HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 1 - 2011 Highland Oaks Dr. HOA AppealDATE: May 26, 2020
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
By: Christine Song, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 20-01 AND MINOR
ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. MINOR AM 20-09 WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPEALING THE
HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD’S DENIAL OF A PROPOSED FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE STORY RESIDENCE AT 2011
HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE
Recommendation: Approve with Recommended Changes
SUMMARY
The Appellant and property owner, Ms. Julie Wu is appealing the Highlands Home
Owners’ Association Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) denial on April 2, 2020 of a
regular review application to allow the construction of a first and second story addition to
an existing one story residence located at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive. The Highlands ARB
denied the property owner’s request for the addition and redesign as they were unable to
make the necessary findings to support the project. The Highlands ARB determined that
the project was inconsistent with the City’s Single Family Residential Design Guidelines.
The Appellant filed an appeal of the Highlands ARB’s denial on April 13, 2020. It is
recommended that the Planning Commission approve the appeal, with the recommended
changes to the overall project.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 12,270 square foot interior lot improved with a 1,960 square
foot, one story single family residence and an attached two-car garage built in 1960 (see
Figure 1). The property is zoned R-1 (10,000), Low Density Residential and is located
within the Highlands Homeowners’ Association area – refer to Attachment No. 2 for an
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 2 of 14
aerial photo with zoning information and photos of the subject property and surrounding
properties.
In 2018, the Appellant and property owner, Julie Wu submitted a regular review
application to the Highlands ARB for a first and second story addition project. The
proposed project was designed in the Ranch style of the existing home. In response to
the Highlands ARB’s comments regarding height, massing, and overall design, the
Appellant revised the project to a French Country style home with a lowered height and
reduced the overall mass. After several rounds of comments, additional revisions to the
plans, and three public hearings, the Highlands ARB denied the project on August 16,
2019, based on massing, height, and neighborhood compatibility concerns. The general
consensus of the Highlands ARB was that the French Country style was not being
properly executed and that they wanted to see a story pole installation to see a visual
representation of the proposed building height. The Appellant declined to install story
poles on her home as it was a costly service and it was not a standard requirement of the
application process.
In November 2019, the Appellant submitted a new regular review application to the
Highlands ARB for a first and second story addition project. In an effort to address the
Highlands ARB’s previous concerns with a two-story project, the Appellant made the
following changes to the revised design:
x Instead of the French Country style, the Appellant went back to a Ranch style but
with significant changes to the overall design to better blend in with the traditional
and modest atmosphere of the neighborhood.
Figure 1 - Existing One Story Residence on Subject Property
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 3 of 14
x Lowered the roof pitch from 5:12 to 4:12 (on both floors).
x Decreased total building height from 27’-2” to 24’-9” (maximum building height is
27’-0”).
x Shifted the rear half of the second story addition to provide a greater side yard
setback to further minimize privacy impacts to the south neighbor at 2001 Highland
Oaks Drive.
x Added dormer windows to the second story to provide articulation along the
roofline.
The Appellant worked through several rounds of comments with the Highlands ARB Chair
regarding the floor plan, window details, roof pitch, and a story pole installation. The
proposed project was reviewed through the regular review application process by the
Highlands ARB at a public hearing on April 2, 2020. The meeting was held through a
teleconference call due to COVID-19. According to the meeting minutes provided by the
Highlands ARB (refer to Attachment No. 3), a total of 22 members of the public spoke on
the project. Of the 22 speakers, 13 individuals spoke in opposition of the project with
concerns about visual massing, architectural style, scale, height, building materials and
neighborhood compatibility. The Highlands ARB continued to have concerns with the
revised design mostly with the overall mass and building height. At the meeting, several
members of the Highlands ARB once again requested the installation of story poles to
visually represent the second story addition. However, the Appellant ultimately declined
to complete the story pole installation because it was not an application requirement and
instead provided a computer simulated diagram to demonstrate the line of sight from the
street. After deliberation, the Highlands ARB unanimously denied the project on the basis
that the project was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of massing,
scale, and height, therefore inconsistent with the City’s Single Family Design Guidelines
(refer to Attachment No. 3 for the ARB Findings and Action Report and ARB Minutes).
On April 13, 2020, the Appellant and property owner, Ms. Julie Wu filed an appeal of the
Highland ARB’s decision to deny her application (refer to Attachment No. 1). The
Appellant objects to the Highland ARB’s Findings and Action Report and states that her
project was mistakenly denied based on erroneous evaluations within the findings. The
Appellant also states that the proposed design is in harmony with the neighborhood and
has been designed to minimize negative impacts to their neighbors.
PROPOSAL
The Appellant is requesting approval for a 260 square foot one-story addition, a new 1,140
square foot second-story addition, a new 50 square foot covered front porch, a 170 square
foot addition to the rear porch, and a significant remodel of the existing Ranch style, one-
story residence. The proposed one-story addition includes a modification to maintain an
existing 8’-0” side yard setback (north side) in lieu of the required 8’-8”. Overall, the
proposal consists of 3,360 square feet of floor area and 2,974 square feet in lot coverage;
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 4 of 14
these are both within the maximum allowable square footage for the subject property. The
table below outlines the project specifications.
Development
Code Maximum
Existing House Proposed Project
Floor Area: 4,067 square feet 1,960 square feet 3,360 square feet
Lot Coverage: 4,294 square feet 2,606 square feet 2,974 square feet
Setbacks:
Front
Side
Rear
25’
8’-8” (1st floor)
17’-6” (2nd floor)
25’ (1st floor)
35’ (2nd floor)
34’-10”
8’-0” (north), 10’-11” (south)
56’
34’
8’-0” (north), 10’-11” (south)
24’-4”(north), 24’-11” (south)
45’-2”
45’-2”
Height: 27’ 17’-2” 24’-9”
DESIGN REVIEW AUTHORITY
2010 Arcadia General Plan
The 2010 Arcadia General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element establishes
the significance of urban design and neighborhood character to residents of Arcadia.
According to the Arcadia General Plan, the City’s character and amenities make Arcadia
a very desirable place to live. One of the guiding principles of the Land Use and
Community Design Element is that Arcadia’s single-family and multifamily residential
neighborhoods have given the City its identity as a Community of Homes. The City
protects and preserves the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring
harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable principles.
Further, the Land Use and Community Design Element contains specific policies related
single-family development.
Relevant polices related to the project include:
x 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.
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 5 of 14
x Policy LU-3.5: Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill
developments be sensitive to neighborhood context, building forms, scale, and
colors.
x Policy LU-3.7: Ensure that the design and scale of new and remodeled single-
family residential buildings are appropriate to their context.
Design Guidelines
Consistent with the Land Use and Community Design Elements goals and policies, City
Council Resolution No. 7272 sets forth the City’s Single-Family Residential Design
Guidelines, which apply to all new construction and remodeling of single-family houses.
The Single Family Design Guidelines contain specific guidelines related to second story
additions, including:
x Site Planning
o Guideline 1a. The location, configuration, size, and design of new buildings
and structures, or the alteration or enlargement of existing structures,
should be visually harmonious with their respective sites and compatible
with the character and quality of their surroundings.
x Forms and Mass
o Guideline 2g. Building elements that emphasize a structure’s verticality are
generally discouraged.
o Guideline 2i. Where a new second-story home or addition is proposed
within a predominantly one-story neighborhood, second story massing
should be located to the rear or side of a home to minimize the appearance
of the second story.
o Guideline 2j. Proposed height and bulk should respect existing structures
on neighboring properties and not overwhelm them with disproportionate
size and scale.
x Frontage Conditions
o Guideline 3c. Homes should not have significantly greater height and bulk
at the front of a property than that of adjacent homes.
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 6 of 14
x Height, Bulk and Scale
o Guideline 6d. Second floor massing should be stepped back to minimize
impacts on adjacent neighbors and the streetscape.
o Guideline 6f. Proposed first and second floor plate heights should consider
existing plate heights established within the immediate neighborhood.
x Hillside Properties
o Guideline 15e. The proposed design of the structure on a hillside, including
minimal grading of the site, should incorporate development techniques
which demonstrate sensitivity to the natural terrain, such as split-level
design or second story step-backs from downhill slopes, reduced building
pads, and roof pitches that parallel existing slopes.
Homeowners Associations
City Council Resolution No. 7272 clearly establishes HOA specific development
standards and design review procedures that apply to the properties within the five City-
designated Homeowners’ Association areas. City Council Resolution No. 7272
establishes, among other things, an ARB’s design review authority for both “regular” and
“short” review processes. Section 4.A.1 of Resolution No. 7272 specifies that the ARB
shall have the authority to review and approve new structures, additions, alterations, or
other façade improvements to existing structures. Section 5.B of Resolution No. 7272
sets forth standards for ARB decisions and appeals, and further establishes that the
decisions of the ARB and any decision making body hearing an appeal of an ARB
decision shall be in accordance with Divisions 7 and 8 of the Development Code.
ANALYSIS
The subject property is located within the Highlands Homeowners’ Association area.
Highland Oaks Drive begins just north of E. Foothill Blvd. and splits at the intersection of
Elkins Avenue and Oaks Place. This portion of Highland Oaks Drive is north of Elkins
Avenue and the immediate neighborhood predominantly consists of one story homes in
various traditional architectural styles. Two properties along this portion of Highland Oaks
Drive have two story homes; one is located next door to the north of the project site at
2017 Highland Oaks Drive and the other is located across the street at 2012 Highland
Oaks Drive. The Appellant states in her appeal letter (refer to Attachment No. 1) that her
family has lived in this neighborhood for 14 years and that they have always strived to be
considerate of their neighbors. Due to a growing need for more living space for a family
of six, the Appellant began the regular review application process for her addition project
in April 2018. After two years of working with the Highlands ARB on several iterations of
her project, consulting with City staff on Code requirements, and attending four public
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 7 of 14
hearings, the Appellant states in her appeal letter that her project was mistakenly denied.
She chose not to appeal the first denial of the French Country design because she did
not particularly desire that style of home to begin with and she decided to further reduce
the scale of the project. The Appellant states that the most recent design of her proposed
first and second story addition (see Figure 2) is compatible with the neighborhood in terms
of massing, scale, and height for the following reasons:
x A second story is being added to the existing structure by increasing the total
height by only 7’-7”.
x The proposed 4:12 roof pitch is appropriate for the home and found on many
homes throughout the Highlands Homeowners’ Association Area.
x The proposed size of the home is modest and well under the maximum allowable
square footage by Code.
The Appellant also states that the Highlands ARB repeatedly disregarded the perspective
views provided in the drawings and asked her to do a story pole installation on her house.
The Appellant asserts that the Highlands ARB should not ask homeowners to do anything
that is outside of the standard requirements of the application process and that it should
not have been a factor in denying her project.
Figure 2 – Proposed Design of First and Second Story Addition
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 8 of 14
Highlands ARB’s Findings
In their denial of the proposed project, the Highlands ARB found the project to be
inconsistent with the Single Family Design Guidelines due to massing, height, and scale.
The Findings and Action Report dated April 2, 2020 (refer to Attachment No. 3) states
that the proposed two-story home would not complement the neighborhood as adjacent
homes are single story and split-level homes, so the project would stand out with
emphasized massing and height. The Highlands ARB asserted that the height of the
proposed structure could be additionally reduced with a lower roof pitch and a lower plate
height of 8.5 feet or less on the second floor. Additionally, elements in the roofline such
as the second story dormers, eaves and windows were noted as accentuating the overall
verticality of the project. The Highlands ARB concluded that the proposed project was not
consistent with the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines mainly due to the scale
of the project within the context of the surrounding neighborhood and the inability to
integrate the two-story design appropriately into the existing streetscape. The Highlands
ARB did not state any concerns with privacy impacts, architectural style, articulation, or
the proposed colors and materials.
Staff’s Analysis
Although staff agrees that there are some elements in the proposed design that could be
modified to further ensure compatibility with the neighborhood, a two-story home is a
feasible project in this location. In staff’s observation of the neighborhood, the existing
house on the subject property was not highly visible when driving north (uphill) on
Highland Oaks Drive. As the road curves upward, it gives the perception that each home
appears taller than the last. The two story home at 2017 Highland Oaks Drive (north
neighbor) is located closer to the street than the subject property, sits at a lower grade,
and is 28’-2” in height. In comparison, the proposed project provides greater setbacks,
has an overall height of 24’-9”, and would be visually and physically shorter in height than
the north neighbor. Additionally, there are a number of tall mature trees located along the
southerly property line that will remain and further screen the proposed second story
addition from the street and from the south neighbor at 2001 Highland Oaks Drive (see
Figure 3, a rendering provided by the Appellant).
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 9 of 14
With respect to the massing of the proposed addition, staff finds that the second story is
adequately stepped back from the front and sides of the existing structure and is visually
anchored by the larger first story in order to avoid a “pop-up” appearance. The visual
massing of the home is minimized by placing the second story at the rear of the home,
which is strongly recommended by the Single Family Design Guidelines. When viewed
from the street, the project would not look significantly greater in height and bulk than the
adjacent neighbors due to the natural incline of the street. However, in an effort to further
mitigate massing concerns, the project could benefit from a reduction in the roof pitch
going from 4:12 to 3:12 and a lowering of the second floor plate height to 8.5 feet to be
consistent with the first floor height since this is not a new residence and the new second
floor should match the height of the first floor. This would result in decreasing the overall
height and thereby minimizing the overall massing of the structure when viewed from the
street by 1’-6”, with a new height of 23’-3” (proposed at 24’-9”).
In terms of architectural style, the proposed project offers a two story Ranch style home
that is architecturally consistent within the neighborhood context. Similar design
characteristics are shared with neighboring homes including broad eave overhangs,
dormer windows, lap siding, stone veneers, and neutral earth tone colors – these features
help the home blend in with the existing streetscape. However, staff recommends
reducing the sizes of the windows on the second floor along the front elevation to be
consistent and proportional to the windows on the first floor. When reducing the size of
the second floor windows, the dormers will also need to be modified to provide adequate
surrounds and spacing for the windows. Reducing the window and dormer sizes will help
to minimize the visual verticality of the structure as well. Although the ARB’s denial of the
proposed project was due to lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, staff
observed that Highland Oaks Drive exhibits two story and split level homes with similar
architectural elements as the proposed project. The proposed second story addition is
Figure 3 – Street View Rendering (Provided by the Appellant)
2001 Highland Oaks
Project Site 2017 Highland Oaks
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 10 of 14
designed in a manner that mitigates privacy concerns of both adjacent neighbors by
adding only one window on each side. Neither of these windows will have any direct
sightlines into adjacent homes, therefore significant impacts to privacy are not anticipated.
With respect to size and scale, approval of this project would result in the subject property
having the largest home along this portion of Highland Oaks Drive. The average size of
a home along this street is 2,683 square feet. However, a neighborhood study by staff
indicates that this would not be the largest home within a 300-foot radius of the property
(see Figure 4). In fact, there are three existing homes along Oaks Place and Elkins Place
that are larger in square footage than the Appellant’s proposed project, which is proposed
to be 3,360 square feet. Furthermore, the adjacent neighbor to the north at 2017 Highland
Oaks Drive has a home measuring 3,275 square feet, which is not much larger than the
proposed project.
Alternatively, designing a one-story addition project instead of the proposed second story
addition would come with limitations. In order to construct a 1,140 square foot one story
addition (equal to the size of the proposed second story addition) at the rear of the existing
home, a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet is required. In addition to the required rear
yard setback, the minimum distance between a structure and the toe of a slope is five
feet, per Code. Based on the ascending slope and location of the existing retaining wall
in the rear yard (see Figure 5 and refer to Attachment No. 4 for the drawings), a 1,140
square foot one story addition at the rear would cover more than 3/4 of the total rear yard
area. The existing swimming pool would have to be removed. From a practical standpoint,
this would result in leaving no usable space in the rear yard for the home owner.
Figure 4 – Properties Within 300-foot of Project Site With Larger Homes
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 11 of 14
With the recommended changes to the overall height, scale, and design as listed below,
Staff finds the proposed project to be consistent with many of the Single Family
Residential Design Guidelines, is compatible with the general surrounding areas, and
could adequately fit in with the streetscape.
Recommended Changes:
x Reduce the roof pitch from 4:12 to 3:12 on both floors.
x Lower the second floor plate height from 9 feet to 8.5 feet.
x Decrease window sizes on the second floor front elevation to be proportional to
the window sizes on the first floor front elevation.
x Modify the second floor dormers appropriately to accommodate the new window
sizes.
FINDINGS
The proposed project is also subject to a Minor Administrative Modification to allow a
portion of the proposed first story addition to encroach into the required 8’-8” side yard
setback. The addition will reduce the side yard setback to 8’-0”. Section 9107.05.050 of
the Arcadia Development Code states that the purpose of the Modification procedures is
for the following:
1. Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot;
Figure 5 – Aerial View of Project Site
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 12 of 14
2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or
3. Promote uniformity of development
The Modification request would secure an appropriate improvement of the subject
property. The proposed first story addition is part of a larger plan to remodel the existing
home to create a more usable space for the property owner’s family needs. The proposed
addition will maintain an existing 8’-0” side yard setback and align with the existing house
along the north elevation. If required to comply with the minimum 8’-8” side yard setback,
the addition would be off set and look imbalanced. The proposed first story addition will
comply with the rear yard setback and will not have any negative visual impacts from
public view.
For the reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission
approve HOA Appeal No. 20-01 with the recommended changes in the conditions of
approval and overturn the decision of the Highlands ARB to deny the regular review
application for a first and second story addition at the subject property.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption for Existing Facilities from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 of
the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 7 for the Preliminary Exemption
Assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for this appeal were mailed to the owners of the properties that are
located within 300 feet of the subject property and published in Arcadia Weekly on May
14, 2020. Staff received 12 comments from neighbors in opposition of the project and
eight comments in support of the project (refer to Attachment No. 5).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission find that this project is Categorically
Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approve
Homeowners’ Association Appeal No. HOA 20-01 subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. Prior to submitting for Building plan check, the Owner/Appellant shall submit
revised plans to the Development Services Department that are consistent with
the Planning Commission’s direction, subject to the approval of the Planning &
Community Development Administrator, or designee.
2. The roof pitch on both floors shall not exceed 3:12.
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 13 of 14
3. The second floor plate height shall not be taller than 8.5 feet.
4. Window sizes on the second floor front elevation shall be reduced to be
proportional to the window sizes on the first floor front elevation, subject to
approval of the Planning & Community Development Administrator, or designee.
In addition, the second floor dormers shall be modified appropriately to
accommodate the new window sizes.
5. The project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as
applicable:
a. California Building Code
b. California Electrical Code
c. California Mechanical Code
d. California Plumbing Code
e. California Energy Code
f. California Fire Code
g. California Green Building Standards Code
h. California Existing Building Code
i. Arcadia Municipal code
6. The Appellant 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.
7. Approval of HOA 20-01 shall not be of effect unless the Property Owner/Appellant
has executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar
days after the Planning Commission has approved the appeal. The Acceptance
Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and
acceptance of the conditions of approval.
HOA Appeal No. 20-01
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
May 26, 2020 – Page 14 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB denial
of the design, the Commission should pass a motion to approve Appeal No. HOA 20-01
and Modification No. Minor AM 20-09, subject to the conditions of approval in the staff
report, stating that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines,
and/or City Council Resolution No. 7272, and that the project is exempt per Section 15301
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Denial of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB denial of the
design, the Commission should pass a motion to deny Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and
Modification No. Minor AM 20-09, stating that the proposed project is not consistent with
the City’s Design Guidelines, and/or City Council Resolution 7272.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the May 26, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting, please
contact Christine Song, Associate Planner by calling (626) 574-5447, or by email to
csong@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Appeal Application
Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property
and Vicinity
Attachment No. 3: Highlands ARB Meeting Minutes and ARB Findings and Action
Report
Attachment No. 4: Architectural Drawings
Attachment No. 5: Public Comments
Attachment No. 6: Homeowners Association Resolution No. 7272
Attachment No. 7: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 1
Appeal Application
Appeal -1- 2/17
APPEAL NO. ____________
APPEAL APPLICATION
SUBJECT OF APPEAL
APPLICATION TYPE AND NUMBER(S): _______________________________________________________________
PROJECT ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________________________________
DATE THE DECISION BEING APPEALED WAS RENDERED: _____________________________________________
APPELLANT INFORMATION OWNER INFORMATION
NAME ________________________________________ NAME __________________________________________
(Appellant First & Last Name) (Owner First & Last Name)
MAILING ADDRESS ____________________________ MAILING ADDRESS _______________________________
CITY ________________ STATE _______ ZIP _______ CITY ________________ STATE _______ ZIP _________
PHONE ______________________________________ PHONE ________________________________________
E-MAIL _______________________________________ E-MAIL ________________________________________
APPEAL INFORMATION:
In accordance with the procedures set forth in the Municipal Code of the City of Arcadia, I hereby appeal
the decision of the following review authority:
܆ Director or Designee’s Decision ܆ Planning Commission
܆ Modification Committee ܆ Homeowner’s Association (please specify):
_________________________________________
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:
On a separate sheet, explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and the reason for the
appeal.
SIGNATURES
The appellant hereby declares under penalty of perjury that all the information submitted for this appeal
is true and correct.
Appellant Signature Date
Property Owner Signature Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Filed Receipt No. Amount $ Received By
20-01
Appeal to HOA's decision on Regular Review
2011 Higland Oaks Ave
4/2/2020
Julie Wu Julie Wu
2011 Highland Oaks Ave 2011 Highland Oaks Ave
Arcadia CA
91006 Arcadia CA 91006
tarngching@yahoo.com tarngching@yahoo.com
Highlands Homeowner's Association
✔
Appeal -2- 2/17
CITY OF ARCADIA
APPEAL APPLICATION
INSTRUCTIONS AND FILING REQUIREMENTS WORKSHEET
REASON FOR APPEAL
Is the entire decision or only parts of it being appealed?܆ Entire ܆ Part
Are specific conditions of approval being appealed?܆ Yes ܆ No
,I<HVOLVWWKHFRQGLWLRQQXPEHU V KHUH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Attach a separate sheet(s) providing your reasons for the appeal and specifically state the point(s) at
issue.
FILING REQUIREMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In order for an appeal to be processed without delay, the appeal application must include the following
materials. To ensure that the appeal application is complete, please check-off the boxes next to the
following required materials:
܆ Completed appeal application form
܆An Ownership Disclosure is required if the property is owned by a corporation, partnership, trust, or
non-profit. The disclosure must reveal the agent for service of process or an officer of the ownership
entity. The disclosure must list the names and addresses of all the owners and you must attach a
copy of the current corporate articles, partnership agreement, trust, or non-profit document, as
applicable.
܆ Filing fee
܆Reason for Appeal
܆ A Radius Map and Property Owner’s List and Labels (If the appeal is by the applicant and/or
property owner)
x The radius map accompanying the application must show each lot within the required radius
of the property involved. Each lot must be consecutively numbered to correspond to the
property owners list as explained below.
x Property owners list and labels of the subject property as well as all properties within the
radius.
x The property owners list and labels should be typewritten and must include each owner's
name, mailing address, and property assessment identification numbers (AIN).
x Each property owner's name on this list must be numbered to correspond with the
numbering placed on the aforesaid radius map.
܆ HOA Appeals: ARB Findings and Action form is required when the applicant and/or property owner
is filing the appeal.
܆ Architectural Plans
Please note that a Planner may contact you if additional information is necessary prior to the hearing.
✔
✔
Property address: 2011 Highland Oaks Dr; Owner: Julie Wu
I am appealing the 4/2/2020 Highlands ARB’s Findings and Action Report on my
proposed project. Thank you for your time and consideration of our appeal. So you can
see that we have always acted in consideration of our neighborhood and to minimize
visual massing, it is imperative I to share with you the beginnings of this remodel
journey we have been on that started in April 2018.
When we started this project with our architects, we wanted a 5 BR/3 car two story
home. We know you and the ARB never saw this plan. Being sensitive to our
neighborhood, we’ve reduced it to a 4BR/2 car two story home, with only 3360 sq ft, a
4:12 roof pitch, and 24’-9” total height. With four children, we still desire a fifth bedroom
and a larger living space, but we are not willing to compromise our neighborhood. We
are committed to our neighborhood, where we have lived for 14 years. We are not
developers. We are not building an ornate palace, but a humble and elegant home for
our family.
My project was mistakenly denied because of 3 things. (1) reasonings behind their
findings are erroneous, (2) the standard of visual massing as set forth in Resolution No.
7272 (formerly Resolution No. 6670) was not appropriately applied, and (3) there has
been abuse of discretion by the ARB.
(1) ARB reasonings behind the findings are erroneous
I object to the ARB reasonings that my project is not consistent with Guidelines with
respect to Site Planning, Massing, Frontage Conditions, Height, Bulk & Scale, Hillside
Properties, and Affect on Adjacent Properties and Neighborhood.
The topography of my property lot, the street, foliage, and surrounding buildings reduce
visual massing. South of my property, a generous 2nd floor side setback of 24’-4”~26’-
8” (average lot width is 90’, allowed side setback is 18’), 3 large tall trees and other tall
foliage obstructs the view of a second story structure. The perspective views or the use
of the naked eye clearly show the project would not tower over our South
neighbor. West of our property, (our backyard neighbors’ side), tall foliage as well as
large rear setback of 49’~60’-2” obstructs the view of a second story structure. North of
my property , a generous 2nd floor side setback of 24’-11” is proposed instead of the
allowed 18’. Our neighbor’s house has a front setback of 25’-4”, much less than ours
(45’-7” on the North for the first floor, 54’ for the second floor). Their large gable-roofed
balcony expanding more than half the width of their house’s frontage, and 3 large
French doors (8’8” H X 7’4” W) in the front, give the appearance of grandness to their
house. Due to the principle of relative size, our proposed house appears much smaller
in comparison. My house is also on an elevated lot, which further reduces visual
massing, as the visual angle is smaller than it would be if the lot were flat. This causes
the visual image to be smaller. Finally, from the East side (Frontage), foliage at various
locations partially obstruct the views of our project at every angle of view. Our very
large front setback, 34’-10”-45’7” (first floor), 46’6”-54’ (second floor), has a significant
impact of visual massing, as objects further away appear smaller.
Our project proposal is a compromised version of our original two story ranch style
house, with a total of 3360 SF. From our first two-story ranch proposal in 2018, we
have reduced the roof pitch to 4:12 (from 5:12), reduced total building height to 24’9”
(from 27’-2”), moved the rear half of the second story 3’ to the North to address our
South neighbor’s concerns about privacy (though privacy is not affected either way),
and added 2 gabled windows on the 2nd story to break up the roof. It is notable that we
are adding a second story by increasing total building height by only 7’7” (current house
is 17’2” total height). A total roof height of 24’9” for a property with 88 feet frontage is
modest and well under the maximum allowed of 30 feet. A ceiling height of 9' is the
norm today. The reason we maintained the ceiling height of the first floor at 8' is to
compromise on the total height as well as keep the existing structure as much as
possible. The 2X6 stud comes with standard height of 104-5/8", add 2-2x6 blocking,
another 3" and other elements, to make the ceiling height 9'. Lower the ceiling height to
8'-6" doesn't make much difference, but every stud needs be cut accurately to 6", so it
does make a significant difference when it comes to creating a lot of waste and extra
work. Further, 8' for the 1st floor and 9' for the second floor will not appear out of
proportion because the 2nd floor is much smaller than the 1st floor, and the lower roof
of the 1st floor extends to the walls of the 2nd floor, making the 1st floor appear taller
and the 2nd floor shorter.
With respect to Hillside Properties- From A10 section 2, The roof pitch is roughly
parallel to the slope at the centerline of the front yard. The view angle is roughly 24
degrees to the top of the gabled roof of the dormers on the second floor, and 22
degrees to the roof without the gabled roofs. From a 6’ person standing on the street
close to the curb on the same side of the street, these two angles show that the
verticality is mild. This person can’t even see the roof on the second floor unless (s)he
walks 14’-7” away from the curb, which reduces the massing of the second floor roof
further.
Our total living area sq ft of 3360 is modest and well under the standard maximum
allowed of 4067 sq.ft. (per FAR), and possible maximum allowed of 4435 sq.ft. (3%
bonus). We are intentionally not building to the maximum FAR to be sensitive to the
community, as total square footage inevitably dictates mass. There are many homes
comparable in size and even larger in the neighborhood. This holds true whether you
look at proximate homes, on the same street, within 2-3 blocks, within several blocks, or
throughout the entire Highlands.
The ARB request to further reduce roof pitch to 3:12 is unreasonable. Our proposal is
already a compromise, a much reduced roof pitch of 4:12. Most homes have a roof
pitch at least 5:12. Any less introduces the problem of inadequate drainage, which
increases the risk of roof leakage. It also makes it significantly more difficult to make
repairs in the attic, as head clearance would be only 3’2”. Space for the FAU (Forced
Air Unit) also becomes an issue. But most importantly, because of our elevated lot, with
a 4:12 pitch, you see the front fascia of the house and only a small portion of the 2nd
floor roof if at all. You cannot see the roofline. As explained previously, a 6’ person
would only start seeing any of the second floor roof when standing 14’-7” away from our
street curve. Beyond this point, this person would start to see a little roof, but still
significantly less than the roof shown on the elevations. And you cannot see the mass
behind the front fascia. Therefore, while a 3:12 pitch would technically reduce the
building height, one cannot see the difference. Effectively then, changing pitch to 3:12
has a null impact on visual massing.
The ARB was erroneous to conclude that the 2 gabled windows on the second story
increases the structure’s verticality and massing. A 4:12 pitch is very conservative for
such gables. (These windows/dormers/gables are also reduced from our previous
French country proposal. The width is reduced from 8’ to 6’5”, pitch from 11:12 to
4:12). The gabled windows serve an important purpose, to break up the roof/eave line
of the front facade, thereby reducing the visual mass of the roof. They also add
aesthetic value.
Lastly, the ARB erroneously concludes that a 9’ second story roof plate “does not
consider existing second story plate heights established within the immediate
neighborhood of 8.5 feet or less. Including a larger plate height than the first floor and
what is established in the area,” leading to further conclusion that “does not complement
the predominant massing types of the neighborhood.” Resolution 7272 (Section 4.1.ii)
states “To promote harmony and compatibility is not to promote sameness, uniformity, a
specific architectural style, or a certain time period.” That there are no houses with a
second floor roof plate equal to or greater than 9’, is in and of itself irrelevant. As
previously described, many features and compromises of the proposed project mitigate
visual massing and ensure compatibility. The ARB also did not consider Resolution
7272 (Section 4.1.ii) “It is determined that each building...within each HOA area should
exhibit a consistent...and be harmonious and compatible...It is acknowledged that
architecture (and neighborhoods in general) evolve and change over time and this will
be considered through the review process.”
(2) The standard of visual massing as set forth in Resolution No. 7272 (previously
Resolution No. 6670) was not accurately applied. The ARB has repeatedly
minimized the perspective views we have presented. Instead, they have focused on the
2-D drawings of the project. Visual massing is synonymous to visual perspective which
is synonymous to perspective view. The human visual system cannot measure size. It
perceives size, and there are many factors that affect visual perception (some examples
include relative size, size of visual image, distance, visual cues, emotions). The
completed project will never be perceived as the 2-D drawings depict. The Perspective
drawings and Google map computer simulations show how the proposed project would
look in reality, from multiple views in relation to the streetscape and surrounding
buildings. These drawings do not require the ability to visualize and imagine what is not
there. With the computer simulations, you get to see the proposed project as though it
were completed. Even with the naked eye, one can approximate and visualize the
second story setbacks, the roofline, and appreciate how the topography, foliage, and
surrounding buildings affect visual massing.
The ARB also did not apply the standard of visual massing when they focused on the
technicality that reducing roof pitch to 3:12 reduces total height by 16”. While this is
technically true, the height difference cannot be perceived. The reduction in height is in
the roof height. Due to the elevated lot, one already sees little, if any, of a second story
4:12 roof, as explained earlier. Reducing to 3:12 is a null difference in visual massing.
The standard of visual massing was also not applied when they considered our North
neighbor’s home as not a two story house, but technically, a bilevel. But a bilevel has a
two story element, therefore it is two stories. And most importantly, it looks like a two
story house (visual perspective!). The error they made here is considering their own
perception rather than that of the general public. After all, visual massing is all about
the public view, not the ARB members’ view. The typical neighbor is a lay person who
is not skilled in the building profession. This lay person would see my North neighbor’s
house as what it appears to be, a two-story house. The ARB also did not consider the
previously described features of this neighbor’s house that reduce the visual massing of
our project.
(3) there has been abuse of discretion by the ARB
Resolution No. 7272 (Section 6.H) states “The ARB...shall not create or apply its own
standards or policies relating to design and development...” During the 3rd public
hearing (Aug 16, 2019) on my project, the ARB requested that I construct a pole
representation of the second story roof. When I refused with supporting reasons
(insufficient justification, not standard, and we already provided extensive drawings that
far exceeded standards), they unanimously voted to deny my project. We addressed
the issue with City Planning Administrator, Lisa Flores, (Aug 21, 2019). To my
understanding, the ARB was then informed that they cannot ask homeowners to do
what is non-standard. But the ARB continued to insist on the pole representation on 4
additional occasions (Sep 24, 2019, Dec 18, 2019, Jan 9, 2020, April 2, 2020). The
last time, April 2, 2020, was at the public hearing. Three ARB members insisted on the
pole representation:
x Lee Kuo - “I asked for the story poles at the last hearing... Without it, it would be
very difficult to get a second story approved.”
x David Arvizu - “It’s questionable the accuracy of what we see in the drawings is
what would be reality...want the poles.”
x Patrick Cronin - “I concur with the rest of the ARB in wanting the poles. I can’t
make a decision without it.”
Despite the Action Findings/Decision Report did not discuss this insistence of the ARB
on constructing a pole representation, it was clearly a factor in the ARB’s decision to
deny my project.
In conclusion, we have designed a home with respectful and thoughtful intentions, with
sensitivity to our neighbors and harmony with the neighborhood. We hope you can
appreciate the efforts and sacrifices we have made to achieve a home that minimizes
visual massing without compromising the elegance of a home befitting of a high value
neighborhood in our beautiful Highlands.
Thank you for your consideration of my project proposal.
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information &
Photos of the Subject Property and Vicinity
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
N/A
Property Owner(s):
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
R-1 (10,000)
Number of Units:
VLDR
Property Characteristics
1960
1,960
1
WU HSIEH,JULIE
Site Address:2011 HIGHLAND OAKS DR
Parcel Number: 5765-009-002
N/A
Zoning:
General Plan:
N/A
Downtown Overlay:
Downtown Parking Overlay:
Architectural Design Overlay:Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residential Flex Overlay:
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Special Height Overlay:
N/A
Parking Overlay:
Racetrack Event Overlay:
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 generated 18-May-2020
Page 1 of 1
Project Site – 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
South of Project Site – 2001 Highland Oaks Drive
North of Project Site – 2017 Highland Oaks Drive
Southeast of Project Site – 2000 Highland Oaks Drive
East of Project Site – 2012 Highland Oaks Drive
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 3
Highlands ARB Meeting Minutes and ARB
Findings and Action Report
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 4
Proposed Architectural Drawings
$7,7/( 6,7(3/$1$(;,67,1*)/2253/$1$)/2253/$16+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$ 6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,216,7(3/$16&$/(
,1'(;'()(55(''2&80(1761(::$//(;,67,1*:$//72%(5(029('6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$ $'5,9(:$< ( /$1'6&$3( ( /$1'6&$3( ( /$1'6&$3( ( /$1'6&$3( ( 322/72%(5('8&('3$5.:$<3$5.:$< ( ( &21&5(7( ( (3$1(/ ( $&/$1'6&$3( ( /$1'6&$3( ( /$1'6&$3( ( &21&5(7( ( &21&5(7( ( /$1'6&$3( ( /$1'6&$3( ( $& ( 1(:(;,67,1*
&08:$//(;,67,1*
&08:$//(;,67,1*
&08:$//(;,67,1*
&08:$//(;,67,1*&21&5(7(67$,56(;,67,1*
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
6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$ $352-(&7$''5(66
)LUVW)ORRU
6HFRQG)ORRU
VHFRQGIORRUFHOOLQJ
$YHUDJH([LVWLQJ*UDGH )LUVW)ORRU
6HFRQG)ORRU
VHFRQGIORRUFHOOLQJ
)LUVW)ORRU
6HFRQG)ORRU
VHFRQGIORRUFHOOLQJ
)LUVW)ORRU
6HFRQG)ORRU
VHFRQGIORRUFHOOLQJ
6FDOH3URMHFWQXPEHU'DWH'UDZQE\&KHFNHGE\($67+817,1*721'5$5&$',$&$ 2)),&( 02%,/( 352-(&7$''5(66 %::<)$5&+,7(&785(
$UFDGLD&$ KLJKODQG2DNV'U6LQJOH)DPLO\KRXVH$GGLWLRQ1RY (OHYDWLRQV$
(DVW
1RUWK
6RXWK
:HVW([WHULRU:DOO -DPHV+DUGLH&HPHQW%RDUG6LGLQJ&REEOH6WRQH6PRRWK([WHULRU:DOO6WRQH9HQHHU 5LYHUVLGH6WRQH9HQQHHU6LOYHU(QJOLVK5XEEOH:LQGRZV 6OLGLQJ'RRU 0LOJDUG)LEHUJODVV8OWUD6HULHV)URVWFRORU9DODQFH*ULG6'/9LQWDJH*DUDJHGRRUVWHHO $PDUU+LOOFUHVW%HDG%RDUG/RQJ3DQHO7KDPHV:DOQXW)LQLVK(DJOHFRQFUHWHWLOH 3RQGHURVD/LJKWZHLJKW &KDUFRDO5DQJH:RRGGHFR)DFLDO%RDUG 'XQQ(GZDUGV0LON*ODVV'(:(QWUDQFHGRRU 6LPSVRQGRRUVROLGZRRGVHSHOHPDKRJDQ\
6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$ $+,*+/$1'2$.6'5(/.,16$9(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1((;,67,1*&$5*$5$*((;,67,1*75(//,61(:1')/2251(:$'',7,21(/.,163/(/.,163/
6(&7,216&$/(
352-(&7$''5(66 6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$ $)LUVW)ORRU
6HFRQG)ORRU
6HFRQ)ORRU&HLOLQJ
)LUVW)ORRU&HLOLQJ
6(&7,216&$/(
(;,67,1*&$5*$5$*((;,67,1*)$0,/<52201(::,&'(1)*)*)LUVW)ORRU
6HFRQG)ORRU
6HFRQG)ORRU&HLOLQJ
)LUVW)ORRU&HLOLQJ
)) )* $YHUDJH([*UDGH'(1%('52205(02'(/('/,9,1*5220(;,67,1*)$0,/<5220(;,67,1*325&+3523(57</,1(675((7&85%FRXOGVHHOLLWOHRIWKHURRIEH\RQGWKLVOLQHD
SHUVRQ675((7
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Public Comments
From:George Hynes
To:Christine Song
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Dr.
Date:Sunday, May 17, 2020 9:02:05 AM
Hello Christine,
I would like to voice my disapproval of the Mansionization of the property at
2011 Highland Oaks Dr.. I have lived in my single story residence on Wilson Ave.
for 46 years now. There have been several attempts to do knock-downs &
rebuild with 2-story homes that take up most of the square footage of the
property, staying within the allowable guidelines dictated by City Codes.
In the late 1980’s I helped organize Interleague play in the 4 Little Leagues
here in the Arcadia Area. I was on the Board of Santa Anita Little League and
Coached there also. I remember traveling at that time down to Arcadia National
Little League, located of the Far East end of Longden Ave. As we drove down
2nd Ave. to Longden we passed numerous homes that looked totally out of the
neighborhood motif, of Ranch-type homes that we were used to in the Highlands.
I remember my kids asking why & how people were allowed to do whatever they
wanted with the design and build of their homes in that Area. Some looked like
cheap motels, especially with some of the colorful lighting that adorned the
frontal landscaping. People buy and choose to live in Arcadia for the
beautiful views of the San Gabriel Mountains, and to maintain the wholesome
neighbor feel. Even with the influx of the multinational families, everyone
still has a close neighborhood bonding with the people on their streets. I think
taking that aspect of prohibiting someone fro an existing view of the Mountains
that they now have is unconscionable. And also allowing a second story that
would encumber on another’s existing backyard is also an infringement on their
privacy. I hope my views on this project are taken into consideration, as the
decision on approval of the project are weighed.
Respectfully,
George Hynes
1663 Wilson Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006
(626) 446-0416
Sent from my iPad
From:Connie Ching
To:Christine Song
Subject:Re: Public Hearing of Project on 2011 Highland Oaks Drive, May 26, 2020
Date:Saturday, May 16, 2020 4:36:37 PM
To whom it may concern,
The email attached below is in support of Henry Huey regarding his neighbor’s proposed
construction project on 2011 Highland Oaks Drive. Please include it as a written statement for
the public hearing to be held on May 26,2020.
‘“ Hi Henry,
I am in support of your effort in keeping a neighborhood with a harmonious appearance
without a home structure being out of proportion with its surrounding buildings. By any
chance the homeowner of 2011 is willing to move the proposed home structure further back
into the lot or do a larger one story building instead?
The 2011 Highland Oaks lot is situated on an much elevated level from yours. With their
proposed two story building, it will inevitably tower over your home. I think I understand
how you feel.
And I think to “level the earth” to a more proportional level between the two neighbors is
too high of a cost for them. Or maybe not.
I want my neighbors to be happy with their home and/or their dream home but to strike that
perfect balance is an art all to itself.
Best Regards,
Connie Ching
2200 Highland Oaks Drive”
From:Colleen
To:Christine Song
Subject:May 26 Public Hearing, Objection to two-story project, 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 9:57:55 AM
Dear members of the Planning Commission,
I humbly ask that the Planning Commission deny the two-story structure at 2011
Highland Oaks (2011 H.O.). The owner argues a two-story home along the 2000
block of Highland Oaks would justify her project, but the facts don’t support.
1 - The house at 2045 Highland Oaks Drive is a two-story original that was built in
1956.
It sits much further north on a more level portion of the street, on the east,
where typically the building pads are lower than those properties across the
street to the west;
It sits on a foundation that is below the curb;
It appears very compact in volume and height;
Therefore, 2045 H.O. is not a suitable comparison to justify elevating the raised
structure at 2011 H.O. to a height that would approximate a three-story
structure.
2 - In comparison, the property at 2011 H.O. sits on a foundation that is 12
ft above the curb*, which gives that existing single-story house a roof height elevation
of a two-story house.
3 - A two-story remodel at 2011 H.O. would raise its roof height to 24 ft 9 in above its
base, which is 1 ft raised above the foundation.
The two-story roof height proposed for 2011 H.O. measures 25 ft 9 in above the
foundation;
The foundation is 12 ft above the curb*;
A two-story remodel at 2011 H.O. would have a roof height of 37 ft 9 in
above the curb, and appear like a three-story house;
There are no existing three-story houses in the neighborhood.
This two-story remodel would have the visual impact of a three-story structure,
severely diminishing the scenic vistas, and should be denied.
Thank you.
Note:
* Architectural elevation drawings (795 ft minus 783 ft = 12 ft)
Colleen Sartinsky
From:Lee Marshall
To:Christine Song
Subject:Objection to proposed addition at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 11:30:22 AM
I object to the proposed two-story project at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
(subject property).
Reasons:
1 - Existing single-story house at the subject property stands on a
foundation that is 12 feet higher than the curb*. To passersby, this
structure has the size impact of a two-story house.
2 - Adding a second story to the subject property will create the
appearance of a bulky, protrusive three-story house, worsened by the
verticality of the structure.
3 - The second-story addition’s roof height, at the subject property,
will make it taller than its neighboring houses (including the house
to the north), and disrupt the harmony and compatibility of the
neighborhood.
4 - Roof height of the proposed two-story structure, relative to its
foundation, at the subject property = 24 ft 9 in. Its base sits on a
raised foundation, which is at least 3 ft higher than the foundation
at 2017 Highland Oaks Drive, the neighboring property to the north.
Roof height of split-level, relative to its foundation, at 2017
Highland Oaks = 28 ft 2 in.
Roof height of proposed two-story, at subject property, relative to
foundation of neighbor to the north = 28 ft 9 in, making proposed
structure taller.
Presently, the elevated foundation at the subject property gives it
the appearance of a two-story structure. The proposed two-story
addition at subject property would insert the mass effect of a
three-story structure. By exceeding the heights of both neighbors,
this structure disrupts the existing smooth transition of rooflines
along the sloped street.
5 - The proposal for this increased bulk, mass, size, and volume is
disruptive to the harmony, compatibility and character of the
neighborhood.
* see architectural drawings (795 ft, elevation at foundation, minus
783 ft, elevation at curb, = 12 ft)
Lee Marshall, Elevado Avenue, Arcadia
From:Jean Tsunashima
To:Christine Song
Subject:May 26 Hearing/Arguments against proposed project - 2011 Highland Oaks Dr.
Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 4:08:30 PM
To the Arcadia Planning Commission:
I DO NOT support the proposed two-story at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive.
1 - The proposed total living space of 3,360 sq ft is too much.
• Twenty houses line the 2000 block of H.O., sizes range from 2,507 - 3,275 sq ft;
• Average size is 2693 sq ft;
• 3,360 sq ft will make it the largest on the block, and disrupt the harmony and
compatibility, balance and flow of the existing neighboring homes.
2 - Owners along Highland Oaks remodeled by adding on living space toward the backyard,
not building upward;
• 2029 H.O. was rebuilt in 2016, resulting in total living space approx. 3000 sq ft,
staying as a single-story;
• 2017 H.O. and 2051 H.O., both similarly remodeled as single-stories;
• 2010 H.O. undergoing remodel without adding second-story;
• All homeowners were thoughtful to consider neighbors during remodel and
minimize environmental impact, impact on harmony and compatibility.
3 - Two-story structure is bulky, proposing 1,140 sq ft additional upper level living space.
• Original structure was built 1954; tearing down roof/walls may expose significant
termite damage;
• Unanticipated, costly reinforcement of the damaged single-story structure may
be required to achieve structural integrity supportive of second-story.
4 - Viable alternatives:
• Build toward the backyard;
• Owner’s lot size is 12,270 sq ft; existing floor area is 1,960 sq ft; owner proposes
260 sq ft addition to first floor;
• Ample area in spacious backyard to increase 1,000 sq ft living space, achieving
a sizeable living space of 2,960 sq ft;
• Remove the pool; owner planned to demolish the pool for first-floor addition;
• Compromise: expand as a single story, while reducing project size; minimize
impact upon neighbors in terms of size, mass, and obstruction of views.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jean Tsunashima
(Highland Oaks homeowner)
From:Knut Dale
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Project at 211 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Sunday, May 17, 2020 11:39:52 AM
As a resident in the Highlands on Canyon Road since 1984, I oppose the project that will be
discussed at the public hearing on Tuesday, 5/26 at 3 PM. Given the height of the project
above the road and the relatively modest size of the lot, the new substantially expanded home
will not be compatible with the neighborhood there and I think will have an adverse impact on
the privacy and views of several of the the other homes close by on both Highland Oaks
Drive and Elkins Place.
Knut Dale
2023 Canyon Road
From:hhuey57@yahoo.com
To:Christine Song
Subject:May 26 Hearing, Opposed to Project at 2011 Highland Oaks
Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 5:39:02 PM
Dear Planning Commission members,
Reasons AGAINST the two-story project, 2011 Highland Oaks:
1 - Inappropriate height, size, mass; relative to neighborhood:
• North of 2011 H.O. is 2017 H.O.; roof height 28 ft 2 in above its foundation.
• Foundation, 2011 H.O., is at least 3 ft above the 2017 H.O. foundation.
• Proposed two-story roof height, 2011 H.O., measures at least 28 ft. 9 in.
tall compared to roof height at 2017 H.O., making it taller than both adjacent
properties.
• Two-story structure, 2011 H.O., fails to blend in; looks like a “three-story”.
• Proposed second floor 1,140 sq ft, total living area 3,360 sq ft, creates
oversized impression;
• Overshadows next-door property, 2001 H.O.
• Inharmonious and incompatible with surrounding properties; inappropriate
for the location.
2 - Homeowners of 2000 block, Highland Oaks, contemplated two-story additions:
• Compromised with neighbors, reduced project size, built toward backyard
rather than upward, maintaining harmony in the community.
• Last 9 years, three houses on that block (2017, 2029 and 2051 Highland
Oaks) completely remodeled horizontally, into backyard, not upward.
• Presently, single-story homes line both sides of the upsloping block;
rooflines flow gently.
• Appreciate natural beauty, open surroundings, views along the 2000 block
of Highland Oaks.
• A two-story addition at 2011 Highland Oaks would disrupt flow and harmony
of the surrounding houses.
• A two-story addition there would “open the door”, invite more two-story
homes on the block, and encourage other homeowners to build upward along
the 2000 block of Highland Oaks, further disrupting the flow and harmony of
the surrounding houses.
3 - ARB realized large scale, mass, height of proposed project, was out-of-harmony
with neighboring houses:
• Conducted four public hearings since January 2019.
• Second floor addition > 1,100 sq ft each time.
• Unanimous denial of project at third and fourth hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Henry Huey
Highland Oaks homeowner
From:Jasna Tomic
To:Christine Song
Subject:May 26 Hearing, Objection to 2-story addition, 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:23:15 AM
Dear Planning Commission:
I request denial of the project at 2011 Highland Oaks (H.O.):
Two-story addition, 3360 sq ft living space, is excessive for this location;
Architect drawings downplay the neighborhood impact by inaccurately
portraying two-story project size compared to adjacent structures.
Bulky structure, incompatible, inharmonious with neighboring structures.
1 - Architect drawings submitted April 2020 claim two-story houses around 2011
Highland Oaks Drive. Page A-7 of the Plans displays four houses to support this
claim. However, the facts are:
2018 Elkins Place, west of the subject property, is a single-story structure;
2012 Highland Oaks Drive, east of the subject property, consists of single-story
main house; with low two-level studio attached to the main house at the back,
indiscernible from the street;
2017 Highland Oaks Drive, located north of the subject property, is a split-level--
garage is below the main living area of the house;
2029 Highland Oaks Drive, located three lots north of the subject property, is a
one-story structure;
Conclusion: architect drawings are inaccurate in claiming four two-story houses
around 2011 H.O.
2 - Architect drawings depict trees separating homes on sides of 2011 Highland
Oaks, claiming the structure is hidden from public view.
Trees are constantly trimmed; presently not accurately depicted in the photos;
Trees, landscape, natural barriers can later be removed, further exposing the
massive structure.
3 - Architect drawings don’t show the true height comparison between the proposed
two-story structure at 2011 H.O. and neighboring structures;
Height measurements, comparisons show the proposed two-story structure at
2011 H.O. is taller than the immediate northern structure at 2017 H.O., and
taller than the immediate southern structure at 2001 H.O.
4 - Proposed project is location-inappropriate. It imposes a voluminous eyesore that’s
significantly impacts the neighborhood, disrupting the harmony and compatibility of
the design.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jasna Tomic
From:Lily B
To:Christine Song
Subject:Objections, 2011 Highland Oaks, May 26 Hearing
Date:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 1:16:25 PM
Dear members of Planning Commission,
I’m objecting to the proposed two-story structure at 2011 Highland Oaks because:
1 - Two-story addition would disrupt flow, harmony, and compatibility of
neighborhood:
Structure at 2011 Highland Oaks (H.O.) sits on a higher base (raised
foundation), which is at minimum 4 ft higher than foundation at 2017 H.O. to the
north;
Roof height at 2011 H.O. taller than 2017 H.O.;
Foundation at 2011 H.O. sits at least 5 ft higher than the foundation at 2001
H.O. to the south;
Two-story structure at 2011 H.O. becomes much taller than neighboring
property at 2001 H.O..
2 - Proposed total living space of 3360 sq ft is excessive:
January 2019 plans proposed a total living space of 3357 sq ft--essentially no
change in size;
Nineteen other existing houses along the 2000 block of H.O., range in size from
2507 - 3275 sq ft;
Average size of the nineteen other houses is 2693 sq ft;
The proposed two-story will become the largest on the block;
3 - Building pads are typically higher on the west, compared to directly east, across
the street, where the foundations are lower, in some instances, below the curb. The
foundation at 2011 H.O. is 12 feet above the curb; taller than most neighbors.
Two-story addition will stand 37 feet 9 inches above the curb; exceed height
of all neighbors.
4 - Setting precedents:
A precedent for more two-story additions along this block of mostly one-story
houses with great views;
A precedent for ignoring the ARB's & neighbors’ concerns.
5 - Project was introduced in January 2019:
Four ensuing public reviews by ARB;
Project remained largely unchanged each time in size, scope, mass and
impact on community;
Third, fourth reviews by ARB resulted in unanimous denial.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lily Berkun
Highland Oaks homeowner
From:ms tra
To:Christine Song
Subject:Objection to 2-story Project 2011 Highland Oaks
Date:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 3:41:34 PM
Dear Planning Commission members,
Arguments against the project at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive:
• Proposed 3360 sq ft 2-story size unwieldy;
• The structure is bulky; appears like a “3-story” structure; verticality severely
impacts vistas;
• Architectural drawings mislead on relative sizes, incompletely convey the
neighborhood impact;
1) Architect drawings depict the proposed 2-story structure as relatively small
compared to adjacent structures.
Facts:
• Existing house at 2011 H.O. sits on a raised foundation, raising roof height
1 foot above the foundation;
• Foundation at 2011 H.O. is > 3 feet above foundation of split-level house to
the north, 2017 Highland Oaks (2017 H.O.);
• Proposed 2-story roof at 2011 H.O. = 28 ft 9 in. (relative to foundation of
2017 H.O.);
• Roof height of structure at 2017 H.O. = 28 ft 2 in. (relative to its foundation);
• Measurements demonstrate the proposed 2-story structure at 2011 H.O. is
taller than all neighbors, creating imbalance on Highland Oaks.
2) Architect drawings depict large distance between structures on 2001 Highland
Oaks and 2011 Highland Oaks:
• Architect combines photos with computer images to shift/compress spatial
relationships and suggest distance offsets size impact;
• In reality, adjacent houses are closer than depicted in architectural
renditions; the proposed project greatly impacts neighbors.
3) Proposed 2-story addition disrupts harmony and compatibility of neighborhood:
• Single-story ranch homes with great views line the sloping street of
Highland Oaks;
• Size projected to be largest on the block;
• Mass and verticality combines to stand-out relative to neighboring houses;
• Two-story potentially sets a precedent, triggering other over-sized remodels
that disrupt views and current architectural landscape;
• The imbalance created by this two-story could spread throughout the
community;
• Potentially provokes neighbors to compete in building upwards, attempting
to recapture scenic views impacted by the bulky, obtrusive 2-story addition.
Thank you for your time.
Sylvia Tran
Highland Oaks resident
From:Betty
To:Christine Song
Subject:May 26 Public Hearing, Objection to two-story project, 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:28:39 AM
Dear members of the Planning Commission,
I humbly ask that the Planning Commission deny the two-story structure at 2011 Highland
Oaks (2011 H.O.). The owner argues a two-story home along the 2000 block of Highland
Oaks would justify her project, but the facts don’t support.
1 - The house at 2045 Highland Oaks Drive is a two-story original that was built in 1956.
It sits much further north on a more level portion of the street, on the east, where
typically the building pads are lower than those properties across the street to the west;
It sits on a foundation that is below the curb;
It appears very compact in volume and height;
Therefore, 2045 H.O. is not a suitable comparison to justify elevating the raised
structure at 2011 H.O. to a height that would approximate a three-story structure.
2 - In comparison, the property at 2011 H.O. sits on a foundation that is 12 ft above the curb*,
which gives that existing single-story house a roof height elevation of a two-story house.
3 - A two-story remodel at 2011 H.O. would raise its roof height to 24 ft 9 in above its base,
which is 1 ft raised above the foundation.
The two-story roof height proposed for 2011 H.O. measures 25 ft 9 in above the
foundation;
The foundation is 12 ft above the curb*;
A two-story remodel at 2011 H.O. would have a roof height of 37 ft 9 in above the
curb, and appear like a three-story house;
There are no existing three-story houses in the neighborhood.
This two-story remodel would have the visual impact of a three-story structure, severely
diminishing the scenic vistas, and should be denied.
Thank you.
Note:
* Architectural elevation drawings (795 ft minus 783 ft = 12 ft)
Sent from my iPhone
From:tomsmb@aol.com
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Re: Comment, Planning Commission May 26th Meeting
Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 4:58:00 PM
To the Arcadia Planning Commission:
Reference the appeal before the Planning Comission by the owners of
the property at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr.; we are emailing in support of
their project. We have reviewed their plans and like that they are
staying with the Ranch style architechture for their planned 2nd story
addition. This style of home is one of the reasons that attracted us to
move to Arcadia in 1972. The addition looks to be well thought out and
considerate of their neighbors. We often run by this property enjoying
the visual nature of this neighborhood and think their project would be a
great addition.
Thanks,
Tom and Mary Ann O'Hara
Arcadia resident
From:Gladys Thomas
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Home addition
Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 6:41:54 PM
To the Planning Commission:
I have reviewed the plans for the Project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr,
Arcadia. I am in full support of the plans for the Ranch style 2-story
addition. The project is rather modest in size but tastefully done to fit into the
ranch style community of homes. I live around the corner from this property
and see no problems with privacy or views.
Thank you
Gladys Thomas
2001 Canyon Rd
Arcadia 91006
From:hamid amjadi
To:Mailbox - Planning
Cc:Julie Wu
Subject:proposed project at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, 2-story addition
Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 10:52:13 PM
May 18, 2020
To: The Planning Commission of Arcadia
RE: proposed project at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, 2-story addition
Dear Planning Commissioners
I would like to express my full support of the proposed plans for the Ranch style 2-
story
addition located at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr.
I have reviewed the plans and would like to make several comments:
. The ranch style is a good choice in a neighborhood of predominantly ranch style
homes. Many existing 2-story homes are already of this style.
. I see the homeowner has compromised the roof pitch to reduce the building
height, as most homes have a greater pitch than 4:12. This is very considerate.
. I also appreciate that they are not building to the largest size they can for their lot
size. 3360 sq ft is quite average, a comfortable size, not too big.
Sincerely,
Hamid and Simin Amjadi
1862 Oakwood Ave
Arcadia, CA 91006
From:Nina Chen
To:Mailbox - Planning
Cc:Julie Wu
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Support
Date:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:21:31 PM
To The Planning Commission:
I am writing to support the Project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr,
Arcadia. I am in full support of the plans for the Ranch style 2-story
addition. At a size of 3360 sq ft, it is quite modest. The exterior appearance
is elegant without any elements to suggest grandness. It is a a welcome
relief in size, scope, and aesthetics in comparison to oversized, grandiose
homes that were previously built. It looks nice and complements the entire
neighborhood well.
Thank you,
Nina Lee,
Arcadia resident at 151 E. Grandview Ave.
Sent from my iPad
--
Nina Lee
626 353-7817
From:hannelore Nese
To:Mailbox - Planning
Cc:Hannelore Nese
Subject:Project at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive, Arcadia
Date:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:55:18 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen.
I am writing to show support for the project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr., Arcadia. I fully support the plans
for the 2-story ranch style addition.
It is tastefully done to add much needed character to an older community of homes without looking grand or
overbearing. It will fit in nicely with the surrounding homes.
Thank you.
Hannelore & Michael Nese
From:Debbie Hartranft
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:FW: remodel of 2011 Highland Oaks Dr - meeting May 26th
Date:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:34:54 AM
Sorry made typo on the initial message address.
From: Debbie <debbie@cactusmat.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 11:31 AM
To: <planning@/arcadiaCa.gov>
Subject: remodel of 2011 Highland Oaks Dr - meeting May 26th
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing to the Planning Commission in support of the project under your review at 2011
Highland Oaks Dr. We have lived at 2138 Highland Oaks Dr for over 30 years and seen a lot of
changes in Arcadia. We drive and walk by this house every day and we see no problem with the size
of the project. The house is set back from the street, has ranch style appearance and a second story
will still maintain the look of the neighborhood. In looking at the plans we see no infringement of
privacy or creating a house too large for the property. The overall square footage is within the range
of many of the homes in the area and far below the size of 2 other homes that were built a number
of years ago on vacant land. Obviously the remodel will increase the value of the home which is
good for the neighborhood. We hope you will approve their plans. They have waited a very long
time to begin this project. Debbie and Les DeRing
From:shuxia zhang
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Support for Highland Project
Date:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:10:21 PM
To the Planning Commission:
I am writing to show support for the Project located at 2011 Highland
Oaks Dr, Arcadia. I fully support the plans for the 2-story Ranch style
addition. It is tastefully done to add much needed character to an older
community of homes without looking grand or overbearing. It will fit
in nicely with the surrounding homes.
Thank you
Shuxia (Amy) Zhang
Arcadia Resident
From:Jackie Nakaishi
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia, CA
Date:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:27:45 PM
To the Planning Commission:
I have reviewed the plans for the Project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia. I
am in full support of the plans for the Ranch style 2-story addition. The project is
rather modest in size but tastefully done to fit into the ranch style community of
homes. I see no problems with privacy or views. Please feel free to email me should
you have any questions. Thank you!
Thank you
Jackie Nakaishi
1718 La Ramada Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No. 6
Homeowners Association Resolution No.
7272
Attachment No. 7
Attachment No. 7
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
1. Name or description of project: HOA Appeal No. HOA 20-01 - Appeal application with a
Categorical Exemption under the California Quality Act
("CEQA") Section 15301(a) to request approval of a first and
second story addition and significant remodel of an existing
one story residence.
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):
2011 Highland Oaks Drive
(cross streets: Highland Oaks Drive and Elkins Avenue)
3. Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name Julie Wu, property owner
(2) Address 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
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: 15301(a) – Class 1 (Addition to an existing facility)
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:
May 4, 2020
Staff:
Christine Song, Associate Planner