-2 i q ..a rAw - 7arwer.. ,s4.,,,N E Ili Pit I H I n � ✓� I� I \� Ir-t�i g y, FRONT ELEVATION a �a of tlT -- m � 4'a'YF5'L � t 7a% t rt •Ah YN �r9i �� +fie 3t. _..._ Z q d Hill ��t:_C W W Q .EVATION � 2 2 �" 0 00 J ui U. 4ZV I z w0s O u _ yl'P � 4 o �. f f➢sr, 4/� M+ -.f�i Chi,B .-n (t�e^.'b( - _� t, y�ivtle� »PiFlt_ - NF J 2. � /h1ti1F 1'R -'/Y P A ND ! sie vPh�ffn/ n2 N4P / 'G R. /iN 71, t+9t �tltYSF? %QE_ELEVAT F ��t:_C �EVATION ? W W Q .EVATION � 2 2 �" 0 00 J ui U. 4ZV I z w0s O , CIE. BE A... AN. E,CROACHING SHRUBS AND PLANT NEW TP.LL HEDiE MROUGHOUT SIDEYARD TOWARDS ME REAR YARD RIVER ROCK 'DO VISUAL iN iERESi .11 FOCUS TREE 6TH. CBW TO REMAIN: RENOVE EXISIING WDOD FENCE AND PLANT TALL SCREEN 'I— PC HIOE WALL CONSTRUCT NEW 6' DOW AM CAP PLANTING LEGEND TBEES. SHRUBS \ 2 36 BOX 'CAVE TREE' 15" ca L. PAY LaUR¢ A HUEGEL 5 GAL BLUE HIB SCU ( t t GAL GOLD SIR,PE RA%.ILTM {M) (.LEA EUflOPAEA) (LOW WATER) _ PRUNE i0 SMNIL S'pNOPAC (LAURUS NOB IS) (MO6ERATE lNArLR) O - SALYIA SANTA RARDARA 5 GAL.1 SANTA BARBARA MEX C➢N BU91 SME (L) y/'�� `-! - SALTA SPAMACEA 1 GAL HUMMINWIRD EPCE (L) f 36" BOX 'CARRO-000' 5 GAL SMAW9ERRY TREE' Q 5 GAL COA5r flOSEMARY (E� BBE G¢A' OO ® . GAL =AN ANGAP.00SPAW B-) - ROSMAR NU R N� — �' (CUPANOPSIS ANACARDIODES) (MODERATE WATER) o ARBLMS UNEOO ( ) (LOW WATER) ��I I _ - ,WN PERU c 5 GA B E PAC I GAL ROSEM 4Y L ( ) J mn 0 .ranwEaACw� C (M O 1 GA 1 COM C JAPArvESE e0XW0110 24" BO %. TINY 'OVaER TAL A (GWRESS S TINY TONER } 24 E0X COMPACT CAROLINA CHERRY' A%' ® _ G SIR 'IEXANUM 5 GAL P SE PR VET (M) _ C . (M) - GSM$ SPP. I GAL. ROC ROSE (L) \\ \, (LOW WATER) (PRUNUS C BRIGHT & TiGHY) (MODERATE WATER) 5 GAL. SMPLL MAL RUSH (M) C'-U .H C. MIXJG I GAL '-UV AI.' _E HEATHER I. - IOOOONPEN b` 'PURPUREA' ' LA A 'FR(L)E_ 5 CAL .HORSE® BUSH (MJO 1 GAL, I EryGIJSN GIJ91 LAVENDER �� D - 'CEANOM 5'JOYCE ^_OULIEP.' 5 CAL. CR¢FYNG MGUN iAIN LILAC (L) - AEOIJIUM 'WOOD.' ° POP CANARY IS-AND ROSE (L) _ K— N.a�„Cl, i.iL'R ill lceSlElY 24" WIDE MIRROR POOL DR O 4' P- RED LOBSTER NALANCHOE (L) - "- FOUNTAIN -" IN CWRi YA. RJ �\ O _ . EVERIA SP_P. -- —� CC PO15 I ECHEVERIA r Ely TREE PLANTED IN POTS (L) iROUND COVERS .I SODDED 0N 2 (CST) 35 j 1 0 ED MA RAR1 j to RE U -IHNI R BLFFALO CNe Sao BuBHLOE , .. R.oD � VERDE (M) • @ 6' Q.C. SF. SENECO MFNORALSCAE. R i5 BWE CHALK SHIX (L) •�a'ac. 2 MN. OF URCANIC BARK. MULCH OM: (L) -LOW, (M)- MODERATE, (H)- HIGH. COOL SEASON TORE, (Gc)- GROUND COVER YARD YARO SETBACK ME EXNTNG MAGNOLIA TO REMAIN ERTYS SIDE; EXISPNG ASH TREE TO REMAIN 6 5 V 3U ��" �vW Wz� - LL N 3W? a mi az J g W a W V u' z O Z Z O 4 V �] lLi Lu } Q K u- O U¢ J W d o0 L I�1< ®I:YTIi S E s a s e 6