HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 - HOA 15-02DATE: July 28, 2015
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA
15-02 AND MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MP 15-04 WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR AN APPEAL OF THE
RANCHO SANTA ANITA PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD’S DENIAL AND CONSIDERATION OF
ZONING MODIFICATIONS FOR THE EXISTING EASTERLY SIDE YARD
FENCE AT 1061 FALLEN LEAF ROAD – Continued from the July 14, 2015,
meeting
On May 21, 2015, the Architectural Review Board of the Rancho Santa Anita Property
Owners’ Association (ARB) denied the design of unpermitted easterly and westerly side
yard fences and gates at 1061 Fallen Leaf Road. This decision was appealed by the owner
on May 28, 2015. Concurrently, the owner applied for Zoning Modifications to maintain the
existing fence heights, which range from 7’-4” to 11’-6”, and to retain the spear tips on the
easterly fence.
The public hearing for the appeal and Zoning Modification requests was held at the July
14, 2015, Planning Commission meeting – refer to the attached staff report. After hearing
public testimony, the Commission voted 3-1 with one Commission position open, to
continue the item to the July 28, 2015, meeting and requested that the ARB and
owner/appellant meet to discuss the appeal and Zoning Modifications to see if an
agreement could be reached between the two parties.
As of noon, Thursday, July 23, 2015, staff has not received any information from the
owner/appellant, or the ARB Chairperson, but expects to have an update prior to the
meeting.
Attachment: July 14, 2015, Planning Commission Staff Report
DATE: July 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 15-02 AND
MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MP 15-04 WITH A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) FOR AN APPEAL OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA
PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD’S DENIAL AND CONSIDERATION OF ZONING
MODIFICATIONS FOR THE EXISTING SIDE YARD FENCES AND
GATES AT 1061 FALLEN LEAF ROAD
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
SUMMARY
On June 23, 2015, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing to consider
Homeowners’ Association Appeal No. 15-02 and Modification Application No. 15-04
which were submitted by the property owner, Mr. Shi Tung Wei. Mr. Wei is appealing
the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners’ Association (Upper Rancho) Architectural
Review Board’s (ARB) denial of the design of existing, unpermitted side yard fences.
Concurrently, the property owner is requesting approval of Zoning Modifications to
maintain the existing fence heights, which range from 7’-4” to 11’-6” and to permit the
spear tips on the easterly fence and gate.
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the July 14, 2015, Planning
Commission Meeting because staff received additional information that the fence on the
west side of the property had also been installed without ARB approval and exceeds the
6’-0” height limit. The public hearing notice and the staff report for the June 23, 2015
Planning Commission meeting did not address the westerly side yard fence; therefore,
the item had to be re-noticed to include both the east and west side yard fences and
gates, and reevaluated with consideration of the additional information. A revised public
notice that included both the easterly and westerly side yard fences was mailed on July
2, 2015.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the appeal and overturn the
ARB denial, but with alterations to the design of the fences and gates, and approve a
height Modification for a portion of the easterly side yard fence, subject to the conditions
listed in this staff report.
HOA 15-02 & MP 15-04
1061 Fallen Leaf Road
July 14, 2015 – Page 2 of 8
BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2015, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing to consider HOA
15-02 and MP 15-04, which were submitted by the property owner, Mr. Wei, who is
appealing the Upper Rancho ARB’s denial of the design of existing, unpermitted side
yard fences and is requesting approval of Zoning Modifications to maintain the existing
fence height, which ranges from 7’-4” to 11’-6” and to permit the spear tips on the
easterly fence.
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff received additional information that the
fence on the west side of the property had also been installed without ARB approval
and exceeds the 6’-0” height limit. After hearing comments from the property owner, the
Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the July 14, 2015, meeting so that
the item could be re-noticed to include both the east and west side yard fences and
gates and be reevaluated to take into consideration the additional information.
City Council Resolution No. 6665 sets forth the City’s Single-Family Residential Design
Guidelines, and City Council Resolution No. 6770 (Attachment No. 1) establishes
guidelines and design review procedures for properties within the five, City-designated,
Homeowners’ Association areas.
The unpermitted fences were brought to staff’s attention through a complaint to Code
Services. A Code Services Officer verified the violation and staff confirmed that the
Upper Rancho ARB had not reviewed or approved the fences and gates – see
Attachment No. 2 for photos of the fencing.
Figure 1. Photo of easterly side yard fence and gate adjacent to
the house which is 7’-4” in height.
Figure 2. Photo of easterly side yard fence across the drainage
gully which is 11’-6” in height.
Figure 3. Photo of westerly side yard fence which is 7’-6” in
height.
Figure 4. Photo of existing 10’-8” tall driveway gate and 5’-0” tall
front yard fence.
HOA 15-02 & MP 15-04
1061 Fallen Leaf Road
July 14, 2015 – Page 3 of 8
On May 21, 2015, the fencing and its design were denied by the Upper Rancho ARB
Chairperson, Mr. Brad Koehler – see Attachment No. 3 for the ARB Short Review Form.
A noticed, public hearing by the ARB is not required for the review of fencing per
Resolution No. 6770, which authorizes the ARB Chairperson to render a decision
administratively. Mr. Koehler stated that the height of the fences and spear tops did not
comply with the Zoning Code and were inconsistent with the established design
guidelines.
On May 28, 2015, an appeal of the ARB denial was filed by the property owner, Mr. Shi
Tung Wei. Modification Application No. MP 15-04 was subsequently filed on June 4,
2015, to request approval to allow the fences and gates to exceed the maximum
allowable height of 6’-0” in the required side yard setbacks, and to allow spear tops on
the easterly fence and gate.
The appellant is requesting that the fencing and gates exceed the maximum allowable
height and to allow spear tips on the easterly side due to his concerns with animals,
such as coyotes, coming onto his property. For the fence and gate on the east side of
the property, the appellant felt that the taller fence and spear tips would deter animals
from entering his backyard and allow him to safely enjoy his outdoor area. Additionally,
the fence, including the spear tips, were designed to match the existing front yard fence
and driveway gate, which the appellant says were already in place when he purchased
the property in 2013 – refer to Attachment No. 4 for the Property Owner’s Response
Letter. The height of the fence and gate on the west side of the property were designed
to be consistent with the easterly side yard fencing. Spear tips are not on the westerly
fence. The existing front yard fence is 5’-0” in height and the driveway gate is
approximately 10’-8” in height, and both have spear tip detailing.
The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the appeal, as
well as Modification No. MP 15-04. The Commission’s decision may be appealed to the
City Council.
PROPOSAL
The subject property is a 1.05-acre interior lot, zoned R-0-30,000&D; a single-family
zone with minimum 30,000 square-foot lot sizes and a design review overlay. The
property is currently improved with a 7,769 square-foot, two-story, single-family
residence built in 1938 – refer to Attachment No. 5 for an aerial photo with zoning
information and photos of the subject property and surrounding properties.
The appellant is requesting approval of the design of the side yard fences and gates,
and the following Zoning Modifications:
1. To allow the east and west side yard fences and gates, which range from 7’-4” to
11’-6” in height measured from the lowest adjacent grade, to exceed the
maximum allowable height of 6’-0” in the required side yard setback areas; and
2. To allow spear tip tops on the easterly fencing and gate.
HOA 15-02 & MP 15-04
1061 Fallen Leaf Road
July 14, 2015 – Page 4 of 8
Typically, fence height Modifications within side yard areas are handled administratively.
However, because the fence design was denied by the ARB, the appeal and Zoning
Modification requests are presented together for the Planning Commission’s review.
The R-0 Zoning Regulations limit fencing in a required side yard setback to 6’-0” in
height measured from the lowest adjacent grade (i.e., the lowest point within 5 feet) at
the bottom of the fence to the uppermost part of the fence. The required side yard
setbacks for the property are 16’-10”. Only the portion of a fence in a required side yard
setback is limited to 6’-0” in height. Beyond the required setback, the height of a fence is
a matter of design and compatibility with the residence and surrounding neighborhood.
The wrought-iron fence and gate on the east side of the property is approximately 95
feet from the front property line. The fence is 40’-9” in length between the house and the
side property line, and ranges from 7’-4” tall at the house to 11’-6” in height as it crosses
a drainage gully along the east side of the property. The fence and gate on the west
side of the property are approximately 93 feet from the front property line. The west
fence and gate is 26’-4” in length and is 7’-6” in height – refer to Attachment No. 2 for
photos of the fencing.
ANALYSIS
The ARB Chairperson found the fences and gates to be inconsistent with the
established design guidelines and that they do not comply with the Zoning Regulations.
City Council Resolution No. 6770 sets forth that any body hearing an appeal of an ARB
decision shall be guided by the following principles:
Figure 5. Locations of the subject fences and gates.
Location of fences and gates
HOA 15-02 & MP 15-04
1061 Fallen Leaf Road
July 14, 2015 – Page 5 of 8
• Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so
exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external
features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the
extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and
compatibility acceptable to the ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to
avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the
neighborhood.
• Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and
proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such
principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood.
• A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be
detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and
neighborhood.
• A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of
properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable.
Resolution No. 6770 dictates that the appearance of any fencing shall be compatible
with existing structures and fences in the neighborhood. The City’s Single-Family
Residential Design Guidelines state that any new fences should match or be compatible
with existing fencing on the lot. The height of the east and west side yard fences and
gates are not consistent with other fences in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff
understands that the fences and gates were designed to match the front yard fence and
driveway gate, but does not believe this warrants that the fencing exceed the maximum
allowable height of 6’-0”, or to permit spear tips.
The east and west side yard fences and gates should be lowered to 6’-0” in height to
comply with the Zoning Regulations, with the exception that the portion of the east side
yard fence that crosses the drainage gully be permitted to exceed the 6’-0” maximum
height requirement so that there is a consistent horizontal top level for the fence. This
portion of the fence is not visible from the street due to very dense foliage and will have
minimal impact to the streetscape. The spear tips should also be removed as they are
not appropriate. The spear tips are not supported by the Upper Rancho ARB, and are
not consistent with the Zoning Regulations.
FINDINGS
Section 9292.1.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code states that the purpose of the
Modification procedures is for the following:
1. Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot;
2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or
3. Promote uniformity of development
Staff concurs with the ARB findings that the proposed design is not consistent with the
established design guidelines. However with alterations, the fence would be compatible
HOA 15-02 & MP 15-04
1061 Fallen Leaf Road
July 14, 2015 – Page 6 of 8
Figure 6. Notification Area Map
with the surrounding neighborhood and guidelines, and be an appropriate improvement
of the lot. Staff recommends the following alterations as conditions of approval:
1. The easterly and westerly side yard fence and gates shall be lowered to 6’-0” in
height.
Exception: The portion of the easterly side yard fence that crosses the drainage
gully shall be permitted to exceed 6’-0” in height to maintain a consistent
horizontal top level.
2. The spear tips shall be removed from the easterly side yard fence and gate.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption for New Construction of
Accessory Structures from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 6 for
the Preliminary Exemption Assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for this appeal and Modification application were mailed on July
2, 2015, to the property owners and tenants of those properties within the design review
notification area. As of July 9, 2015, staff has not received any public comments on this
project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Appeal No. HOA 15-02 and
overrule the ARB denial, and approve Modification No. MP 15-02, and find that the
project is exempt from CEQA, subject to the following conditions:
Figure 6. Notification Area Map
HOA 15-02 & MP 15-04
1061 Fallen Leaf Road
July 14, 2015 – Page 7 of 8
1. The easterly and westerly side yard fence and gates shall be lowered to 6’-0” in
height.
Exception: The portion of the easterly side yard fence that crosses the drainage
gully shall be permitted to exceed 6’-0” in height to maintain a consistent
horizontal top level.
2. The spear tips shall be removed from the easterly side yard fence and gate.
3. The final design/appearance of the fencing is subject to approval by the
Development Services Director, or designee.
4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and
its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action,
or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or
agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of
the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but
not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning
Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to
this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim,
action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the
City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right,
at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials,
officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
5. Approval of HOA 15-02 and MP 15-04 shall not be of effect unless on or before
30 calendar days after approval of this project, the property owner/applicant has
executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee
an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to
indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval of Appeal and Recommended Design
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Appeal and overturn the ARB denial
of the design, and approve the project, subject to the conditions set forth in this report,
or as modified by the Commission, the Commission should approve a motion that finds
that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and approves Appeal No. HOA 15-02 and Modification No. MP 15-04, and
states that the proposed design with alterations will be consistent with the City’s design
guidelines, City Council Resolution No. 6770, and that the Modification secures an
appropriate improvement of the lot.
Denial of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to deny the Appeal and uphold the ARB denial of
the fence, the Commission should approve a motion to deny Appeal No. HOA 15-02
HOA 15-02 & MP 15-04
1061 Fallen Leaf Road
July 14, 2015 – Page 8 of 8
and Modification Application No. MP 15-04, stating that the fence is not consistent with
the City’s design guidelines, and/or with City Council Resolution No. 6770.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the July 14, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting, please
contact Assistant Planner, Jordan Chamberlin by calling (626) 821-4334, or by email to
JChamberlin@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Attachment No. 1: City Council Resolution No. 6770
Attachment No. 2: Photos of Fencing
Attachment No. 3: ARB Short Review Form
Attachment No. 4: Owner’s Response Letter
Attachment No. 5: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property
and Vicinity
Attachment No. 6: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 1
City Council Resolution No. 6770
RESOLUTIONNO. 6770
ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DETERMININGAND AMENDINGREGULATIONS
APPLICABLETOREALPROPERTY INTHESINGLE-FAMILY
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNZONE
AREAS.
THECITYCOUNCILOF THECITYOFARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBYFIND, DETERMINEANDRESOLVEASFOLLOWS:
SECTION1. TheCity Council hereby repealsResolution Nos. 5286, 5287,
5288, 5289, and5290andOrdinanceNo. 1832, andadoptsthisResolutionpursuantto
OrdinanceNo. 2285.
SECTION2. InaccordancewiththeArcadiaGeneralPlandirectivetoprotect
andpreservethecharacterandqualityofitsneighborhoodsbyrequiringharmonious
design, andto implementArcadia'sSingle-Family ResidentialDesign Guidelines
applicabletotherealpropertywithinthefiveSingle-FamilyHomeowners' Associations
that arezoned "D" as ArchitecturalDesign area, ArchitecturalReviewBoardsare
establishedfor eachAssociation andare hereinafter referredto as
the "ARBs". Thefive
Homeowners' AssociationsandtheirArchitecturalDesignZonesare:
Arcadia HighlandsHomeOwnersAssociation — "Highlands"
Rancho SantaAnitaProperty OwnersAssociation — "UpperRancho"
SantaAnitaOaks HomeownersAssociation — "Oaks"
RanchoSantaAnita Residents' Association — "LowerRancho"
SantaAnitaVillage Community Association ofArcadia — "Village"
Theboundariesfor eachAssociation aredepictedinExhibit "A." TheARBfor
eachareaisgovernedbythecorrespondingHomeowners' AssociationBoardforthat
area.
1
SECTION3. In order
to promote andmaintainthequalitysingle-family
residentialenvironmentoftheCityofArcadia, andtoprotectthepropertyvaluesand
architecturalcharacterofsuchresidentialenvironmentsinthoseportionsoftheCityin
which
the residents
haveformed a
homeowners association,
andtoaccomplishthe
purposessetforthinSection7thereareherebyestablishedthefollowingregulations
andproceduresinwhichsaidassociationsmayexerciseplanreviewauthority.
SECTION 4. Itisdeterminedthateachbuildingorstructureanditslandscaping
andhardscapeonpropertieswithineachareashouldexhibitaconsistentandcohesive
architecturalstyle, and
be harmonious andcompatible with otherneighborhood
structuresin architectural style, scale, visual massing, height, widthandlength, and
setbacksinrelationshiptositecontoursandarchitecturalelementssuchastexture,
colorandbuildingmaterials. Topromoteharmonyandcompatibilityisnottopromote
sameness, uniformity, a specificarchitectural style, oracertain
time period.
Itis
acknowledgedthatarchitecture (andneighborhoodsingeneral) evolveandchangeover
timeandthiswillbeconsideredthroughthereviewprocess.
Thefollowingstandardsandconditionsareherebyimposeduponallproperties
withinsaidareaspursuanttothezoningregulationsoftheArcadiaMunicipalCode, and
allthoseinownershiporcontrolofpropertywithinsaidareasaresubjecttothis
Resolution.
A. SITEPLANNING — 1. Naturalamenitiessuchasviews, andotherfeatures
uniquetothesiteshouldbepreservedandincorporatedintodevelopmentproposals.
2
2. Thelocation, configuration, anddesignofnewbuildingsandstructures, or
thealterationorenlargementofexistingstructures, shouldbevisuallyharmoniouswith
theirsitesandcompatiblewiththecharacterandqualityofthesurroundings.
3. Theheightandbulkofproposeddwellingsandstructuresonthesiteshould
beinscaleandinproportionwiththeheightandbulkofdwellingsandstructureson
surrounding sites.
Alternatively, projectsshouldincorporatedesignmeasuresto
adequatelymitigatescaledifferences.
4. Thedesignofanewhouseshouldprovideeffectiveandvariedopenspace
aroundtheresidence.
B. STREETSCAPE — Thedevelopedsubjectproperty, whenviewedfromthe
street, shouldblendandbeharmoniouswiththeotherstructuresandlandscapingon
the street. Thisincludes andis not
limited to setbacks, structuralmassandscale,
height, roofforms, façades, entries, buildingmaterialsandeverythingthatcanbeseen
fromthe street.
Eachneighborhoodorstreethasanestablishedstreetscapethat
definesitscharacter. Streetscapecharacteristicsshouldbeconsideredbynewprojects.
C. FLOORAREA — Thespacecontainedwithintheboundariesoftheproperty,
includinganyopenporch, openentry, balcony, coveredpatio, trellis, orgarage, whether
ornotitisanintegralpartofthedwelling, shallNOTbeconsideredincomputingthe
squarefootagecontainedinanysuchbuildingasmeasuredfromtheouterfacesofthe
exteriorwallsincomputingtherequiredminimumfloorareaofadwelling.
Village — 1,200squarefeetofgroundfloorareaif1storyinheight, or1,300
squarefeetoffloorareaif2storiesinheight, atleast900squarefeetofwhichmustbe
onthegroundfloor.
3
LowerRancho — 1,400squarefeetofgroundfloorareaif1storyandnotless
than1,000squarefeetongroundfloorif11/2or2stories
UpperRancho — 2,500 squarefeet ofground
floor area.
Attachedcovered
porch, balconyorgarageshallbecountedat .5.
Highlands — 1,600squarefeetif1storyandnotlessthan1,200squarefeeton
groundfloorif11/2or2stories.
Oaks —2,000squarefeetofgroundfloorarea, except1,800squarefeetinTracts
14656, 13544 & 10617, inwhichnoone-familydwellingshallbeerectedorpermitted
whichcontainslessthan1,800squarefeetofgroundfloorarea.
D. FRONTYARDSETBACKS — Ifadwellingwithalargerfrontyardthanthe
minimumrequiredbytheunderlyingzonedesignationexistsonalotoneithersideof
thesubjectproperty, theARBshallhavetheauthoritytorequireafrontyardsetbackfor
thesubjectpropertyequaltoatleastanaverageofthetwoadjacentfrontyards.
Village — UnderlyingZoning
LowerRancho — UnderlyingZoning
UpperRancho — Minimum50feet
Highlands — UnderlyingZoning
Oaks — Minimumsixty-five (65) feetfromthefrontpropertyline, exceptthatTract
13544 shall
be not
lessthan sixty (60) feet, Tracts13345 & 11013shallnotbelessthan
fifty-five (55)feet, andTract14656shallnotbelessthanfifty (50) feet.
E. SIDEYARDSETBACKS
Village — 10% oflotfrontage, andnotlessthan5feet
LowerRancho — 10% ofthelotfrontage, andnotlessthan10feet
4
UpperRancho — Minimum15feet
Highlands — 10% oflotfrontage, andnotlessthan6feet
Oaks — 10% oflotfrontage, andnotlessthan10feet
F. REARYARDSETBACKS
Village — Minimum25feet
LowerRancho — UnderlyingZoning
UpperRancho— Minimum40feet
Highlands — UnderlyingZoning
Oaks — Minimum35feet
G. CORNERLOTSETBACKS (STREETSIDE)
Village — UnderlyingZoning
LowerRancho — UnderlyingZoning
UpperRancho — UnderlyingZoning
Highlands — Minimum15feetfromsidestreetforTracts10725, 13367, 14626,
15285 & 16920.
Oaks — Onacornerlot, anydetachedgarageshallbelocatedaminimumof
twenty (20) feet, atanypoint, fromthesidestreetpropertyline.
H. FRONTOF DWELLING — ForallHOAs, anydwellingonthelotshouldface
thefrontlotline. Exceptionsforgoodcausemaybegrantedthroughthereview
process.
I. GARAGES — Nocarportsallowed.
Village & Lower Rancho — Garagesshallnotdominatethefrontelevation, and
shouldbesetbackfromthefrontfaçadeorlocatedinthebackyard.
5
UpperRancho — Nogaragedoorshallbeallowedtofacethepublicright-of-way
withinthefront 150feet ofthe property. Nogaragedoorshallbeclosertothestreet
thanthe dwelling (Lots1 through20 ofTract No. 13184 shall
be excepted). Cornerlots
shallbeevaluatedonacase-by-casebasis.
Highlands — UnderlyingZoning
Oaks — Adetachedgarageshallnotbelocatedlessthan150feetfromthefront
propertyline, exceptforTract11013whichshallbe140feetandTracts13345, 14656 &
13544whichshallbe125feet, andinnocaseshallthegaragebeclosertothefront
property line thanthe main
dwelling. Frontfacinggaragesarestronglydiscouraged.
J. EXTERIORBUILDING MATERIALS — Materialsusedontheexteriorofany
structure, includingwithoutlimitation, roofing, andwallsorfencesgreaterthan2feet
abovethelowest adjacentgrade,
shallbecompatiblewiththematerialsofother
structuresonthesamelotandwiththeotherstructuresintheneighborhood.
K. EXTERIORBUILDINGAPPEARANCE — Theappearanceofanystructure,
including roofs, wallsorfences shall
be compatiblewithexisting structures, roofing,
wallsorfencesintheneighborhood, inclusiveoflandscapeandhardscape.
L. AFFECTONADJACENTPROPERTIESANDNEIGHBORHOOD — The
impactsonadjacentpropertiesshallbeaddressed, includingimpactsonprivacyand
views.
Firststoryandsecondstoryelementsshouldbedesignedandarticulatedto
reasonably address
theseissues, andwindowsandbalconiesshallbelocatedto
reasonablyprotectprivacyandviewsofsurroundinghomesandyards.
M. TREES — CityPlanningstaffmustapprovetheremovalofanyOakTreeor
constructionofanyimprovementsunderthedriplineofOakTrees.
6
N. ANIMALS — Wildanimals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules,
poultry, orrabbitsshallnotbepermittedorkept.
SECTION5. Nostructure, roof, wallorfencegreaterthan2feetabovethe
lowest adjacentgrade, shall
be erected,
placedorreplacedunlessapprovedbythe
ARB.
Plansfortheerection, placement, orreplacementofanystructure, roof, wallor
fence, showingthepreciselocationonthelotofthestructure, wallorfence, shallbe
submittedtotheARB.
Nostructure, roof, wallorfenceshallbeerected, placedorreplacedexceptin
exactconformancewiththeplansapprovedbytheARB; however, anyfenceorwall
betweenadjacentpropertiesnotwithinthefrontbuildingsetbackorstreetsidesetback
areaissubjectonlytoreviewbytheCity.
SpecificrequirementsoftheARBforproperconsiderationofanapplicationare
listedontheShortRevieworRegularReviewApplications.
Theprovisionsofthisrequirementshallnotapplyiftheprojectconsistsonlyof
workinsideabuildingthatdoesnotsubstantiallychangetheexternalappearanceofthe
building.
A. ARCHITECTURALREVIEW BOARD — TheARBshallbeempoweredto
transactbusiness andexercisepowersherein conferred, onlyifthefollowing
requirementsexist:
1. Aformallyorganizedpropertyowner'sorganizationexistsintheapplicable
areadescribedinSection1.
7
2. Theorganizationhasby-lawsadoptedthatauthorizetheestablishmentof
theARB.
3. Saidby-lawsprovidethatonlypropertyownerscanbeappointedtoand
serveontheARB.
4. OwnershavebeenappointedtotheARBinaccordancewiththeby-laws.
5. Acopyoftheby-lawsandanyamendmentstheretohasbeenfiledwiththe
CityClerk.
6. TheARBshalldesignateacustodianofrecordswhoshallmaintainsaid
recordsandmakethemavailableforpublicreviewuponreasonablerequest.
7. Permanentwrittenrecordsofthemeetings, findings, actions, anddecisions
of
theARB shallbe maintained
by theARB, inaccordancewiththeCity'srecords
retentionpolicies.
8. TheARB'sdecisiononaRegularReviewProcessshallbeaccompaniedby
specificfindings, baseduponareferencetosupportingfacts, settingforththeactions
anddecisions.
9. OnlyARBmemberspresentatthemeetingcanparticipateinmakingthe
decision.
10. AnydecisionbytheARBshallbemadebyamajorityoftheentire
membershipoftheARB, andtheARBmemberswhoconsideredtheapplicationshall
renderthedecision.
11. AcopyoftheARB'sfindingsanddecisionshallbemailedtotheapplicant
within7workingdaysoftheARB'sdecision.
8
12. AllmeetingsoftheARBshallbeopentothepublicinaccordancewiththe
RalphM. Brown Act (CaliforniaOpen Meeting Law). AllaspectsoftheBrownActshall
be adhered
to by membersof
theARB. Thisincludes, butisnotlimitedtoproper
postingofmeetingagendas, noticingrequirements, nodiscussionofmattersoutsideof
publicmeetings, etc.
B. POWERSOF THEARB — PursuanttoSection3andSections4Athrough
4N, andthroughthespecifiedreviewprocess, theARBshallhavethepowerto:
1. Determinethecompatibilitywiththeneighborhoodofthemass, scale, design
andappearanceoftheproposedproject.
2. Determineandapproveappropriatesetbacks.
3. Determinewhethermaterialsandappearancearecompatiblewiththe
neighborhood.
4. Determinetheimpactoftheproposedprojectonadjacentproperties.
5. SubjecttocomplianceorconsistencywiththeCity'sMunicipalCode, anyof
theconditionssetforthinSections4Athrough4Nmaybemadelessrestrictivebythe
ARBiftheARBdeterminesthatsuchactionwillfostertheappropriatedevelopmentofa
lotandwillnotadverselyaffecttheuseandenjoymentoftheadjacentlotsandthe
neighborhoodandwouldnotbeinconsistentwiththeprovisionsandintentofthis
Resolution.
6. TheARBshallhavethepowertoestablishrequirementsconcerningproject
applicationsandproceduresforreviewforthepurposeofexercisingitsduties, subject
toreviewandapprovaloftheCity. Copiesofsuchrequirementsshallbekeptonfile
withthePlanningDepartment.
9
C. NOTIFICATION STANDARDSFORREVIEW PROCESS — Forthepurpose
ofconductingdesignreview, requirednotificationshallbedeemedtoincludeatleastthe
two parcelsoneach sideof
the parcelsubject
to plan approval (subjectparcel),
thefive
parcelsfacingthesubjectparcel, andthethreeparcelstotherearofthesubjectparcel.
Unusually situatedparcels,
thosewhereasecond-storyadditionormodificationis
involved, or wherethe slopeof
theterrain might
impact additionalneighbors, may
requireadditionalparcelstobepartoftherequiredparcelstobenotified, andthisisto
bedetermined by theARBChair or
designee. Therequirednotificationshallnotinclude
propertiesoutsideof
theHOA areaor commercially-zonedproperties.
Anexampleof
therequiredareaofnotificationissetforthbelow, althoughtherequirednotificationmay
varycase-by-case:
Street
SubjectParcel
4--
Street
RequiredNotificationArea
Parcelsincludedin "RequiredNotificationArea"asrelatedtoSubjectParcel
D. SHORTREVIEWPROCESSPROCEDURE
10
1. TheShortReviewProcessmaybeusedbytheARBforanysingle-story
remodeloradditionwhere (a)
thedesigniscompatiblewiththedesignofexisting
structuresonthesubjectpropertyandneighborhood; and (b) thedesignisinharmony
withthe streetscapeof
the neighborhood. TheARBChairordesigneeshallhavethe
authoritytoapprovethefollowingspecificShortReviewProcessitems:
Single-storyremodelsandadditions
Detached accessory structures — new, additionsto, and/orremodels
Fences and/orwallsin and/or
facing (i.e., visiblefrom) frontandstreetside
yards
Hardscape,
landscapingandstructuralelementsinfrontandstreetside
yards,
including withoutlimitation, swimming pools, spas, fountainsandotherwater
features
Fences, lights, andotherfeaturesrelatedtotenniscourts, sportscourtsor
othersignificantpavedfeatures
Mechanicalequipment
Roofing
2. TheARBis notrequiredtohold anoticed,
scheduledmeetingforthe
considerationofaShortReviewProcessapplication.
3.
IftheARBChairordesigneedeterminesthattheproposedprojectisnota
cohesive design, notinharmony withthe neighborhood, ormighthaveanadverse
impact onthe neighborhood,
he/shemayrequirethattheapplicationbeprocessed
undertheRegularReviewProcessprocedure.
11
4. TheARBChairordesigneeshallrenderadecisiononaShortReview
ProcessItemwithin10workingdaysfromthedateacompleteapplicationisfiledwith
theARBChairordesignee; failuretotakeactioninsaidtimeshallbedeemedan
approvaloftheplans, attheendofthe10working-dayperiod.
E. REGULARREVIEWPROCESSPROCEDURE
TheRegularReviewProcessshallbeusedbytheARBforreviewof (1) anynew
home construction, (
2) any neworexpansionofasecond story, (3) anysignificant
changein architecturalstyleofan existing
building, and (
4) allprojectsthatarenot
eligibletobeprocessedbytheaboveShortFormReviewprocedureasdeterminedby
theARBChairordesignee.
1. TheARBis required
tohold anoticed, scheduled
meetingforthe
considerationofaRegularReviewProcessapplication.
2. TheapplicantshallprovidetotheARBalldocumentsrequiredbythe
application.
3. NoticeoftheARB'smeetingshallbedepositedinthemailbytheARBChair
or
designee, postageprepaidbytheapplicant, totheapplicantandtoallproperty
ownerswithintherequired. notificationareaofthesubjectproperty, notlessthan10
calendardaysbeforethedateofsuchmeeting.
4. AnydecisionbytheARBshallbemadebyamajorityoftheentire
membershipoftheARB, andtheARBmemberswhoconsideredtheapplicationshall
rendersuchdecision.
5. TheARBshallrenderitsdecisiononaRegularReviewProcessapplication
within30workingdaysfromthedateacompleteapplicationisfiledwiththeARB; failure
12
totakeactioninsaidtimeshallbedeemedanapprovaloftheplans, attheendofthe
30working-dayperiod.
F. EXPIRATIONOF ARB'SAPPROVAL — Ifforaperiodof1yearfromthedate
ofapproval, anyprojectforwhichplanshavebeenapprovedbytheARB, hasnotbegun
construction (asevidencedbyclearingandgradingand/ortheinstallationofanew
foundationand/orbyinstallationofnewmaterialsonastructurethatisbeing
remodeled) or
hasbeen unused, abandoned or
discontinued, saidapprovalshall
become nullandvoidandofno effect.
SuchprojectmayberesubmittedtotheARBfor
renewedapproval;
however, theARBshallreviewtheprojectasifithadnotbeen
previouslyapprovedinaccordancewiththecurrentstandardsineffect.
G. LIMITONARB'S POWER—TheARBshallnothavethepowertomodifyany
regulationsintheMunicipalCode. TheARBmay, however, makearecommendation
regardingmodifyingsuchregulationstotheCitystaff, department, commissionorboard
thatwillbeconsideringanysuchmodificationrequest.
SECTION6. Appealsfrom theARB shall
be made
tothe Planning
Commission. SaidappealshallbemadeinwritinganddeliveredtoPlanningServices
within7calendardaysoftheARB'sdecisionandshallbeaccompaniedbyanappeal
feeinaccordancewiththeapplicablefeescheduleadoptedbyresolutionoftheCity
Council. PlanningCommissiondecisionsonARBcasesmaybeappealedtotheCity
Council.
UponreceiptinproperformofacompletedappealfromtheARB'sdecision, such
appeal shallbe processedbyPlanningServicesinaccordancewiththesame
13
proceduresapplicabletoappealsfromtheModificationCommittee, exceptnoticingshall
beconsistentwithARBnoticing.
A. STANDARDSFORARB DECISIONSANDAPPEALS — TheARBandany
bodyhearinganappealfromtheARB'sdecisionshallbeguidedbythefollowing
principles:
1. Controlofarchitecturalappearanceanduseofmaterialsshallnotbeso
exercisedthatindividualinitiativeisstifledincreatingtheappearanceofexternal
featuresofanyparticularstructure, building, fence, wallorroof, excepttotheextent
necessarytoestablishcontemporaryacceptedstandardsofharmonyandcompatibility
acceptabletotheARBorthebodyhearinganappealinordertoavoidthatwhichis
excessive, garish, andsubstantiallyunrelatedtotheneighborhood.
2. Goodarchitecturalcharacterisbasedupontheprinciplesofharmonyand
proportionintheelementsofthestructureaswellastherelationshipofsuchprinciples
toadjacentstructuresandotherstructuresintheneighborhood.
3. Apoorlydesignedexternalappearanceofastructure, wall, fence, orroof,
canbedetrimentaltotheuseandenjoymentandvalueofadjacentpropertyand
neighborhood.
4. Agoodrelationshipbetweenadjacentfrontyardsincreasesthevalueof
propertiesandmakestheuseofbothpropertiesmoreenjoyable.
SECTION 7. TheCityCouncilfindsanddeterminesthatthepublichealth,
safety andgeneral welfareof
the community require
the adoptionof
thisResolution. It
isdeterminedthatthevariouslandusecontrols, andpropertyregulationsassetforth
herein are substantially related
to maintenanceof
Arcadia'senvironment,
forthe
14
purposeof assuring thatthe appearanceofstructures will
becompatibleand
harmoniouswiththeuseandenjoymentofsurroundingproperties. Designcontrolsand
aesthetic considerationswill
help maintain
the beauty of
the community, protect
property values, and
help assureprotectionfrom deterioration, blight, and
unattractiveness, allofwhichcanhaveanegativeimpactontheenvironmentofthe
community, affectingpropertyvalues, andthequalityoflifewhichischaracteristicof
Arcadia.
ItisfurtherdeterminedthatthepurposeandfunctionofthisResolutionis
consistentwiththehistoryoftheCityandcontinuedeffortsthroughvariousmeansto
maintain
the City'sland use, environmental,
andeconomicgoalsandtoassure
perpetuationofboththepsychologicalbenefitsandeconomicinterestsconcomitantto
anattractive, wellmaintainedcommunitywithemphasisonresidentialliving.
Allfindingsandstatementsofpurposeinrelatedresolutionswhichpre-existed
thisResolutionorpriorcovenants, conditions, andrestrictionsconstitutepartofthe
rationaleforthisResolutionandareincorporatedbyreference.
SECTION 8. Ifanysection, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase,
orportionofthisResolutionisforanyreasonheldtobeinvalidbythefinaldecisionof
anycourtofcompetentjurisdiction, suchdecisionshallnotaffectthevalidityofthe
remainingportionsofthisResolution. TheCouncilherebydeclaresthatitwouldhave
adopted
thisResolution andeach section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause,
phrase,
orportionthereofirrespectiveofthefactthatanyoneormoresection,
subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase,
orportionthereofbedeclared
invalid.
15
SECTION9. TheCityClerkshallcertifytotheadoptionofthisResolution.
Passed, approvedandadoptedthis3rddayofJanuary, 2012.
yor7ftheCityofArcadia
ATTEST:
CityClerk
APPROVEDASTOFORM:
46r4-ce
StephenP. Deitsch
CityAttorney
16
Exhibit "A"
MapandDescriptions
Homeowners' AssociationAreas
1) ArcadiaHighlandsHomeowners' Association —"Highlands"
2) RanchoSantaAnita Property Owners' Association—"UpperRancho"
3) SantaAnitaOaksHomeowners' Association —"Oaks"
4) RanchoSantaAnitaResidents' Association —"LowerRancho"
5) SantaAnitaVillage Community Association —"Village"
11 11"
iii) 141K
1
LIV144" I
mil msk
1! 1 1
100 1
GrowAv.
t
Ga-411111
11,WAVIIKIIIIIMIN___-
Ammulauurimum
iiititril ninEr'rk,-----,..-.,,I, somm.
lialv
ii '
4
V :Irk.
ir
OMMIMI
i1 I•,
111111111111111111111911111111111
11111T
17
Highlands
TheareanorthofthecommercialpropertiesfrontingonFoothillBoulevard, southof
thenortherlyCitylimit, eastofSantaAnitaAvenue, westoftheLosAngelesCounty
FloodControlDistrictproperty, extendingtotheeastendofSycamoreAvenue.
Excluding those properties
locatedin Tract15073 (1500to1538 & 1503to1537
HighlandOaks Drive) and
1501 HighlandOaks Drive and
307A, 307B, 307C & 307D
EastFoothillBoulevard.
UpperRancho
ThepropertyboundedonthesouthbythecenterlineofFoothillBoulevard; onthe
westbytheeastlineofMichillindaAvenue; ontheeastbythecenterlineofBaldwin
Avenue; andonthenorthbytheCitylimits.
Oaks
BeginningatapointattheintersectionofthecenterlineofBaldwinAvenueandthe
centerlineofOrangeGroveAvenue; thenceeasterlyalongthecenterlineofOrange
Grove Avenue to
itsintersection with
the centerlineof
Oak MeadowRoad; thence
southerlyalongthecenterlineofOakMeadowRoadtoitsintersectionwiththe
centerlineofHaciendaDrive; thencewesterlyalongthecenterlineofHaciendaDriveto
itsintersection with
the centerline of
SanCarlosRoad; thencesoutherlyalongthe
centerlineofSanCarlosRoadtoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineofFoothill
Boulevard; thencewesterlyalongthecenterlineofFoothillBoulevardtoitsintersection
withthecenterlineofBaldwinAvenue; thencenortherlyalongthecenterlineofBaldwin
Avenuetothepointofbeginning.
BeginningatapointattheintersectionofthecenterlineofOakMeadowRoadand
thecenterlineofOrangeGroveAvenue; thenceeasterlyalongthecenterlineofOrange
GroveAvenuetoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineofSantaAnitaAvenue; thence
southerlyalongthecenterlineofSantaAnitaAvenuetoitsintersectionwiththeeasterly
prolongationof
the southerlyproperty line of
LotNo. 76 of
TractNo. 11074; thence
westerlyalongsaideasterlyprolongationandsaidsoutherlypropertylinetoits
intersection with
the westerly property line of
LotNo. 76 of
Tract No. 11074; thence
southerlyalongtheprolongationofsaidwesterlypropertylinetoitsintersectionwiththe
centerlineof
Foothill Boulevard; thencewesterlyalongthecenterlineofFoothill
BoulevardtoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineofSanCarlosRoad; thencenortherly
alongthecenterlineofSanCarlosRoadtoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineof
HaciendaDrive; thence easterlyalong the centerline of
Hacienda Drivetoits
intersection with
the centerlineof
OakMeadowRoad; thencenortherlyalongthe
centerlineofOakMeadowRoadtothepointofbeginning.
18
BeginningatapointattheintersectionofthecenterlineofSantaAnitaAvenueand
theeasterlyprolongationofthesoutherlypropertylineofLotNo. 76ofTractNo. 11074;
thencewesterlyalongsaideasterlyprolongationandsaidsoutherlypropertylinetoits
intersection withthe westerlyproperty line of
LotNo. 76 ofTract No. 11074; thence
southerlyalongtheprolongationofsaidwesterlypropertylineadistanceof65feet;
thenceeasterlyalongalineparalleltothesoutherlypropertylineofLot76ofTractNo.
11074toitsintersectionwiththecenterlineofSantaAnitaAvenue; thencenortherly
alongthecenterlineofSantaAnitaAvenueadistanceof65feettothepointof
beginning.
LowerRancho
Area #1 Beginning at apointon easterly line of
MichillindaAvenue, saidpoint
being the southwesterly cornerofLot36, TractNo. 15928; thenceeasterlyalongthe
southerlyboundaryofsaidTractNo. 15928andTractNo. 14428toapointwhichisthe
northwesterly cornerofLot12, TractNo. 15960; thencesoutherlyalongthewesterly
lineofsaidLot12anditsprolongationthereoftoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineof
DeAnzaPlace; thencesoutherlyandeasterlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersection
with
the centerline of
Altura Road; thencesoutherlyalongsaidcenterlinetoits
intersectionwiththecenterlineofHugoReidDrive; thenceeasterlyalongsaidcenterline
to
its intersection with
the centerlineof
GoldenWestAvenue; thencenorthwesterly
along saidcenterline
to itsintersection with
the centerlineof
Tallac Drive; thence
easterlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersectionwiththeeasterlylineofTractNo. 13312;
thencenortherlyandeasterlyalongtheeasterlyandsoutherlyboundaryofsaidtractto
thesoutheasterlycornerofLotNo. 1toitsintersectionwiththeeasterlylineofGolden
WestAvenue; thencenortherlyalongsaideasterlylinetoitsintersectionwiththe
southerly line of
VaqueroRoad; thenceeasterlyalongsaidsoutherlylinetoits
intersectionwiththeeasterlyterminuslineofsaidVaqueroRoad; thencenortherlyalong
saideasterlylinetoitsintersectionwiththesoutherlylineofLot17ofTractNo. 11215;
thenceeasterlyalongsaidsoutherlylinetoitsintersectionwiththeeasterlylineof
aforementionedTractNo. 11215; thencenortherlyalongsaideasterlylineandits
prolongationthereoftoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineofColoradoStreet; thence
westerlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineofAlturaRoad;
thencesoutherlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersectionwiththeeasterlyprolongationof
the northerly line of
TractNo. 17430; thencewesterlyalongsaidnortherlylinetoits
intersectionwiththeeasterlylineofMichillindaAvenue; thencesoutherlyalongsaid
easterlylinetothepointofbeginning, saidpointbeingthesouthwesterlycornerofLot
36ofTractNo. 15928.
Area #2 BeginningatthenorthwesterlycornerofLotNo. 62ofTractNo. 12786;
thencesoutherlyalongthewesterlylineofsaidLotanditsprolongationthereoftoits
intersectionwiththecenterlineofHugoReidDrive; thenceeasterlyalongsaidcenter
linetoitsintersectionwiththesoutherlyprolongationoftheeasterlylineofTractNo.
14460; thencenortherlyalongsaideasterlylinetoitsintersectionwiththenortherlyline
ofsaidtract; thencewesterlyalongsaidnortherlylinetoitsintersectionwiththewesterly
line of saidTractNo. 14460; thencesouthwesterlyalongsaidwesterlyline, andits
southwesterlyprolongationthereof, toitsintersectionwiththenortheasterlycornerof
19
LotNo. 61ofTractNo. 12786; thencewesterlyalongthenortherlylineofsaidtractto
thepointofbeginning, saidpointbeingthenorthwesterlycornerofLot62ofTractNo.
12786.
Area #3AllpropertieswiththatareaboundedonthewestbyBaldwinAvenue, on
thenorthandeastbyColoradoStreetandonthesouthbythesoutherlytract
boundariesofTractNos. 14940and15318.
SantaAnitaVillage
Beginning atapointoneasterly line ofMichillinda Avenue, saidpointbeingthe
southwesterly corner ofLot36, TractNo.
15928; thenceeasterlyalongthesoutherly
boundary of saidTractNo. 15928 and TractNo. 14428toapointwhichisthe
northwesterly cornerofLot12, TractNo.
15960; thencesoutherlyalongthewesterly
lineofsaidLot12anditsprolongationthereoftoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineof
DeAnzaPlace; thencesoutherlyandeasterlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersection
with the centerlineof AlturaRoad;
thencesoutherlyalongsaidcenterlinetoits
intersection with the centerlineofHugoReid Drive; thenceeasterlyalongsaid
centerlinetoits intersection withthe centerlineofGolden WestAvenue; thence
northwesterlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineofTallacDrive;
thenceeasterlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersectionwiththeeasterlylineofTractNo.
13312; thencesoutherlyalongtheeasterlyandnortherlylinesofLots11through19of
saidtracttobenortheastcornerofsaidLot19; thenceeasterlyalongtheeasterly
prolongationofsaidLot19toitsintersectionwiththenorthwesterlycorneroflot74,
TractNo. 12786; thence easterlyalong the northerly lineofsaidtracttothe
northwesterly corner ofLot62 ofsaid TractNo.
12786; thencesoutherlyalongthe
westerlylineofsaidlotanditsprolongationthereoftoitsintersectionwiththecenterline
ofHugoReidDrive, thenceeasterlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersectionwiththe
northeasterlyprolongationoftheeasterlylineofTract12786; thencesoutherlyalong
saideasterlylineandalsotheeasterlylineofTractNo. 12104tothesoutheastcornerof
Lot129ofsaidTract12104; thencewesterlyalongthesoutherlylinesofTractNo.
12104, Tract 11688, andTract No. 11932 and
itswesterlyprolongationtoits
intersectionwiththecenterlineofCortezRoad; thencenortherlyalongsaidcenterlineto
itsintersectionwiththecenterlineofdistancea150' moreorlesstoapoint; thence
northerlytoapointonthenortherlylineofPortolaDrive, saidpointbeing140' westerly
fromthenorthwesterlycornerofPortolaDriveandCortezRoad, thencenortherlytothe
southwestcornerofLot28, Tract11932; thencenortherlyalongthewesterlylineofsaid
tractanditsprolongationthereoftoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineofBalboaDrive;
thencewesterlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersectionwiththecenterlineofSunset
Boulevard;
thencenorthwesterlyalongsaidcenterlinetoitsintersectionwiththe
southerlyprolongationoftheeasterlylineofMichillindaAvenue; thencenortherlyalong
saideasterlylinetothepointofbeginning, saidpointbeingthesouthwesterlycornerof
Lot36, TractNo. 15928.
20
STATEOFCALIFORNIA
COUNTYOFLOSANGELES ) SS:
CITYOFARCADIA
I, JAMESH. BARROWS, CityClerkoftheCityofArcadia, herebycertifiesthatthe
foregoingResolutionNo. 6770waspassedandadoptedbytheCityCounciloftheCityof
Arcadia, signedbytheMayorandattestedtobytheCityClerkataregularmeetingofsaid
Councilheldonthe3rddayofJanuary, 2012andthatsaidResolutionwasadoptedbythe
followingvote, towit:
AYES:CouncilMembersAmundson, SegalandKovacic
NOES:CouncilMembersChandlerandHarbicht
ABSENT: None
ge
ityClerkoftheCityofArcadia
21
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Photos of Fencing
Image 1. A site plan showing the location of the fences and gates. The easterly side yard fence and gate is approximately 95
feet from the front property line and the westerly side yard fence and gate is approximately 93 feet from the front property line.
Image 2. Photo of fence and gate adjacent to the house.
Locaton of fences and gates
Image 3. Portion of fence leading down to drainage gully.
Image 4. Portion of fence that crosses drainage gully.
Image 6. Photo of fence and gate on the west side of the property.
Image 5. Portion of fence adjacent to neighboring property.
Image 7. Photo of the easterly side yard fence and gate from the street.
Image 8. Photo of font yard fencing which is approximately 5’-0” in height.
Image 9. Photo of driveway gate which is approximately 10’-8” in height.
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 3
ARB Short Review Form
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 4
Owner’s Response Letter
1)
Modification Application Addendum
Project Address: 1061 Fallen Leaf Road Arcadia, CA 91007
I am requesting
that an exception be made (to AMC 9405.1)for the fencing to exceed the maximum allowable
height of 6'0" as well as permit the spears/spikes on the fencing for two main reasons:
a. Our main concern for this modification request is for the safety of our young grandchildren who
frequently play in the backyard. There have been several incidences where we have seen 3-4 coyotes
roam our backyard at one time, and they continue to visit
often. There is no telling when coyotes and
other animals will come onto our property and we are very concerned for our safety. We have a large
backyard
but cannot enjoy the space because we always feel uncomfortable going outside which is why
we had
to build the additionalfence so that we would feel comfortable being outside on our own
property.
b. We are requestingthis modification
to help reserve the originalcharacterof the home since this
property is considered
to be a historical landmark in the Upper Rancho area. The
originalfencing built
for the home also has spears/spikes so in taking the new fencing into consideration, we wanted to
replicate
the same look/feel
to ensure the consistency of the design.
This request for modification satisfies points (i). and (iii).
a. (i). The proposed fencing will allow for a safer, more secure environment for the residence , deterring
coyotes and other animals from coming onto the premises. The reason why the fence was
built higher
than the 6'0" is
because the elevation of the land is uneven; there is
a 5-6ft variance from where the
house resides (land level)to the lowest adjacent grade of where
the house slopes downward into the
dry creek. The dry creek is about 15-2Oft wide so if the fence was
built at a uniform height all across,
the
fence would still not be high
enough on every side to deter animals from crossing over at the lowest
adjacent point. The spears/spikes on the fence would also help prevent animals from being able
to cross
over onto the property since the side of the property (where the dry creek is) is more isolated and closer
to nature where
other animals reside. Moreover, from the curb, the house is
setback approximately
132
ft deep so the fence is not exposed from the street, rather it's hidden between the natural
landscape
of where
the creek resides.
b. (iii). As a homeowner/ reside nt of Arcadia fo r
the past 30+ yea rs, we have witnessed the new
developments which has slowly changed the look/feel and character of the neighborhood and
communitythatweresidein. Thispropertyisoneoftheonlyremainingoriginalcolonial homesinthe
area (built in
tþe 1930s)where
the physical
look/feelof the home has remained in its originalform and
we would like to continue
to preserve the character of the home as a historical landmark in
this area.
For
this reason, we wanted
to ensure that any additionalfencing added onto the home (even for safety
reasons)
mimic
the same original look/feel of the property to appear as if no modifications were ever
made. Before putting up the fence, we put a lot of thought into ensuring that the additional
development was going
to be
uniform to the existing house/neighborhood so not disturb the curb
appealof the home in its
entirety.
2l
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information &
Photos of Subject Property and Vicinity
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of ArcadiaD
n/a
n/a
n/a
Property Owner(s):
Architectural Design Overlay:
Downtown Overlay:
Special Height Overlay:
Parking Overlay:
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
General Plan:
R-O (30,000)
Number of Units:
RE
Zoning:
Property Characteristics
1938
7,769
0
WEI,SHI TUNG AND MARY
Site Address:
1061 FALLEN LEAF RD
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current,
or otherwise reliable.
Report generated08-Jun-2015
Page 1 of 1
Photo of subject property, 1061 Fallen Leaf Road
Photo of the neighboring property to the east, 1051 Fallen Leaf Road
Photo of neighboring property to the southeast, 1044 Fallen Leaf Road
Photo of neighboring property to the south, 1060 Fallen Leaf Road
Photo of neighboring property to the southwest, 1070 Fallen Leaf Road
Photo of neighboring property to the west, 1101 Fallen Leaf Road
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No. 6
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project: An Appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners’
Association Architectural Review Board’s denial of the design of
the existing side yard fencing and consideration of Modification
Application No. MP 15-04
2. Project Location – Identify street
address and cross streets or attach
a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
1061 Fallen Leaf Road (between Hampton Road and Dexter
Avenue)
3. Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name Shi Tung Wei
(2) Address 1061 Fallen Leaf Road
Arcadia, CA 91006
4. Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment
because:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. The project is an Emergency Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15303 (Class 3, New Construction of Accessory
Structures)
f. The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. The project is otherwise exempt
on the following basis:
h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date: July 2, 2015 Staff: Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner