HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08a - HOA Appeal of 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
DATE: August 4, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Lisa Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
Prepared By: Christine Song, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7329 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF HOA APPEAL NO. 20-01 AND MINOR
ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. MINOR AM 20-09 WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) TO CONSTRUCT A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE STORY
RESIDENCE AT 2011 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE
Recommendation: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Planning
Commission’s Decision
SUMMARY
The property owner of 2001 Highland Oaks Drive, Mr. Henry Huey (“Appellant”) is
appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of Homeowners’ Association Appeal No.
HOA 20-01 and Minor Administrative Modification No. Minor AM 20-09. The Planning
Commission voted 4-1 to conditionally approve an appeal of the Highlands
Homeowners’ Association Architectural Review Board’s (“ARB”) denial of a first and
second story addition to an existing one-story residence located at 2011 Highland Oaks
Drive. The Planning Commission determined that the project was consistent with the
City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. The Appellant filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission’s approval on June 8, 2020. It is recommended that the City
Council deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, and adopt
Resolution No. 7329.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 12,270 square foot interior lot improved with a 1,960 square
foot, one-story single-family residence with an attached two-car garage built in 1960.
The property is zoned R-1 (10,000), Low Density Residential, and is located within the
Highlands Homeowners’ Association area. In 2018, the property owner of the subject
property submitted a regular review application to the Highlands ARB for a first and
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 2 of 11
second story addition project. After multiple reviews, revisions, and public hearings, the
Highlands ARB denied the project on August 16, 2019, based on massing, height, and
neighborhood compatibility concerns. This decision was not appealed. In November
2019, the property owner submitted a new regular review application to the Highlands
ARB for a first and second story addition project. Based on previous comments given by
the Highlands ARB, the property owner made significant design changes to the project
prior to their application submission. The revised design included the following:
• A two-story, Ranch style home with a 4:12 roof pitch on both floors.
• A 260 square foot one story addition and a 1,140 square foot second story
addition
• A total building height of 24’-9”.
• Addition of dormer windows on the second floor.
Figure 1 – Proposed Design of First and Second Story Addition
After multiple reviews with the Highlands ARB Chair, the proposed project (see Figure
1) was reviewed by the Highlands ARB at a public hearing on April 2, 2020. Ultimately,
the Highlands ARB denied the project as they continued to have concerns with the
overall mass and building height of the proposed project. On April 13, 2020, the
property owner filed an appeal of the Highland ARB’s decision, stating that the project
was mistakenly denied based on incorrect evaluations of the findings. On May 26, 2020,
the appeal was heard by the Planning Commission. At that hearing, the
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 3 of 11
recommendation from the Development Services Department was for approval of the
appeal with the following changes:
1. Reduce the roof pitch from 4:12 to 3:12 on both floors.
2. Lower the second-floor plate height from 9 feet to 8.5 feet.
3. Decrease window sizes on the second-floor front elevation to be proportional to
the window sizes on the first-floor front elevation.
4. Modify the second-floor dormers appropriately to accommodate the new window
sizes.
During the public comment period of the meeting, a total of 38 public comments were
heard – 29 in support of the project and 9 in opposition of the project. With
consideration of all the facts, details, and public comments, the Planning Commission
found the project compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the City’s
Residential Design Guidelines (refer to the Planning Commission Minutes – Attachment
No. 4). The Planning Commission voted 4-1, with Commissioner Thompson dissenting,
to conditionally approve the Homeowners’ Association Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and
Minor Administrative Modification No. Minor AM 20-09, and overturn the Highlands
ARB’s denial of the project. The Commission approved the project with the
recommended changes, except for not changing the roof pitch from 4:12 to 3:12 in order
to allow for usable attic space, and a new condition was added regarding landscaping
along the southern side of the property. Below are the four new conditions of approval:
1. Landscape screening shall be installed along the southern property line between
the homes at the project site and 2001 Highland Oaks Drive. This condition shall
be met by the existing trees on the project site. If such trees are proposed to be
removed, mitigation measures for replacement screening shall be a condition of
issuance of a permit to remove these trees, unless the design review authority
determines replacement screening is unnecessary.
2. The second-floor plate height shall not be taller than 8.5 feet.
3. Decrease window sizes on the second-floor front elevation to be proportional to
the window sizes on the first-floor front elevation.
4. Modify the second-floor dormers appropriately to accommodate the new window
sizes.
On June 8, 2020, the property owner of 2001 Highland Oaks Drive, Mr. Henry Huey
(“Appellant”), filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the first
and second story addition project (refer to Attachment No. 2). The Appellant objects to
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 4 of 11
the Planning Commission’s decision and states that the proposed first and second story
addition is inappropriate for the neighborhood. The Appellant also states that the
Planning Commission based its decision on a staff report that was flawed in its analysis
and neglected to address all the concerns and objections raised by the neighbors, as
discussed later in this staff report.
DISCUSSION
This portion of Highland Oaks Drive is located north of Elkins Avenue and the
immediate neighborhood predominantly consists of one-story homes in traditional
architectural styles. The subject property is currently improved with a one-story Ranch
style home with an attached street-facing two car garage. Overall, the proposal consists
of 3,360 square feet of floor area and 2,974 square feet in lot coverage; these are both
within the maximum allowances for the subject property. The table below outlines the
project specifications and development standards.
In his appeal letter, the Appellant states that the proposed two-story project is not
compatible with the neighborhood and multiple issues were not taken into consideration
by both staff and the Planning Commission. The main reasons for the appeal include
the following: existing neighborhood development pattern, privacy concerns,
compatibility with neighboring homes, and alternative design options (refer to the
Appeal letter under Attachment No. 2).
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 5 of 11
Existing Neighborhood Development Pattern
Several properties in the vicinity have split level and two-story homes that are
comparable to the proposed project. These properties are located at 2017 Highland
Oaks Drive, 2012 Highland Oaks Drive, 2035 Highland Oaks Drive, 2025 Elkins Place,
and 2001 Elkins Place. The Appellant states that the proposed second story addition
would disturb the neighborhood and it would be too tall compared to the homes to the
south and east.
The Appellant owns the one-story home to the south (2001 Highland Oaks Drive) of this
site, directly next door. According to building permit records, this home has an overall
height of 17’-1”. Although it is not appropriate to compare the height of a proposed two-
story home to an existing one-story home because two stories will certainly be taller
than one story, it is important to note that the proposed project would have an overall
height of 24’-3”. This means that the proposed second story addition would be achieved
by only adding 7’-1” to the existing height of the home, which is a reasonable increase
in height. Additionally, the proposed second story addition provides side yard setbacks
that exceed the 17’-6” minimum required by the Development Code. It should be noted
that the second-floor side yard setbacks on the north side would be 24’-4” and 24’-11”
on the south side. The visual massing of the home is minimized by placing the second
story at the rear of the home, which is strongly encouraged 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.
The majority of the Planning Commission agreed with these points and added that the
proposed project is not far out of character with the neighborhood in terms of size and
massing, noting existing two-story homes along Elkins Place (refer to Attachment No.
4). The unique challenges of hillside properties in the Highlands area were
acknowledged. Furthermore, the home to the east (2012 Highland Oaks Drive) is also
developed with a second story at the rear of the property. The Appellant’s argument that
the proposed project would not be compatible with the existing single-story
neighborhood was not agreed with by the Planning Commission since there are existing
split level and two-story homes in the surrounding area.
Privacy Concerns
The Appellant cites privacy impacts and visibility issues resulting from the second-floor
windows along the north, south, and west elevations of the project. The project
proposes to add one new window along the second-floor south elevation (that faces the
Appellant’s property) and one new window along the second-floor north elevation (refer
to Attachment No. 6). These windows provide lighting and ventilation to the bedrooms
and add decorative relief. Without these windows, the proposed north and south
elevations would consist of blank walls, which are discouraged by the City’s Residential
Design Guidelines. Based on location, the proposed second floor window on the south
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 6 of 11
elevation would not have any direct sightlines into the Appellant’s home. Also, the
neighbor to the north (2017 Highland Oaks Drive) submitted a letter in support of the
project for the Planning Commission’s consideration, indicating they have no concerns
about privacy impacts (refer to Attachment No. 5).
The windows along the west elevation face the rear yard and would not cause any
significant privacy issues to the west neighbor (2010 Elkins Place) for the following
reasons:
• The proposed rear yard setback for the project is 45’-2”, and this in addition to
the existing rear yard setback that the west neighbor has for their home.
• There is existing mature foliage along the rear property line between the subject
property and the neighbor to the west.
• The rear yard has an ascending slope and retaining wall, which further screens
the two properties from each other.
• The west neighbor to the rear at 2010 Elkins Place did not submit a letter of
opposition to the project and has verbally expressed to the subject property
owner that they have no concerns about the project (refer to Attachment No. 3).
In terms of privacy issues along the south property line, the Appellant states that an
outdated photo was used in the staff report that was presented to the Planning
Commission and did not accurately depict the property’s existing conditions. A photo of
the subject property, taken on July 9, 2020 (see Figure 2), indicates that the existing
trees along the southern property line are fully mature and still provide the intended
screening for the project. In fact, the City’s Residential Design Guidelines recommend
utilizing landscaping to provide screening and enhance privacy between properties. The
existing foliage would not only provide privacy screening, but it also helps soften the
appearance of a two-story home next to the one-story home. In addition, the Planning
Commission approved the project with a condition of approval which states, “Landscape
screening shall be installed along the southern property line between the homes at the
project site and 2001 Highland Oaks Drive. This condition shall be met by the existing
trees on the project site. If such trees are proposed to be removed, mitigation measures
for replacement screening shall be a condition of issuance of a permit to remove these
trees, unless the design review authority determines replacement screening is
unnecessary.”
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 7 of 11
Figure 2 – 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Compatibility with Neighboring Homes
The Appellant contends that staff’s comparisons between the project and neighboring
homes were inappropriate because they differ in height, style, and design. However,
2011 Oaks Place, 2025 Elkins Place, and 2032 Elkins Place were specifically identified
as homes that were larger in size (square footage) for the purpose of assessing the
scale of the project. All three homes have greater livable area square footage than the
proposed project, which indicates that the proposed addition is not an unreasonable
request and is consistent with what exists in the neighborhood. Although approval of
this project would result in the largest house on this portion of Highland Oaks Drive, the
subject property would still be well below the maximum allowable floor area ratio and lot
coverage.
Additionally, Chair Lewis opined that the project would help soften the appearance of
the adjacent north neighbor’s split-level home at 2017 Highland Oaks Drive and improve
the general appearance of the streetscape. In his dissenting comments, Commissioner
Thompson stated that the north neighbor’s home was an anomaly on Highland Oaks
Drive and should not be used as a precedent to approve this project or any other future
development. He also opined that the height of the proposed home, while taking into
account the elevation of the street, made it appear like a three-story structure.
Commissioner Thompson had concerns about massing, scale, and compatibility with
the neighborhood and voted to deny the project. However, the majority of the
Commissioners made note of the hillside characteristics and stated that the project
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 8 of 11
would not appear disproportionate due to the natural incline of the street. They agreed
that the project was balanced in overall design and achieved compatibility with the
neighborhood.
Furthermore, the project offers a Ranch style two-story home that provides the
architectural details and characteristics that are consistent with the chosen style. The
project also complements the existing neighborhood context by utilizing an earth tone
color palette and decorative materials such as siding and stone veneers, which are all
recommended by the City’s Design Guidelines.
Alternative Project Designs
Eliminating the proposed second-story addition and opting for a one-story addition
project would greatly limit the property owner’s utilization of the lot. A minimum rear yard
setback of 25 feet is required and there is an ascending slope of soil with an existing
retaining wall at the farthest rear portion of the lot, which further limits the buildable area
of the rear yard. Constructing a 1,140 square foot one story addition (equal to the size
of the proposed second story addition) would leave the property owner with very little
practical use of space in the rear yard. It should be noted that most of the additional
square footage involved with the project will be located on the second floor.
In his appeal letter, the Appellant suggests converting the existing garage into livable
space and constructing a subterranean garage in order to avoid constructing a second
story. Subterranean garages are subject to the Planning Commission’s review and are
typically discouraged due to the required amount of excavation, construction, and
disturbance to the surrounding area. Suggesting this option is not consistent with the
Appellant’s concerns about potential environmental impacts and disruption to the
neighborhood.
Other alternative options that have been raised are modifications to the proposed
second-floor plate height and to the roof pitch. The Appellant states that the second-
floor plate height should be equal to the eight-foot plate height of the first floor.
However, under Section VI. Height, Bulk & Scale of the Highlands ARB Findings and
Action Report (refer to Attachment No. 5), the findings note that the proposed second
floor plate height of 9 feet should consider the existing second-floor plate heights
established within the neighborhood of 8.5 feet or less. The intent of the
recommendation is to achieve consistency with other second-floor plate heights along
this street and suggest a reasonable compromise to the property owner as well as the
Highlands ARB. By recommending a lowered second-floor plate height of 8.5 feet and a
lowered roof pitch of 3:12, the goal was to reduce the overall height of the project. The
Highlands ARB Chair, Mr. Obst, spoke at the May 26, 2020, Planning Commission
meeting and agreed that these changes would be consistent with something the
Highlands ARB could approve.
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 9 of 11
Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved the reduced 8.5 foot second-floor plate
height, but agreed that keeping the proposed 4:12 roof pitch would be beneficial to allow
for usable attic space and sufficient room for equipment maintenance. The Planning
Commission carefully considered all the facts, the neighborhood characteristics, the
public comments, and the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. Overall, the
Planning Commission found the project to be consistent with the objectives of the
Design Guidelines and compatible with the established neighborhood.
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;
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 City Council uphold the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve HOA Appeal No. 20-01 and Minor
Administrative Modification No. Minor AM 20-09 for a first and second-story addition at
the subject property.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
On May 26, 2020, the Planning Commission considered HOA Appeal No. 20-01 and
Minor Administrative Modification No. Minor AM 20-09. In summary, Commissioner
Thompson voted to deny the appeal, stating that the proposed project was not
compliant with the City’s Residential Design Guidelines. He felt that the height of the
proposed project would be comparable to the visual massing of a three-story home and
would not be compatible with the neighborhood. He was also concerned about the
south neighbor’s privacy since the subject property sits on a higher elevation. He
requested that, if approved, the project should include a condition of approval to require
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 10 of 11
the maintenance of the existing landscaping along the southern property line in order to
protect the privacy of the south neighbor at 2001 Highland Oaks Drive.
Commissioner Chan and Chair Lewis both acknowledged the unique challenges of the
hillside properties in the Highlands area and felt that the proposed project is modest,
and the property owner had been diligent in going through the application process.
Chair Lewis also stated that the project is compatible with the neighborhood and would
improve the streetscape by softening the appearance of the adjacent split-level home at
2017 Highland Oaks Drive. Vice Chair Wilander and Commissioner Lin made mention
of the existing two story and split-level homes in the area, stating that the massing and
scale of the proposed project would not be out of character with the neighborhood. For
these reasons, a majority of the Planning Commission was in favor of the proposed
project.
Vice Chair Wilander made a motion to approve the appeal with changes and overturn
the Highlands ARB’s denial of the proposed first and second-story addition project. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Lin. The Planning Commission voted 4-1, with
Commissioner Thompson dissenting – refer to Attachment Nos. 4 and 5 for the
Planning Commission Minutes for the May 26, 2020, Meeting and Staff Report for the
May 26, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting.
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 NOTICE/COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for this item were mailed on July 23, 2020, to the property
owners of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the subject property.
Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the public hearing notice was published in the
Arcadia Weekly on July 23, 2020. As of the date of this Staff Report, staff has received
39 written comments from the public, which includes one comment from the subject
property owner, Julie Wu – refer to Attachment No. 3. Ms. Wu provided responses to
Mr. Huey’s appeal application that provide additional context about the Highlands ARB
meetings, the Planning Commission meeting, and details about her property in relation
to the proposed project.
FISCAL IMPACT
Any decision on the appeal would not have a significant fiscal impact.
Resolution No. 7329 – Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor AM 20-09
August 4, 2020
Page 11 of 11
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7329, upholding the
Planning Commission’s approval of HOA Appeal No. 20-01 and Minor Administrative
Modification No. Minor AM 20-09 with a categorical exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to construct a first and second story addition to an
existing one story residence at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive.
Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 7329
Attachment No. 2: Appeal Application from Mr. Huey, dated June 8, 2020
Attachment No. 3: Public Comments
Attachment No. 4: Planning Commission Minutes for the May 26, 2020 Meeting
Attachment No. 5: Staff Report for the May 26, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting,
including all the Attachments
Attachment No. 6: Architectural Plans approved by the Planning Commission May 26,
2020
Attachment No. 7: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 7329
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Appeal Application from Mr. Huey,
dated June 8, 2020
20-01
6/8/20 600.00 CS4642
The Planning Commission issued a decision on May 26 to overturn the ARB’s
denial ruling and grant approval of the two-story project at 2011 HOD. I am
appealing this decision because I believe a two story project is inappropriate for
this location in this neighborhood. Furthermore, I am appealing because the
Planning Commission based its decision on the summary report provided by the
City Planning Department, which was flawed in its analysis and which neglected to
sufficiently address many concerns and objections to the two-story project that
have been raised by neighbors since its inception. In addition, the Planning
Commission neglected to pursue a path of careful in-depth, fact-finding analysis
prior to rendering its quick decision.
Resolution No. 7272 Design Guideline Violations:
The Design Guidelines outlined in Resolution 7272 and referenced in the Planning
report call upon the consideration of “impacts of...remodels, additions,
alterations...on adjacent properties...including impacts on privacy and views.”
Furthermore “windows and second-floor...should be located to minimize direct
views into neighboring residences and actively-used outdoor spaces of
neighboring properties.” “Landscaping should not obstruct..views enjoyed
by..adjacent properties.” “The stronger the existing neighborhood pattern, the
more important it is for an owner to reinforce and respect those existing patterns.”
The proposed two-story project at 2011 HOD has violated the above quoted
design guidelines. Details of the violations will be given in subsequent paragraphs.
Concerns on Strong Existing Neighborhood Patterns:
The existing patterns that are strongly in place in this neighborhood include
mountain/city views and harmonious and compatible single story, traditional,
Ranch style homes that line the 2000 block of Highland Oaks Drive. These
existing features should be respected and reinforced as referenced in Resolution
7272, since these features are the main reasons that residents are attracted to this
area of the Arcadia Highlands.
The proposed two story structure, sitting 12 feet above the street, will disturb these
existing patterns, as it will appear like a pinnacle when compared with its lower-
level neighbors on the south and on the east. Furthermore, the 1,140 SF new,
second story structure will block the city views from its northern neighbors and
from the neighbor at 2026 Elkins Place, when these neighbors are standing in their
backyards looking south.
Privacy Concerns:
Figure 1 of the report exhibits an outdated photo of the subject property showing
overgrown trees that hide the property from its southern neighbor. However, those
trees are presently trimmed to be much smaller than what is shown in the photo,
which exposes the property to observers from every viewing angle (e.g., from
Elkins Ave). It is important to realize that the owner of 2011 HOD cannot rely on
“foliage (to) reduce visual massing”, including trees, as these may be removed in
the future for various reasons, further exposing privacy.
The Planning staff findings include the statement “ARB did not state any concerns
with privacy impacts.” Yet, its analysis includes the ARB statement “second story
addition..mitigates privacy concerns of both..neighbors by adding only one window
on each side” which conflicts with the Planning staff’s initial statement of no
privacy impacts. The report also states “neither of these windows will have any
direct sightlines into adjacent homes..impacts to privacy..not anticipated”, which is
incorrect. Privacy concerns were raised at all four ARB hearings. The ARB
Findings and Action Report dated April 2 summarizes a recommendation
regarding “impacts on privacy of neighbors by having only one window on
each..South and North sides of the second story and having the glass on those
windows obscured.” Clearly, the ARB was concerned by privacy issues to
recommend obscure glass on the south and north facing, second story windows.
However, the problem with obscuring the glass, instead of altering the placement
of the windows, is that when windows are open, the occupants are given a direct
view into neighboring properties. The hedges along the north property line are not
very tall. Thus, the north facing, second story window will be seen from the street
looking directly into its neighbor's backyard. The same will be true for the south
facing, second story window, especially whenever the hedges along the south
property line are cut short or damaged/removed for any reason.
While the west facing windows on the second story also have direct views into
neighboring properties and pose privacy issues, no modification to the west facing
windows were made to address significant privacy concerns (reference Resolution
7272). Although the owner has argued that the west facing windows are required
for lighting and ventilation, the windows can be elevated above 6 feet to serve that
purpose and eliminate the direct view into neighboring properties.
However, the north and south facing windows are unnecessary for lighting and
ventilation, as the west facing windows address these requirements for the second
story rooms. Therefore, the north and south facing windows should be eliminated
for privacy concerns as discussed above. At the minimum, they should be
elevated above 6 feet and not simply obscured, if they cannot be eliminated from
the design.
Comparisons with Three Larger Houses:
The staff report compares the proposed project of 3,360 SF, total living space to
three larger properties:
2011 Oaks Place: 3,714 SF, a single story;
2025 Elkins Place: 3,614 SF, a split-level;
2032 Elkins Place: 4,052 SF, a two story.
The staff’s comparisons don’t support the proposed two story project because of
the following reasons. First of all, 2011 Oaks Place is a single story and has a
much larger lot size. In addition, single story additions will be allowed without any
ARB public hearing regardless of lot size or location. Secondly, 2032 Elkins Place
was a highly contested project decades ago and was allowed to proceed on a
large scale despite considerable neighborhood protest. It is simply not convincing
to use a grandfathered “mistake” (per current design standard) allowed by the
Planning Dept. decades ago as an example for comparison.
Fast forward to the present date, and again many neighbors are against the two
story project at 2011 HOD due to its inappropriate size and mass for the location,
which is well summarized in the ARB report outlining issues “due to the scale of
the project in the context of the topography of the subject parcel”, and it “does not
integrate design that mitigates the massing and scale issues with respect to the
streetscape (and)..adjoining properties.” It is many neighbors’ desire and
determination that no designs such as the one at 2032 Elkins Place should be
allowed on the narrower and steeper part of the street of Highland Oaks Drive just
north of Elkins Ave. Many neighbors driving by or walking by this part of Highland
Oaks Drive can see the tall two story house of 2032 Elkins Place, which exposes
itself without any barriers and negatively affects the streetscape of its neighboring
street.
Finally, 2025 Elkins Place is a split-level (1.5 story) house since it sits on uneven
ground. The garage sits on the lower side (south), and the upper level directly
above it is relatively small compared to the first floor on the higher side (north) and
in the back. In addition, the huge front yard setback on the lower side helps
minimize the visual impact of the upper level. Most important of all, the foundations
on both the lower side (south) and the higher side (north) are not much higher than
the street. The entire property at 2011 HOD, however, sits 12 feet above the
street.
Comparison with 2017 Highland Oaks:
The staff report mistakenly states that 2017 HOD is “not much larger than the
proposed project” when in fact it is smaller than the proposed project at 2011
HOD. Indeed, approval of this project would result in the subject property “having
the largest home along this portion of Highland Oaks Drive”. Given the fact that the
lot size of 2011 HOD is one of the smallest on the block and it sits 12 feet above
the street, it is neither harmonious nor compatible to build the biggest two story
house on this site.
As for the owner at 2011 HOD, in her appeals letter, the owner makes repeated
reference to her north neighbor’s home at 2017 HOD, a split-level house that was
completely rebuilt from the ground up in 2013. In 2011 or 2012, the City’s Planning
Dept. approved the demolition of the old house and yard and approved the
complete rebuild of the current house without any HOA/ARB public hearing, even
if there were obviously significant changes in height, mass, size, and architectural
style. If standard procedures were followed by allowing for public input, that
structure would not have existed today, as it continues to receive considerable
negative reviews from many neighbors. That structure would not have been a focal
point of comparison for the owner of 2011 HOD had the City’s Planning Dept.
requested a proper HOA/ARB public hearing. Therefore, it is inappropriate to
compare one’s project to an architectural “mistake”.
Consequences of Insensitive Designs and Development:
Elkins Place (the street west of Highland Oaks Dr, north of Elkins Ave) provides
many examples of what happens when large-scale developments are approved in
this community. Around 1992, the 4052 SF, two story mansion was proposed and
built at 2032 Elkins Place despite considerable neighborhood protest. It was
approved by the City despite repeated objections from neighbors. This paved the
way for the construction of a 4772 SF, two story mansion next to it at 2038 Elkins
Place, which was built around 2009. The project also faced heavy protests from
neighbors, but the Planning Dept. approved it nevertheless. In 2017, a 4807 SF,
two story house with a basement was proposed and approved at 2039 Elkins
Place, which is currently under construction. The new house is now taller than
both the split-level on the south, 2035 Elkins Place, and the split-level on the
north, 2045 Elkins Place. The unmitigated large-scale, two story developments
that are permitted throughout this neighborhood have cumulative impacts on
views, natural resources, population density that exact a heavy strain and
irreversible toll on the Arcadia Highlands.
In regards to the development at 2039 Elkins Place, did the neighbors anticipate
the inharmonious height difference? Perhaps a story pole demonstration would
have led the community to request a reduction in the second story roof to a more
reasonable height. Neighbors can only expect the next two story project to come
along and outdo the 4807 SF, two story structure at 2039 Elkins Place. These are
the many examples that should concern all members of this community.
The homeowners along the 2000 block of Highland Oaks Dr, as well as the
majority of this community, do not want the progression of increasingly larger, two
story homes being built on the relatively narrower street of Highland Oaks, as the
two story houses will inevitably block the views of many neighbors on this part of
Highland Oaks. The approval of a two story home at 2011 HOD would surely
trigger this surge in development, with significant environmental impacts.
Environmental Impacts:
The staff report neglects to consider the environmental impact of expanding the
additional first floor living space, altering the backyard landscape, reshaping the
pool, handling/removing hazardous waste, in the absence of soil studies to
determine the effect of adding a second story, excavation, altering the topography
in a hillside terrain, and the potential adverse effect on neighbors’ health and living
environment.
In mandating that “landscape screening..be installed along the southern property
line between the homes at the project site and 2001 Highland Oaks Drive”, that
“this condition shall be met by the existing trees on the project site”, the Planning
Commission neglects to consider the location of the trees and their adverse
impact, including obstruction of views (reference Resolution 7272) and damage to
neighboring property. In this situation, the trees referenced in the Planning
Commission Decision Letter are toppling the cement retaining wall that protects
the property at 2001 HOD. Environmental impact analysis would uncover the risks
posed by the City’s insistence on the retention of the trees, that these trees may
need to be treated, modified, possibly removed immediately to mitigate property
damage, which would also lead to exposure of neighbors’ privacy. The
dependence on three trees to fully address the widely expressed privacy issues is
misguided at this time, particularly in the absence of a more thorough
environmental quality and impact analysis. One Planning Commissioner did ask
the other members to engage in a more thorough, in-depth, fact-finding analysis--
while referencing many of the concerns raised by project opponents--rather than
rush to render an immediate decision on the project.
The environmental impact of the two story addition should also be considered
within the context of the ensuing two story projects to develop along this street of
single story, Ranch style homes, as an approval of this project would encourage
homeowners to build upward instead of into their backyards, for a multitude of
reasons, including recapturing scenic views. The cascade of ensuing building
developments throughout the neighborhood creates a cumulative environmental
impact that is harmful and which must be anticipated and which should be
analyzed, so that steps can be taken beforehand to mitigate the damage. Look no
further than Elkins Place, an adjacent street to the west, where incrementally
larger and larger two story structures have developed in close succession. While a
single large scale project has obvious environmental impact, a collection of
relatively small-scale projects has the potential to exert significant, cumulative,
harmful environmental impact.
This sampling list underscores the multitude of two-story projects in the Arcadia
Highlands, along with the aforementioned developments on Elkins Place, that
were recently approved or built, or are seeking approval: 276 Monte Place, 270
Monte Place, 211 Monte Place, 2146 Canyon Road, 2125 Canyon Road, 2200
Highland Vista Dr, 2216 Highland Oaks Dr, 2020 Highland Oaks Dr, 1727
Highland Oaks Dr, 1129 Highland Oaks Dr, 11 E. Orange Grove Ave. The
environmental impact of these many large-scale projects and their close proximity
to fire zones cannot be overemphasized.
Cumulative impact analysis is important because history has shown that
environmental damage often occurs from the accumulation of a variety of relatively
smaller projects over time. The City has not addressed the impacts on the
neighborhood character, natural resources, increased runoff, effects on water
quality, fire risk, energy consumption, traffic and noise pollution, among various
other vital considerations mandated by CEQA.
Horizontal Addition Possible:
Backyard Space
Another concern raised in the staff report is whether an addition in the backyard of
2011 HOD is practical. It finds that the 1,140 SF can be accomplished by covering
“3/4 of the total rear yard area.” This would require the “existing swimming pool..to
be removed.” The owner had already planned on redesigning the pool in order to
build additional first floor living space. Therefore, removing the pool, and extending
the first floor living space further back can achieve the increased living space of
1,140 SF, without adding on any second floor. This would still leave some rear
yard space for a garden or play area. This is highly practical as it would
accomplish the desired living space without harming the neighborhood enjoyment
of views, privacy, and harmonious compatibility in the community.
As can be seen from the aerial view found in the Planning report, 2011 HOD has a
relatively much bigger, flat backyard than its adjacent neighboring properties on
the west side of the 2000 block of Highland Oaks Dr. Therefore, for 2011 HOD,
even with the current reduced-size pool plan, there is plenty of space on the south
side of the backyard for significant first floor addition, which will reduce the size of
the second floor or eliminate it all together.
Subground Garage
Since the owner of 2011 HOD identifies with the north neighbor’s architectural
style, she is encouraged to incorporate the existing garage into the first floor living
space and relocate the garage by digging underneath the top of the steep
driveway in front of her existing garage to create a subground garage. The area
above this subground garage can be additional living space, which would allow
considerable first floor addition without adding on a second story. This design
would result in a much flatter driveway and enable attaining the same living space
that 2017 HOD has accomplished, without having to remove the pool, and keeping
the entire backyard as a play area.
The Story Poles
The story poles requested by the ARB are appropriate because it is unclear from
the architectural drawings how tall the overall structure will be relative to both
adjacent properties. In fact, the measurements indicate that the proposed two
story structure will exceed the height of the property to the north. In addition, the
architectural drawings have demonstrated several shortcomings during each
variation of submission. The photos have been outdated showing landscape and
trees that were large, but which have been significantly cut back since then.
Furthermore, the renditions show that properties on 2011 HOD and 2017 HOD
have the same rooftop level. How could this be, if the height of 2017 HOD
measures 28’2”, and the height of the proposed two-story at 2011 HOD measures
28’9”, relative to the foundation of 2017 HOD?
The owner states in her appeal letter “the completed project will never be
perceived as the 2-D drawings depict.” That statement does support the ARB’s
concerns that the existing 2-D drawings fail to show the massing effect that story
poles would clarify. Therefore, it is necessary to have a story pole setup in order
for everyone involved, whether expert or untrained observer, to see the actual
mock up, in order to ensure that the structure being built actually reflects what is
shown on 2-D drawings.
Furthermore, the architectural drawings indicate that a 6 foot person standing at
the curb may or may not perceive the height of the roof. However, the massing
effect and its impact on the neighbors is not limited to the view at this single focal
point, but rather can be impressive at various points along the curb (keeping in
mind the varying setbacks from the north versus the south along the street), at the
opposite curb, and from the perspective of all neighboring homeowners.
Therefore, it is fully justified to request a story pole demonstration in order to fully
appreciate the massing effect of this proposed structure, and ensure that the
community won’t be harmed by adding an upper level at this specific location,
where the foundation is 12 feet higher than the curb and the street slopes upward.
Factors for a More Reasonable Second-Story Addition:
The excessive height of the proposed two-story structure has been a recurrent
concern to the ARB as well as City Planning. The ARB Findings and Action Report
states “the proposed project IS NOT consistent with ..Guidelines..the rooflines
having additional pitch over a 3:12 pitch and the second floor plate height in
excess of the first story plate height.” The ARB expressed concern that the project
“all added additional height and mass to a home that is oriented well above street
level.” The ARB report further reiterates this concern by stating, “needlessly
adding additional overall height to the structure that will be effectively 3 stories
above the street.” And despite the Architectural Plan design in its current form,
with the second story setback, the ARB report emphasizes the lack of consistency
with Frontage Guidelines, “homes should not have significantly greater height at
the front of a property than that of adjacent homes.” These concerns resulted in a
unanimous decision to deny the project.
The City Planning staff also expressed concern regarding massing when it stated
in its analysis supporting a “reduction in the roof pitch going from 4:12 to 3:12”.
The analysis also calls for a “lowering of the second floor plate height...to be
consistent with the first floor height.” It further states “the new second floor should
match the height of the first floor,” which is echoed in the ARB Findings and Action
Report. However, the Planning staff recommended a lowering of the “second floor
plate height from 9 feet to 8.5 feet.” The Plans show that the existing first floor
height is 8 feet, which should have led the Planning staff to recommend lowering
the second floor plate height from 9 feet to 8 feet.
On May 28, I had a conversation with City Planning & Community Development
Administrator Lisa Flores. I asked her about the point I had raised at the May 26
Planning Commission hearing on lowering the second floor plate height from 9 feet
to 8 feet. Lisa stated that it would not match the first floor height which she claimed
was 8.5 feet. I attempted to correct her by referencing the Architectural Plans
showing the first floor height at 8 feet, but instead of reviewing the Plans to confirm
accuracy, she adamantly stated it was 8.5 feet. I believe that the Planning staff
would have recommended to the Planning Commission lowering the second floor
plate height from 9 feet to 8 feet, if they had not mistakenly believed the existing
first floor height to be 8.5 feet. That recommendation would be consistent with the
ARB recommendation to bring the second floor plate height down in line with the
first story plate height, as explained earlier. The City Planning analysis would then
read as follows: “This would result in decreasing the overall height and thereby
minimizing the overall massing of the structure when viewed from the street by 2
feet, with a new height of 22’-9” (proposed at 24’-9”)”.
I must also point out an error here in the City Planning analysis which states “ARB
asserted that the height of the proposed structure could be additionally reduced
with..a lower plate height of 8.5 feet or less on the second floor.” The ARB did not
make this assertion in its Facts and Finding Report dated April 2. Instead, the ARB
states, “the second floor plate height in excess of the first story plate height..added
additional height and mass”. This statement expresses concern for a second floor
plate height that exceeds the first story plate height, which contributes to the
undesirable size and massing effect. The ARB report goes on to state, “the
proposed second floor plate height of 9 feet does not consider existing second
story plate heights established within the immediate neighborhood of 8.5 feet or
less.” Taking both statements together, one should interpret the ARB findings as a
recommendation that the second floor plate height match the first story plate
height, which the Plans show to be currently 8 feet and which would be consistent
with the neighborhood range. Unfortunately, the Planning staff misread or
misinterpreted the ARB report, resulting in a flawed analysis, summary, and
recommendation being issued to the Planning Commission.
During the May 26 Planning Commission hearing, in view of the City Planning’s
rejection of advocating single story expansion, I requested that the owner reduce
the size of the second story (by adding more first floor space towards the backyard
as discussed before) and shift the second story further towards the north. The
owner proposes a second story that sits closer to the neighbor on the south, with a
24’4” setback from the south neighbor versus a 24’11” setback from the north
neighbor. Because of the following two reasons, it is reasonable to shift the
second story towards the north by at least another 6 feet: 1) the existing property
has a much larger front yard setback on the north side than on the south side
(45’7” on the north corner vs. 34’10” on the south corner); and 2) the two story
house at 2011 HOD will be much taller than the house at 2001 HOD, but will be of
similar height as the house at 2017 HOD. This shift northward would have the
effect of grouping two similarly-sized masses, while minimizing the mismatch in
size when juxtaposed with the smaller, single story structure at 2011 HOD. As
stated in Resolution 7272, “the proposed height and bulk of structures should
respect existing structures on neighboring properties and not overwhelm them with
disproportionate size and scale.” I have pointed out that the foundation at 2011
HOD is at least 5 feet higher than the foundation at 2001 HOD, which is a single
story residence. Adding on a second story to 2011 HOD will overwhelm the
smaller existing neighboring property, so shifting it away will help to mitigate the
size and massing effect.
In addition, I had requested that the second story windows on the north and south
sides be removed to mitigate privacy issues, as discussed earlier. I also asked that
the roof pitch be lowered to 3:12, as recommended by the ARB and the Planning
staff report. The owner stated that lowering the roof pitch would reduce the
allowable attic headroom for HVAC servicing. However, one Planning
Commissioner asked that the architect seek alternatives for placement of the
HVAC for improved servicing. I share those sentiments and ask that the architect
seek out solutions for HVAC placement that will allow for the reduction in roof pitch
to 3:12. In consulting with an outside architect, I was shown easy solutions to the
HVAC placement, leading me to believe that the owner’s architect has perhaps
intentionally made suboptimal effort at addressing this issue for reasons unclear.
Since the house has been expanded significantly, there is no need for an attic
storage room (about 100 SF) if floor plans are well thought out, nor is there any
difficulty in housing HVAC somewhere else other than the attic. For example, the
high ceiling, grand stairway can be modified to provide more storage space.
Furthermore, on the second floor, there are two large closets next to a den of 502
SF--this den may in the future be easily divided into a fifth bedroom and a smaller
den. Therefore, in order to lower the total height of this two story house and
mitigate its negative impact on adjacent neighbors, it is reasonable to reduce the
roof pitch to 3:12 and eliminate the attic storage room.
I also asked the Planning Commission to mandate a reduction in the second story
plate height to 8’0”, which would lower the overall height an additional 6”, as the
height of the first floor is 8’0” (see Architectural Plans) and, as stated in the
Planning report and echoed by the ARB report, “the new second floor should
match the height of the first floor”. The second floor plate height of 8 feet is not
unheard of, as it is part of the design of many single story homes and second story
additions throughout the Arcadia Highlands, and as supported by the ARB
Findings and Action Report, “existing second story plate heights (are) established
within the immediate neighborhood of 8.5 feet or less.”
In addition, I suggest keeping the existing recessed entryway and removing the
proposed construction of a protruding front porch. The existing recessed entryway
is much more modest and harmonious with the overall ranch style of the house.
The protruding front porch, however, will add bulkiness to the house, and it would
not be compatible with the ranch style of the house.
In conclusion, I object to the two story proposed project as inappropriate for this
location. In view of City Planning’s unwillingness to support a single story remodel,
I must reiterate the modifications I also expressed at the May 26 hearing, which
include reducing the size of the second story, shifting the second floor
further north, removing north and south facing windows on the second floor
to preserve privacy, along with reducing the second story plate to 8’0”,
reducing the roof pitch to 3:12, and removing the protruding front porch, will
help to reduce the roof height, reduce massing, and decrease the impact upon the
neighbors. Finally, I request soil studies and environmental quality impact
analysis to address various vital considerations mandated by CEQA. These are
essential elements to consider in preserving the quality and attractive character of
this unique neighborhood for the enjoyment of the community and future
generations.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 3
Public Comments
The Appellant, Henry Huey’s appeal is in this font.
My comments and clarifications to Appellant’s appeal is in this font.
The Planning Commission issued a decision on May 26 to overturn the ARB’s denial ruling and
grant approval of the two-story project at 2011 HOD. I am appealing this decision because I
believe a two story project is inappropriate for this location in this neighborhood. Furthermore, I
am appealing because the Planning Commission based its decision on the summary report
provided by the City Planning Department, which was flawed in its analysis and which neglected
to sufficiently address many concerns and objections to the two-story project that have been
raised by neighbors since its inception. In addition, the Planning Commission neglected to
pursue a path of careful in-depth, fact-finding analysis prior to rendering its quick decision.
Resolution No. 7272 Design Guideline Violations:
The Design Guidelines outlined in Resolution 7272 and referenced in the Planning report call
upon the consideration of “impacts of...remodels, additions, alterations...on adjacent
properties...including impacts on privacy and views.” Furthermore “windows and
second-floor...should be located to minimize direct views into neighboring residences and
actively-used outdoor spaces of neighboring properties.” “Landscaping should not
obstruct..views enjoyed by..adjacent properties.” “The stronger the existing neighborhood
pattern, the more important it is for an owner to reinforce and respect those existing patterns.”
[There is only one small window on the North and South sides of the second floor. They are located
at the west ends of the 2nd floor. Even without the existing tall foliage, the window on the south
doesn’t look into the neighbor’s backyard or windows.][There is no landscaping being done in this
remodel. The existing landscaping protects privacy, and have done so long before we bought the
house over 14 years ago. Before and after the home remodel is completed, there would be no change
in the views enjoyed by neighbors.]
The proposed two-story project at 2011 HOD has violated the above quoted design guidelines.
Details of the violations will be given in subsequent paragraphs.
Concerns on Strong Existing Neighborhood Patterns:
The existing patterns that are strongly in place in this neighborhood include mountain/city views
and harmonious and compatible single story, traditional, Ranch style homes that line the 2000
block of Highland Oaks Drive. These existing features should be respected and reinforced as
referenced in Resolution 7272, since these features are the main reasons that residents are
attracted to this area of the Arcadia Highlands. [The existing neighborhood pattern is not purely
single story traditional ranch. There are 2-story homes some 50 years old in the neighborhood. For
example, as Commissioner Lin pointed out, 2001 Elkins Pl, is a 2 story, 3360 sq ft home that was last
remodeled in 1960, and it is closer to the street than ours. In addition, there has been a continuous
evolution that must be considered as a result of homeowners updating their homes. When
homeowners remodel, if they maintain a ranch style at all, it is a modernized one, not a 1950s-1960s
Received via email on 6/29/20
look. The Design Guidelines recognizes that architecture and neighborhoods in general evolve and
change over time.]
The proposed two story structure, sitting 12 feet above the street, will disturb these existing
patterns, as it will appear like a pinnacle when compared with its lower level neighbors on the
south and on the east. [The perspective views, rooflines, other drawings and photos show that the
two story home would not tower over any of its neighbors] Furthermore, the 1,140 SF new, second
story structure will block the city views from its northern neighbors and from the neighbor at
2026 Elkins Place, when these neighbors are standing in their backyards looking south. [Our
northern neighbors, 2017 H.O., fully support our remodel, have no concerns about privacy or views.
We spoke with our neighbors at 2026 Elkins Pl. Mrs Brodie tells us that she has no city views now.
She spoke with her husband. They both tell us they fully support our remodel.]
Privacy Concerns:
Figure 1 of the report exhibits an outdated photo of the subject property showing overgrown
trees that hide the property from its southern neighbor. However, those trees are presently
trimmed to be much smaller than what is shown in the photo, which exposes the property to
observers from every viewing angle (e.g., from Elkins Ave). It is important to realize that the
owner of 2011 HOD cannot rely on “foliage (to) reduce visual massing”, including trees, as
these may be removed in the future for various reasons, further exposing privacy. [That Figure 1
shows a photo that was taken about 1.5 years ago does not mean it is not accurate. The figure is an
accurate depiction of what the properties and trees look like year round. In addition, at the
Planning Commission hearing, photos that were taken only one week before the hearing were shown.
Henry asserts that these trees are presently trimmed to be much smaller. Therefore, if what you see
now is much smaller, then even as such, they greatly obstruct our home from public view. The 3 large
trees grow fast, so fast that Edison has to trim their tops two times a year. The Design Guidelines,
section 5. Privacy, recommends “Trees and/or screening hedges should be utilized along property
lines to provide screening and enhance privacy.” The existing foliage has been there long before we
even bought the home 14 years ago. And when we bought the home, the 3 trees were already as
mature as they are today.][In addition to the foliage, visual massing is reduced by the features of
our lot, elements of the design itself, large front setbacks, and features of our north neighbor’s home.]
The Planning staff findings include the statement “ARB did not state any concerns with privacy
impacts.” Yet, its analysis includes the ARB statement “second story addition..mitigates privacy
concerns of both..neighbors by adding only one window on each side” which conflicts with the
Planning staff’s initial statement of no privacy impacts. The report also states “neither of these
windows will have any direct sightlines into adjacent homes..impacts to privacy..not anticipated”,
which is incorrect. Privacy concerns were raised at all four ARB hearings. The ARB Findings
and Action Report dated April 2 summarizes a recommendation regarding “impacts on privacy
of neighbors by having only one window on each..South and North sides of the second story
and having the glass on those windows obscured.” Clearly, the ARB was concerned by privacy
issues to recommend obscure glass on the south and north facing, second story windows.
[There is no line of vision between our 2nd floor window and Henry’s home. In the referenced ARB
Action Report, the ARB did not make recommendations on the windows. The ARB states that our
windows are consistent with the Design Guidelines and how they are consistent. Henry’s reference to
privacy concerns raised at all four ARB hearings were actually only from opposing residents, not
from the ARB. We obscured these windows just to appease Henry, not because it was necessary to
protect privacy.]
However, the problem with obscuring the glass, instead of altering the placement of the
windows, is that when windows are open, the occupants are given a direct view into neighboring
properties. The hedges along the north property line are not very tall. Thus, the north facing,
second story window will be seen from the street looking directly into its neighbor's backyard.
The same will be true for the south facing, second story window, especially whenever the
hedges along the south property line are cut short or damaged/removed for any reason. [When
the south 2nd floor window is open, if there were no foliage, we would be looking at the top of the
south neighbor’s roof. North neighbor fully supports our remodel; they have no concerns about their
privacy and are confident we will secure it. North side setback is large, 24’11”]
While the west facing windows on the second story also have direct views into neighboring
properties and pose privacy issues, no modification to the west facing windows were made to
address significant privacy concerns (reference Resolution 7272). Although the owner has
argued that the west facing windows are required for lighting and ventilation, the windows can
be elevated above 6 feet to serve that purpose and eliminate the direct view into neighboring
properties. [There are no privacy issues with our west/backyard neighbor. Thick, very tall foliage
grows along the entire west property line on both sides. Very large setback 49’~60’-2”, in addition to
the neighbor’s own rear setback which is also very large. There is no line of vision. We have spoken
with this neighbor and he tells us that he has no concerns about our remodel, adding “you can do
whatever you want.”]
However, the north and south facing windows are unnecessary for lighting and ventilation, as
the west facing windows address these requirements for the second story rooms. Therefore, the
north and south facing windows should be eliminated for privacy concerns as discussed above.
At the minimum, they should be elevated above 6 feet and not simply obscured, if they cannot
be eliminated from the design. [There is only one small window on each side being proposed. Not
allowing any windows on the sides is not reasonable. Window sills above 6 feet are not acceptable
since the proposed ceiling height is only 8’6”.]
Comparisons with Three Larger Houses: The staff report compares the proposed project of
3,360 SF, total living space to three larger properties: 2011 Oaks Place: 3,714 SF, a single
story; 2025 Elkins Place: 3,614 SF, a split-level; 2032 Elkins Place: 4,052 SF, a two story. The
staff’s comparisons don’t support the proposed two story project because of the following
reasons. First of all, 2011 Oaks Place is a single story and has a much larger lot size. In
addition, single story additions will be allowed without any ARB public hearing regardless of lot
size or location. [Single story additions are not exempt from ARB hearings. It depends on what is
being done.] Secondly, 2032 Elkins Place was a highly contested project decades ago and was
allowed to proceed on a large scale despite considerable neighborhood protest. It is simply not
convincing to use a grandfathered “mistake” (per current design standard) allowed by the
Planning Dept. decades ago as an example for comparison. [There are no apples to apples
comparisons of any 2 homes. Every lot is unique. For example, the house on 2032 Elkins Place is on
a down slope, which causes it to appear more massive. Our lot has an up slope, which leads to a
smaller appearance of the house. We share concerns about large scale developments. Our remodel
is not on this trajectory of “large scale.” Our proposed home is modest in every way.]
Fast forward to the present date, and again many neighbors are against the two story project at
2011 HOD due to its inappropriate size and mass for the location, which is well summarized in
the ARB report outlining issues “due to the scale of the project in the context of the topography
of the subject parcel”, and it “does not integrate design that mitigates the massing and scale
issues with respect to the streetscape (and)..adjoining properties.” It is many neighbors’ desire
and determination that no designs such as the one at 2032 Elkins Place should be allowed on
the narrower and steeper part of the street of Highland Oaks Drive just north of Elkins Ave.
Many neighbors driving by or walking by this part of Highland Oaks Drive can see the tall two
story house of 2032 Elkins Place, which exposes itself without any barriers and negatively
affects the streetscape of its neighboring street. [The ARB supported the Planning Commission’s
decision. For 2 years, Henry has canvassed Highlands residents to oppose our remodel. He has
knocked on neighbors’ doors, emailed Highlands HOA members, created a Facebook page to
campaign against our remodel, and created and placed handouts in neighbors’ mailboxes. At the
Planning Commission hearing, there were approx 10 opposers compared to approx. 35 supporters.]
Finally, 2025 Elkins Place is a split-level (1.5 story) house since it sits on uneven ground. The
garage sits on the lower side (south), and the upper level directly above it is relatively small
compared to the first floor on the higher side (north) and in the back. In addition, the huge front
yard setback on the lower side helps minimize the visual impact of the upper level. Most
important of all, the foundations on both the lower side (south) and the higher side (north) are
not much higher than the street. The entire property at 2011 HOD, however, sits 12 feet above
the street. [Again, not an apples to apples comparison. All the homes on the west side of Highland
Oaks sit on elevated pads. The appellant’s house sits on a 15 feet elevated pad.)
Comparison with 2017 Highland Oaks:
The staff report mistakenly states that 2017 HOD is “not much larger than the proposed project”
when in fact it is smaller than the proposed project at 2011 HOD. Indeed, approval of this
project would result in the subject property “having the largest home along this portion of
Highland Oaks Drive”. Given the fact that the lot size of 2011 HOD is one of the smallest on the
block and it sits 12 feet above the street, it is neither harmonious nor compatible to build the
biggest two story house on this site. [This minor error of square footage comparison does not
diminish the basis of City Planning’s reasoning. Total square footage of 2017 H.O. is nearly the
same as our proposed. Excessive size is defined by Code max FAR and max FAR with 3% incentive
with regard to the specific HOA. Further, our second floor is largely hidden from public view, as it is
pushed to the rear of the 1st floor and obstructed by foliage.]
As for the owner at 2011 HOD, in her appeals letter, the owner makes repeated reference to her
north neighbor’s home at 2017 HOD, a split-level house that was completely rebuilt from the
ground up in 2013. In 2011 or 2012, the City’s Planning Dept. approved the demolition of the old
house and yard and approved the complete rebuild of the current house without any HOA/ARB
public hearing, even if there were obviously significant changes in height, mass, size, and
architectural style. If standard procedures were followed by allowing for public input, that
structure would not have existed today, as it continues to receive considerable negative reviews
from many neighbors. That structure would not have been a focal point of comparison for the
owner of 2011 HOD had the City’s Planning Dept. requested a proper HOA/ARB public hearing.
Therefore, it is inappropriate to compare one’s project to an architectural “mistake”. [2017 H.O.
was not a complete rebuild. The main structure was retained. The exterior finish was changed and
there was an addition to the back of house.] [Comparison to 2017 H.O. is not to copy their design but
to demonstrate that lowering the building pad and adding in the front yard creates massing. It does
not reduce it. And it is to show that 2017 H.O. reduces our home’s visual massing. It is appropriate
and necessary to consider and make comparisons to all adjacent homes, and not just compare to
homes that would support one’s arguments. It is what it is.]
Consequences of Insensitive Designs and Development: Elkins Place (the street west of
Highland Oaks Dr, north of Elkins Ave) provides many examples of what happens when
large-scale developments are approved in this community. Around 1992, the 4052 SF, two story
mansion was proposed and built at 2032 Elkins Place despite considerable neighborhood
protest. It was approved by the City despite repeated objections from neighbors. This paved the
way for the construction of a 4772 SF, two story mansion next to it at 2038 Elkins Place, which
was built around 2009. The project also faced heavy protests from neighbors, but the Planning
Dept. approved it nevertheless. In 2017, a 4807 SF, two story house with a basement was
proposed and approved at 2039 Elkins Place, which is currently under construction. The new
house is now taller than both the split-level on the south, 2035 Elkins Place, and the split-level
on the north, 2045 Elkins Place. The unmitigated large-scale, two story developments that are
permitted throughout this neighborhood have cumulative impacts on views, natural resources,
population density that exact a heavy strain and irreversible toll on the Arcadia Highlands.
[Comparisons to these homes support our remodel, as ours is not on this trajectory of “large-scale
developments.”]
In regards to the development at 2039 Elkins Place, did the neighbors anticipate the
inharmonious height difference? Perhaps a story pole demonstration would have led the
community to request a reduction in the second story roof to a more reasonable height.
Neighbors can only expect the next two story project to come along and outdo the 4807 SF, two
story structure at 2039 Elkins Place. These are the many examples that should concern all
members of this community. [The story poles lets you see the effect of the building height only to a
limited extent, not the massing of the sides or the roof. The perspective view provided is a better tool to
perceive the massing effect.]
The homeowners along the 2000 block of Highland Oaks Dr, as well as the majority of this
community, do not want the progression of increasingly larger, two story homes being built on
the relatively narrower street of Highland Oaks, as the two story houses will inevitably block the
views of many neighbors on this part of Highland Oaks. The approval of a two story home at
2011 HOD would surely trigger this surge in development, with significant environmental
impacts. [Development, updates, remodels are good for our community. It maintains the
appearance of the neighborhood and maintains and increases home values.]
Environmental Impacts:
The staff report neglects to consider the environmental impact of expanding the additional first
floor living space, altering the backyard landscape, reshaping the pool, handling/removing
hazardous waste, in the absence of soil studies to determine the effect of adding a second
story, excavation, altering the topography in a hillside terrain, and the potential adverse effect on
neighbors’ health and living environment. [Environment impacts have been considered and this
project would lead to a positive impact in many ways. No landscaping will be destroyed (as opposed
to an all 1st story addition), reducing pool size will save water, energy, and pool maintenance needs,
and reduce rain water run off. Reduce energy consumption with upgraded energy efficient windows,
appliances, etc. More energy saved with 2 story compared to 1 story.] [There will be no altering of
topography, no excavation. This is not a hillside development remodel. We are building on an
elevated flat lot, not on a hillside. We see no “potential adverse effects on neighbors’ health and
living environment”)
In mandating that “landscape screening..be installed along the southern property line between
the homes at the project site and 2001 Highland Oaks Drive”, that “this condition shall be met by
the existing trees on the project site”, the Planning Commission neglects to consider the location
of the trees and their adverse impact, including obstruction of views (reference Resolution 7272)
and damage to neighboring property. In this situation, the trees referenced in the Planning
Commission Decision Letter are toppling the cement retaining wall that protects the property at
2001 HOD. Environmental impact analysis would uncover the risks posed by the City’s
insistence on the retention of the trees, that these trees may need to be treated, modified,
possibly removed immediately to mitigate property damage, which would also lead to exposure
of neighbors’ privacy. The dependence on three trees to fully address the widely expressed
privacy issues is misguided at this time, particularly in the absence of a more thorough
environmental quality and impact analysis. One Planning Commissioner did ask the other
members to engage in a more thorough, in-depth, fact-finding analysis-- while referencing many
of the concerns raised by project opponents--rather than rush to render an immediate decision
on the project. [The 3 trees are not causing property damage that is of any significance. The roots of
the living trees and other foliage protect the retaining wall/land from sliding.] [The Planning
Commissioners’ decision was heavily grounded. 4 of 5 Commissioners voted in favor of the decision
based on findings from City Planning, the owners/architects, their own and each other’s findings,
and approx 45 comments from the public, and ARB approval of the decision. Further, these
Commissioners found there was no benefit to continue the hearing since there was majority and ARB
consensus, and no new recommendations/concerns had been brought up that they hadn’t
considered.]
The environmental impact of the two story addition should also be considered within the context
of the ensuing two story projects to develop along this street of single story, Ranch style homes,
as an approval of this project would encourage homeowners to build upward instead of into their
backyards, for a multitude of reasons, including recapturing scenic views. The cascade of
ensuing building developments throughout the neighborhood creates a cumulative
environmental impact that is harmful and which must be anticipated and which should be
analyzed, so that steps can be taken beforehand to mitigate the damage. Look no further than
Elkins Place, an adjacent street to the west, where incrementally larger and larger two story
structures have developed in close succession. While a single large scale project has obvious
environmental impact, a collection of relatively small-scale projects has the potential to exert
significant, cumulative, harmful environmental impact. [It’s unreasonable to expect that even
small-scale projects, like ours, should not be done.]
This sampling list underscores the multitude of two-story projects in the Arcadia Highlands,
along with the aforementioned developments on Elkins Place, that were recently approved or
built, or are seeking approval: 276 Monte Place, 270 Monte Place, 211 Monte Place, 2146
Canyon Road, 2125 Canyon Road, 2200 Highland Vista Dr, 2216 Highland Oaks Dr, 2020
Highland Oaks Dr, 1727 Highland Oaks Dr, 1129 Highland Oaks Dr, 11 E. Orange Grove Ave.
The environmental impact of these many large-scale projects and their close proximity to fire
zones cannot be overemphasized. [It is unreasonable to expect that no more 2 story homes should
be built in the Highlands. Each should be considered on a case by case basis. For example, 2200
Highland Vista, is only seeking a 2nd floor addition 849 sq ft, for a total home sq ft of 3152.)
Cumulative impact analysis is important because history has shown that environmental damage
often occurs from the accumulation of a variety of relatively smaller projects over time. The City
has not addressed the impacts on the neighborhood character, natural resources, increased
runoff, effects on water quality, fire risk, energy consumption, traffic and noise pollution, among
various other vital considerations mandated by CEQA. [I believe the City has adequately
addressed all these concerns through Codes, Regulations, Ordinances, etc., and its multiple levels of
governing bodies.]
Horizontal Addition Possible: Backyard Space Another concern raised in the staff report is
whether an addition in the backyard of 2011 HOD is practical. It finds that the 1,140 SF can be
accomplished by covering “3/4 of the total rear yard area.” This would require the “existing
swimming pool..to be removed.” The owner had already planned on redesigning the pool in
order to build additional first floor living space. Therefore, removing the pool, and extending the
first floor living space further back can achieve the increased living space of 1,140 SF, without
adding on any second floor. This would still leave some rear yard space for a garden or play
area. This is highly practical as it would accomplish the desired living space without harming the
neighborhood enjoyment of views, privacy, and harmonious compatibility in the community.
[While we are considering redesigning the pool, it is not affected by or needed for the 1st story
addition. The intent of pool redesign is to reduce waste by reducing the volume of the pool. We have
not made any definite decisions on the pool.] [As for an all 1st story addition, this is not feasible for
many reasons, most important of which is it would not increase our living space. Our family would
lose the backyard living space we enjoy nearly daily and would lose enjoyment of our pool. City
Planning also recognizes such a plan “would come with limitations...pool would have to be
removed… would result in no usable space in the rear yard.” In addition, an all 1st story addition
would create a “dark” center in the home, leading to ventilation and lighting challenges, greater
energy use, a massive roof.]
As can be seen from the aerial view found in the Planning report, 2011 HOD has a relatively
much bigger, flat backyard than its adjacent neighboring properties on the west side of the 2000
block of Highland Oaks Dr. Therefore, for 2011 HOD, even with the current reduced-size pool
plan, there is plenty of space on the south side of the backyard for significant first floor addition,
which will reduce the size of the second floor or eliminate it all together.
Subground Garage
Since the owner of 2011 HOD identifies with the north neighbor’s architectural style, she is
encouraged to incorporate the existing garage into the first floor living space and relocate the
garage by digging underneath the top of the steep driveway in front of her existing garage to
create a subground garage. The area above this subground garage can be additional living
space, which would allow considerable first floor addition without adding on a second story. This
design would result in a much flatter driveway and enable attaining the same living space that
2017 HOD has accomplished, without having to remove the pool, and keeping the entire
backyard as a play area. [Building a garage on a new lower building pad in the front would be the
plan that would have a major negative environmental impact, and it would add massing instead of
reducing it. Commissioner Chan pointed this out “if the house was moved forward, not set back as
far as it is now, the massing of the 2nd floor would look larger.” Also, this plan would not result in
an equivalent amount of living space and it is not safe for us to have a staircase from garage to
house because of elderly parents.]
The Story Poles
The story poles requested by the ARB are appropriate because it is unclear from the
architectural drawings how tall the overall structure will be relative to both adjacent properties. In
fact, the measurements indicate that the proposed two story structure will exceed the height of
the property to the north. In addition, the architectural drawings have demonstrated several
shortcomings during each variation of submission. The photos have been outdated showing
landscape and trees that were large, but which have been significantly cut back since then.
Furthermore, the renditions show that properties on 2011 HOD and 2017 HOD have the same
rooftop level. How could this be, if the height of 2017 HOD measures 28’2”, and the height of
the proposed two-story at 2011 HOD measures 28’9”, relative to the foundation of 2017 HOD?
[Height of 24'-9" for the proposed building is from the average existing grade, as defined by the city.
The average existing grade is 5.5" at the garage level. Our garage level is 3' higher than the garage
level of 2017 H.O. 2017’s has a building height of 28’2”. Ours is 24’9”, about 3.5’ shorter. That is
why our proposed is almost level with this neighbor on A6. It should be noted that this explanation
is based on the following: Our building height is from the average existing grade, 2017 is from the
garage level since we don't know their average existing grade which is surely much higher than the
garage level. Then when we compare the roofs, the vertical rise of the neighbor’s roof is over an area
almost 3300 sq feet, ours is over 1100 sq ft. TThis means not only is their roof height much greater,
but their roof is greater in area, and volume, meaning more mass. In addition, the front setback of
the 2nd floor of the proposed home is almost double that of 2017 H.O. So our home is smaller in
building height, in reality, and visually appears much smaller on the perspective view (A8 on the
plans).]
The owner states in her appeal letter “the completed project will never be perceived as the 2-D
drawings depict.” That statement does support the ARB’s concerns that the existing 2-D
drawings fail to show the massing effect that story poles would clarify. Therefore, it is necessary
to have a story pole setup in order for everyone involved, whether expert or untrained observer,
to see the actual mock up, in order to ensure that the structure being built actually reflects what
is shown on 2-D drawings. [Here’s what else I said “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.”]
Furthermore, the architectural drawings indicate that a 6 foot person standing at the curb may or
may not perceive the height of the roof. However, the massing effect and its impact on the
neighbors is not limited to the view at this single focal point, but rather can be impressive at
various points along the curb (keeping in mind the varying setbacks from the north versus the
south along the street), at the opposite curb, and from the perspective of all neighboring
homeowners. Therefore, it is fully justified to request a story pole demonstration in order to fully
appreciate the massing effect of this proposed structure, and ensure that the community won’t
be harmed by adding an upper level at this specific location, where the foundation is 12 feet
higher than the curb and the street slopes upward. [That our lot is elevated and the street slopes
upwards reduces visual massing in reality. This has been well covered in the past by
myself/architects and in City Planning Report. The example of the 6’ person in diagram A-10
applies no matter where you place this person on the street along the curb line. On the same
drawing, it shows a 6’ person only starts to see the roof farther than 14’-7” from the curb, which is
88’-8” from the building.The view changes a little since the building is not parallel to the street but
not much. The diagram demonstrates you will see either no roof or a much reduced roof than what
you see on A5 elevations or on A6,]
Factors for a More Reasonable Second-Story Addition: The excessive height of the proposed
two-story structure has been a recurrent concern to the ARB as well as City Planning. The ARB
Findings and Action Report states “the proposed project IS NOT consistent with
..Guidelines..the rooflines having additional pitch over a 3:12 pitch and the second floor plate
height in excess of the first story plate height.” The ARB expressed concern that the project “all
added additional height and mass to a home that is oriented well above street level.” The ARB
report further reiterates this concern by stating, “needlessly adding additional overall height to
the structure that will be effectively 3 stories above the street.” And despite the Architectural
Plan design in its current form, with the second story setback, the ARB report emphasizes the
lack of consistency with Frontage Guidelines, “homes should not have significantly greater
height at the front of a property than that of adjacent homes.” These concerns resulted in a
unanimous decision to deny the project. [Our second story has a large front set back, 46’6”-54’. It
is also set back 8’1”-10’1” from the first story,and the side setbacks are 6’+ greater than required.
These 3 factors reduce visual massing greatly. The roofline across the roof tops is smooth, A-8, which
demonstrates the home will not have significantly greater height. All the homes on the west side of
H.O. are on elevated pads. Homes on an elevated lot appear smaller for two reasons, 2) the visual
angle is smaller and 2) you see less of the roof.]
The City Planning staff also expressed concern regarding massing when it stated in its analysis
supporting a “reduction in the roof pitch going from 4:12 to 3:12”. The analysis also calls for a
“lowering of the second floor plate height...to be consistent with the first floor height.” It further
states “the new second floor should match the height of the first floor,” which is echoed in the
ARB Findings and Action Report. However, the Planning staff recommended a lowering of the
“second floor plate height from 9 feet to 8.5 feet.” The Plans show that the existing first floor
height is 8 feet, which should have led the Planning staff to recommend lowering the second
floor plate height from 9 feet to 8 feet. [”Consistent” doesn’t mean equal. We had agreed to lower
the 2nd floor ceiling from 9’ to 8’6” despite 9’ is the new norm and 8’6” needs excessive labor to cut
every wall stud. Besides, the 2nd floor height looks smaller than the first since the lower roof of the
1st floor is extended into the walls of the 2nd floor.]
On May 28, I had a conversation with City Planning & Community Development Administrator
Lisa Flores. I asked her about the point I had raised at the May 26 Planning Commission
hearing on lowering the second floor plate height from 9 feet to 8 feet. Lisa stated that it would
not match the first floor height which she claimed was 8.5 feet. I attempted to correct her by
referencing the Architectural Plans showing the first floor height at 8 feet, but instead of
reviewing the Plans to confirm accuracy, she adamantly stated it was 8.5 feet. I believe that the
Planning staff would have recommended to the Planning Commission lowering the second floor
plate height from 9 feet to 8 feet, if they had not mistakenly believed the existing first floor height
to be 8.5 feet. That recommendation would be consistent with the ARB recommendation to
bring the second floor plate height down in line with the first story plate height, as explained
earlier. The City Planning analysis would then read as follows: “This would result in decreasing
the overall height and thereby minimizing the overall massing of the structure when viewed from
the street by 2 feet, with a new height of 22’-9” (proposed at 24’-9”)”. [“To match” does not mean
to equal. The ARB agreed with a 8’6’ ceiling height at the Planning Commission hearing.]
I must also point out an error here in the City Planning analysis which states “ARB asserted that
the height of the proposed structure could be additionally reduced with..a lower plate height of
8.5 feet or less on the second floor.” The ARB did not make this assertion in its Facts and
Finding Report dated April 2. Instead, the ARB states, “the second floor plate height in excess of
the first story plate height..added additional height and mass”. This statement expresses
concern for a second floor plate height that exceeds the first story plate height, which
contributes to the undesirable size and massing effect. The ARB report goes on to state, “the
proposed second floor plate height of 9 feet does not consider existing second story plate
heights established within the immediate neighborhood of 8.5 feet or less.” Taking both
statements together, one should interpret the ARB findings as a recommendation that the
second floor plate height match the first story plate height, which the Plans show to be currently
8 feet and which would be consistent with the neighborhood range. Unfortunately, the Planning
staff misread or misinterpreted the ARB report, resulting in a flawed analysis, summary, and
recommendation being issued to the Planning Commission.
During the May 26 Planning Commission hearing, in view of the City Planning’s rejection of
advocating single story expansion, I requested that the owner reduce the size of the second
story (by adding more first floor space towards the backyard as discussed before) and shift the
second story further towards the north. The owner proposes a second story that sits closer to
the neighbor on the south, with a 24’4” setback from the south neighbor versus a 24’11” setback
from the north neighbor. Because of the following two reasons, it is reasonable to shift the
second story towards the north by at least another 6 feet: 1) the existing property has a much
larger front yard setback on the north side than on the south side (45’7” on the north corner vs.
34’10” on the south corner); and 2) the two story house at 2011 HOD will be much taller than
the house at 2001 HOD, but will be of similar height as the house at 2017 HOD. This shift
northward would have the effect of grouping two similarly-sized masses, while minimizing the
mismatch in size when juxtaposed with the smaller, single story structure at 2011 HOD. As
stated in Resolution 7272, “the proposed height and bulk of structures should respect existing
structures on neighboring properties and not overwhelm them with disproportionate size and
scale.” I have pointed out that the foundation at 2011 HOD is at least 5 feet higher than the
foundation at 2001 HOD, which is a single story residence. Adding on a second story to 2011
HOD will overwhelm the smaller existing neighboring property, so shifting it away will help to
mitigate the size and massing effect. [There are many problems with shifting the 2nd fl an
additional 6’ than what has already been shifted. It would create a disproportionate appearance to
the home. The South side set back exceeds the minimum, by 6’6”, quite adequate at 24’4”. The shift
cannot be done because of the staircase. The roofline would be less smooth. Also, my 2 story is
intermediate in visual massing between its adjacent neighbors, so centered where it currently is
creates a nice balance. Lastly and most importantly, this shift would be inconsiderate of the north
neighbor, where the foliage is not as tall as at the south. South neighbor already has no line of
vision. Shifting to the north may introduce privacy issues for north neighbor while south neighbor
derives no benefit.]
In addition, I had requested that the second story windows on the north and south sides be
removed to mitigate privacy issues, as discussed earlier. I also asked that the roof pitch be
lowered to 3:12, as recommended by the ARB and the Planning staff report. The owner stated
that lowering the roof pitch would reduce the allowable attic headroom for HVAC servicing.
However, one Planning Commissioner asked that the architect seek alternatives for placement
of the HVAC for improved servicing. I share those sentiments and ask that the architect seek
out solutions for HVAC placement that will allow for the reduction in roof pitch to 3:12. In
consulting with an outside architect, I was shown easy solutions to the HVAC placement,
leading me to believe that the owner’s architect has perhaps intentionally made suboptimal
effort at addressing this issue for reasons unclear. [It’s not just about the HVAC fitting in the attic.
At 3:12, the attic space is a crawl space, making it considerably more difficult to do repairs in the
roof or ceiling. There is also a greater chance of roof leakage. Also, at our hearing with the
Planning Commission, the Commissioners agreed that a 3:12 would be a problem. Hence, they voted
to pass 4:12, and the ARB supported the approval. There are also problems with placing the HVAC
unit in the house. It is too noisy and would disrupt our sleep. It also leads to increased costs of labor
for installation, and it would consume indoor oxygen. Lastly, we would lose storage space in the
house.]
Since the house has been expanded significantly, there is no need for an attic storage room
(about 100 SF) if floor plans are well thought out, nor is there any difficulty in housing HVAC
somewhere else other than the attic. For example, the high ceiling, grand stairway can be
modified to provide more storage space. Furthermore, on the second floor, there are two large
closets next to a den of 502 SF--this den may in the future be easily divided into a fifth bedroom
and a smaller den. Therefore, in order to lower the total height of this two story house and
mitigate its negative impact on adjacent neighbors, it is reasonable to reduce the roof pitch to
3:12 and eliminate the attic storage room. [Irrelevant and there’s no high ceiling or grand
stairway in the house.]
I also asked the Planning Commission to mandate a reduction in the second story plate height
to 8’0”, which would lower the overall height an additional 6”, as the height of the first floor is
8’0” (see Architectural Plans) and, as stated in the Planning report and echoed by the ARB
report, “the new second floor should match the height of the first floor”. The second floor plate
height of 8 feet is not unheard of, as it is part of the design of many single story homes and
second story additions throughout the Arcadia Highlands, and as supported by the ARB
Findings and Action Report, “existing second story plate heights (are) established within the
immediate neighborhood of 8.5 feet or less.” [By today’s standards, 8’6” is low. The standard is
9.’ 10’ is also frequently done.]
In addition, I suggest keeping the existing recessed entryway and removing the proposed
construction of a protruding front porch. The existing recessed entryway is much more modest
and harmonious with the overall ranch style of the house. [our proposed porch is modest. It’s only
9’ wide, does not have thick column or any ornate features. It has a horizontal roof element that
blends in with the first story roof. From every angle of public view, the view of the porch is obstructed.
At most, you can only see 40-50% of the top half.][Many porch styles are harmonious with the ranch
style, as can be seen by the variety of porches throughout the Highlands.]
The protruding front porch, however, will add bulkiness to the house, and it would not be
compatible with the ranch style of the house. In conclusion, I object to the two story proposed
project as inappropriate for this location. In view of City Planning’s unwillingness to support a
single story remodel, I must reiterate the modifications I also expressed at the May 26 hearing,
which include reducing the size of the second story, shifting the second floor further north,
removing north and south facing windows on the second floor to preserve privacy, along with
reducing the second story plate to 8’0”, reducing the roof pitch to 3:12, and removing the
protruding front porch, will help to reduce the roof height, reduce massing, and decrease the
impact upon the neighbors. Finally, I request soil studies and environmental quality impact
analysis to address various vital considerations mandated by CEQA. These are essential
elements to consider in preserving the quality and attractive character of this unique
neighborhood for the enjoyment of the community and future generations. Thank you for your
time and consideration.
July 28, 2020
Dear Honorable Council members
My husband,Gary,and I are the homeowners of 2011 Highland Oaks.When we
moved here over 14 years ago,our oldest child was 1 year old.Given the blessings of
three additional children,our family has grown to a family of six plus our rescue dog.
Our children all attend Arcadia schools.We have one at the high school,one at the
Rancho Lab middle school,and two at Highland Oaks Elementary.We also anticipate
older parents living with us.
So when we began this project in 2018,we wanted a 5 bedroom house 3800-4000 sq ft
for our family’s optimal comfort.At the same time,we also valued designing a house
with 3 Key things in mind 1)It looks nice and fits in with the neighborhood 2)protecting
Privacy and 3)protecting Views.We thought about doing a one story addition first
because it’s more cost effective,but it wouldn’t achieve our need to increase living
space and there were many challenges with it.With 4 active kids and a love for the
outdoors,we are a family that truly uses our backyard as a living space.So building out
the back gives us a net effect on living space of zero.When we imagined what a
3800-4000 sq ft house with a 3 car garage would look like,we thought it would look too
big on our street.The very reason we chose to live here 14 yrs ago,in a part of Arcadia
with a HOA is because we didn’t want to see mansionization.We enjoy the look and
feel of the Highlands.So I can’t begin to tell you how surprised we were to find this
cluster of anti-mansionization opponents against us.We should be on the same side.
Balancing everything important to us,we had our architect design a 2-story Ranch
house that is 3360 sq ft,4 bedrooms,2 car garage.The size is far smaller than what
we could have built (possible maximum FAR 4435 sq ft).
We started to work with the ARB in June 2018.We have had 4 public hearings.Before
and in between all the hearings,our architect team,and myself,had countless back and
forth interactions with the ARB and we modified plans many times to try to satisfy the
ARB members and neighbors.At one point,we even agreed to change the style from
Ranch to French country because the ARB said they wanted to see a style where the
2nd story is hidden under the roof.Collaborating with the ARB hit a wall at the 3rd
hearing when they insisted on Story poles because they didn’t believe the renderings
they saw.When we refused to do Story poles,giving supporting reasons of insufficient
justification,they unanimously voted to deny our home remodel.And it was their only
basis for their denial.
It was at this point we sought assistance from City Planning,and it was the Planning
Administrator Lisa Flores that facilitated collaboration with the ARB.We first met with
her right after the 3rd hearing.She concurred that the ARB cannot ask us to do things
that are not standard,like putting up Story poles.Or rather,these things cannot be a
condition of approval.She also said the French country plan needs to be abandoned,
that there was no hope of salvaging it,and agreed the Ranch style would be a good fit.
Then still,on 4 subsequent occasions (Sep 24,2019,Dec 18,2019,Jan 9,2020,April
2,2020),the ARB insisted on Story poles,including at the last ARB hearing.It is for
this reason that we had not agreed to any further changes at the last ARB hearing.
Three ARB members had expressed that they would not approve our home remodel
unless we agreed to do Story Poles.Three is a majority vote.Before this hearing,we
also had Lisa Flores and city planner Jeff Hamilton independently review our plans and
provide comments on visual massing,roof,overall style and compatibility.And it was
with these blessings that we had submitted the new Ranch style plans to the ARB.
At the Planning Commission hearing on May 26,2020,we readily compromised further
as we had been willing all along.It was not because we believed these compromises
were necessary to achieve compatibility.Quite the contrary,we showed in our
presentation,using factual findings and science,that visual massing (building height,
roof pitch,verticality,windows)was already compatible without additional changes.But
we agreed to additional changes because of our belief in the spirit of compromise.Not
only is our home being harmonious with the neighborhood important to us,harmony
with all those involved (neighbors and ARB) is equally as important.
To date, we have made many changes and compromises to our original vision of a
2-story ranch:
1)reduced total square footage to 3360 from 3800-4000
2)reduced to 4BR, 2 car garage from 5BR/3 car
3)reduced roof pitch to 4:12 from 5:12
4)Shifted the 2nd fl 3’-2” to the RT (South neighbor has no line of vision either way.
The change was an attempt to appease neighbors).
5)Eliminated some gables (vertical element) on both sides (see less walls as a
result)
6)changed the roof line on the lower roof which reduces visual massing of the 2nd
story
7)added articulations to the front fascia of the second story
8)added gabled windows to break up the second floor roof’s eave and roof
9)obscured the windows on the sides of the second floor
10)reduce 2nd floor ceiling height to 8”6”
11)reduce the size of the second floor east windows
12)reduce the size of the dormers over the second floor east windows
We have the support of every single neighbor that surrounds our property,7 in all.Of
course,this is with the exception of the Appellant,our south adjacent neighbor.Within
the immediate neighborhood,we have the support of 40+neighbors (Attachment 1.
map), and more as you increase the radius.
After a long two year struggle,we have finally achieved a congruency of findings with
the ARB,City Planning,the Planning Commission,and a growing community of
supporters.We would like to thank all of our supporters for being on this journey with
us.Your unwavering support has gotten us through the toughest times.We will be
forever grateful.
Thank you
Julie Wu (and husband, Gary)
Owners of 2011 Highland Oaks Dr
Attachment 1. Map of supporters, immediate neighborhood only
Red dots denote supporters
From:Chris Nakaishi
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Wednesday, July 22, 2020 6:28:10 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to show my support of the home remodel at 2011 Highland
Oaks Drive. I strongly believe that this two story home is going to make the
neighborhood more appealing. This will also increase the property value in general
for this sought after neighborhood which benefits all parties.
When driving around Highland Oaks, it is quite clear that the new homes, whether
one or two stories of all sizes all blend in appropriately with the older ones. The
homes that stand out to me are the homes that are not well maintained especially
when the yards are unkempt. This two story home will bring a positive update to
the community and will make the street more desirable and attractive.
I was so glad to hear that the Planning Commission approved the project after more
than two years. I know the owners have made huge efforts in changing their plans
and compromising their plans to satisfy the Planning Commission & ARB.
As a fellow Arcadia community member I urge the City Council to approve this
home remodel.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Chris Nakaishi
National Practice Leader, Reliance Standard Life
Arcadia Resident
Mobile: 626-840-8500
From:hamid amjadi
To:Mailbox - Planning
Cc:Julie Wu
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Dr
Date:Thursday, July 23, 2020 4:40:38 PM
Dear City Council, Arcadia
I support the proposed 2 story home at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr without hesitation. The total
square footage as well as the square footage of the second floor is modest. The house is
attractive but not excessive. The windows with the dormers and the porch are nice touches, as
well as the traditional sidings. I am very happy the Planning Commission approved the home,
and the Chair of the ARB and City Planning gave their approval of the decision. The approval
was based on solid, sound facts that supported harmony with the neighboring homes. It has
been over 2 years since the homeowners started working with the ARB. For a project of this
scale, 2 years is excessive. It means the homeowners’ right to use of their property has been
obstructed for over 2 years. I would like the City Council to approve this modest residential
remodel.
Thank you,
Simin and Hamid Amjadi
1862 Oakwood Ave.
Arcadia CA, 91006
626 616 0349
From:Jennifer Chiang
To:Mailbox - Planning
Cc:Julie Wu
Subject:Support for remodel at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr.
Date:Friday, July 24, 2020 10:13:13 AM
Dear City Council of Arcadia:
I am writing to give my full support for the decision of the Planning
Commission, the Highlands Architectural Review Board, Department of City Planning,
and the over 30 neighbors, to support and approve the proposed Ranch style home
remodel at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, which includes a two-story addition. It is visually
pleasing, a sensible home in every aspect of its design. It does not draw attention. It
is harmonious both in its immediate neighborhood and the larger Highlands. I have no
concerns to express. The size of the house, size and placement of windows and
doors, heights, and setbacks are all well designed. The owners have carefully
considered all their neighbors.
The homeowners have already waited a long time to build a home for their family. I
would like the City Council to vote Yes to pass this project without delay.
Thank you!
Jennifer Chiang
From:Rebecca Yang
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:support for 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia
Date:Friday, July 24, 2020 1:27:50 PM
Dear City Council of Arcadia
I am writing to show my continuous full support for the proposed 2 story located at
2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia. I fully support the plans for this modest 2 story
Ranch style home, with a second floor addition. It is tastefully done to add much
needed character and update in this community of homes, without looking grand or
overbearing. As I stated in my letter to the Planning commission for the last hearing, it
is impossible for this 2 story home to “morph” into a 3 story home. It will fit in nicely
with the surrounding homes. Around the nearby streets, there are numerous 2 story
homes. This one is nowhere near the largest of them, is actually quite a sensible size
at 3360 square feet. The owners will not find it too big even after their kids have left
their nest. In examining the architectural plans, I see that the street view of the
second floor has been minimized. The bulk of it is in the back of the house. It is also
much smaller than the first floor. For the most part, it looks like you see little of the
second floor roof. The front facade and roof are broken up which adds to the home’s
character. The porch also adds character, too bad you see so little of it from the
street since it’s mostly blocked by trees. I give these plans my full approval. I have
been following this project since the first hearing. The process has been unkind to
the homeowners, on top of an unreasonable unwilling neighbor to show any
humanness. I want the City Council, whom we have elected to protect us, to give
these homeowners the protection that has been long overdue. Approve this project.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Rebecca Yang
1740 Oakwood Ave Arcadia
From:Jing Latona
To:Mailbox - Planning
Date:Saturday, July 25, 2020 8:10:07 AM
To the City Council of Arcadia:
Dear City Council, Arcadia
I support the proposed 2 story home at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr without hesitation. The total square footage as
well as the square footage of the second floor is modest. The house is attractive but not excessive. The
windows with the dormers and the porch are nice touches, as well as the traditional sidings. I am very happy the
Planning Commission approved the home, and the Chair of the ARB and City Planning gave their approval of
the decision. The approval was based on solid, sound facts that supported harmony with the neighboring homes.
It has been over 2 years since the homeowners started working with the ARB. For a project of this scale, 2
years is excessive. It means the homeowners’ right to use of their property has been obstructed for over 2
years. I would like the City Council to approve this modest residential remodel.
Thank you
Arcadia Resident
From:David Hokanson
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Dr
Date:Sunday, July 26, 2020 3:28:15 PM
To the Arcadia City Council
I support the plans for the 2 story house att 2011 Highland Oaks Dr. Taking into
consideration privacy, views, and neighborhood harmony, I see no reason to make
any changes. The size and exterior finish are appropriate. It will improve the
neighborhood and increase home values.
The Appellant’s appeal is not supported with any solid, objective, or reasonable
arguments. His belief that the house will look like 3 stories is not supported by
facts. Therefore, this appeal represents the opinion of one appellant and the City
Council should not draw conclusions based on opinions not supported by fact,
especially the opinions of a single person.
At the planning commission hearing, there was an overwhelming amount of evidence
presented by many that this house is indeed harmonious with the surrounding
neighborhood. There was no evidence to the contrary.
I want the City Council to deny the Appellant’s appeal in its entirety and approve this
remodel. The approval of this remodel is completely in line with other approvals made
by the Planning Commission and the City Council in recent years.
Thank you!
Dave Hokanson
1732 S 6th Ave
Arcadia, CA 91006
July 27, 2020
Arcadia City Council
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91006
RE: 2011 Highland Oaks Dr.
Honorable Councilmembers:
As a licensed architect practicing in the San Gabriel Valley for more than 30 years, I would like
to offer some comments on the project noted above. I have reviewed the proposed project’s
current design and the comments for and against it.
I am in agreement with the Planning Staff’s findings and the Planning Commission’s prior
approval. The proposed design is harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of
massing, style, and height. The owner has clearly demonstrated a willingness to work with the
HIghlands HomeOwners' Association Architectural Review Board (ARB) and in good faith have
redesigned the project per their input several times only to have the ARB deny their project
outright ultimately.
With the exception of one comment made in opposition, they are not from the adjoining
neighbors, who could be directly impacted. Instead, they are given by those who seem to have
another agenda, that of denying this resident’s rights to the same privileges enjoyed by others in
this community. With respect to this one (south adjoining neighbor and Appellant), any possible
negative impacts to him have been adequately mitigated. Furthermore, with the exception of
this one adjoining neighbor, of all the other adjoining neighbors four (4) showed their support
and three (3) were silent previously. Presently all seven (7) of them are now voicing their
support. Those in opposition make claims that the Planning Staff has made “mistakes” in their
findings or that the City has done so on past similar projects. It appears that it is the ARB that
has made “mistakes” in terms of leading the owner to believe the ARB was amicable to their
project if they made modifications to their design.
The square footage, lot coverage, and height all are below the maximum allowed by the zoning
code. This is clearly not an attempt to maximize the building envelope, but rather to
accommodate the owner’s family in the same house they have resided in for more than 14
years.
Comments that windows should be at clerestory height on the north and south sides are without
adequate merit, given that they are already minimized and such further modification would be
inadequate for the enjoyment of the spaces.
Another comment that this project should require a full CEQA investigation based on detrimental
environmental impacts is unfounded, and unheard of, for a single-family residential remodel and
expansion. The objecting party’s suggestion to create underground parking would be very
detrimental in terms of excavation and export of soils, not to mention extremely costly for such a
project.
I am highlighting only a couple of the objections I’ve read to indicate that these comments are
not based on objective facts, but more so on very subjective personal opinions lightly veiled to
represent more than what they are.
In summary, the City Planning Staff have not made “mistakes” in their findings as stated by
those in objection to the project. Both the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff have
exercised their due diligence in the review of this project. I wholeheartedly support your
upholding of the staff’s professional recommendation, the Commission’s approval, and for your
approval and acceptance of it as well.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Cravens, AIA
Licensed Architect C19890
From:Jennifer Wang
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Monday, July 27, 2020 6:44:06 PM
RE: 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, proposed residential project for a first and second floor
addition, and minor administrative modification
To the Arcadia City Council
I give my full support for this modest ranch style 2 story home. After over 2 years, the
Planning Commission rightfully approved the project. The ARB agreed with the approval,
as well as City Planning. I saw no reason not to have approved it. Those who opposed did
not have objective findings to support their arguments. The ARB Action Report & Findings
concluded that massing and verticality were not consistent with the Guidelines due having
additional roof pitch over 3:12 and a second floor roof plate height in excess of the first floor
plate height. There lacks evidence that this statement is true. It is opinion. Their argument
that having a building foundation that is 11 ft above street level and proposing a height of
24’9” would create a structure that is 36 feet above the street would present massing and
scale issues in comparison to neighboring homes, is also opinion. They make the
comparison as though the building foundations of the adjacent homes are at street level, so
this home would be 3 stories compared to 1 story homes. The reality is the south adjacent
neighbor’s (the Appellant’s) building foundation is about 15 feet above street level, so the
top of his home is 32 feet above the street. Therefore, the true comparison is between 36 ft
and 32 ft. Commissioner Thompson made this same last argument against the project.
Then, he argued that the 3 large trees cannot be used as privacy screening as living things
can be eliminated. It is the standard for people to use foliage for privacy screening. It is
also recommended by the City’s Design Guidelines to utilize foliage for privacy screening.
He also said if these trees were eliminated, the 2nd floor would peer into the south
neighbor’s property. In actuality, if all the foliage was cleared along the property line, from
the single south second floor window, you would see the top of the south neighbor’s roof,
not into the house.
Finally, there was an abundance of clear and convincing evidence from City Planning, the
other 4 Commissioners, owner/architects, and supporters that the proposed 2 story home is
indeed compatible.
I want the City Council to deny the Appellant’s appeal in its entirety and uphold the
Planning Commission’s decision. Approve the proposed 2 story project and stop the
obstruction of homeowners’ rights.
Thank you
Jennifer Wang
Arcadia Resident
Sent from my iPhone
From:陈David
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:property address 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, for proposed remodel
Date:Monday, July 27, 2020 8:03:22 PM
To the City Council of Arcadia
I support the remodel at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr for a first and second story addition of a ranch style home. The
plans meet and more often exceed the City’s regulatory standards. At 3360 sq ft total, it is well under the maximum
allowed of 4435 sq ft. The building height of 24’9” is well under the maximum allowed of 30 ft. The setbacks in
the front and sides all exceed the standards. As recommended by Arcadia’s Single Family Architectural Design
Guidelines, the second floor is as far to the rear of the first story as possible, it is well anchored by a much larger
first floor, and there is use of articulations. The porch is well proportioned to the home, and in similar scale to that
of the immediate neighborhood.
The slope of the roof is roughly parallel to the slope of the land. The natural topography is not being disturbed.
Existing views and trees are preserved, and trees/hedges are utilized along the property lines to provide screening
and enhance privacy, as recommended by Resolution 7272. I do not recommend shifting the second floor further
north as this would take the first and second floor windows and other features out of alignment, and seem lopsided.
It is balanced now. The shift is not needed as the south neighbor has no direct line of vision with the current plans.
And most importantly, the location of the second floor currently best balances considerateness for both adjacent
neighbors. There is only one small window on each side of the home, and they are located to minimize direct views
into adjacent neighboring properties.
The exterior finish is quite traditional ranch, with use of natural earth colors, stones, and sidings. This home is well
compatible with the immediate neighborhood. I have no concerns about the plans.
For such a modest 2 story home being proposed, it is unreasonable that it has already been 2 years. I want the City
Council to end the obstruction of the owners’ property rights and deny the Appellant’s appeal in its entirety.
Approve the plans without asking the owners for further compromises. It is the only right decision.
Thank you David chan
hillgreen pl Arcadia
From:lydia yang
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Re: project at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr
Date:Monday, July 27, 2020 9:29:36 PM
Dear Arcadia City Council
My letter is to show support for the project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive. The upper Highland area
consists of many older homes built in the 50’s and early 60’s. The proposed project is a modern ranch style - a
blend of the old and new bringing a harmonious accord to the neighborhood. The proposed house of 3300 with
a second story addition is (as Commissioner Lin Stated) consistent with the neighborhood. “I don't see how it
DOESN’T conform with the neighborhood. This proposed project is NOT out of character. It is the same style.
It's the dominant style.” That the home is on an elevated lot of 12 ft is no big deal! This is the Highlands after
all. Many many homes are on hills, many sitting on lots higher than 12 ft. The Appellant’s conclusion that this
home will look like 3 stories because it’s on a 12 ft elevated pad is unfounded. Let’s not forget that his
(Appellant is the south adjacent neighbor) building pad is elevated 15 ft from the street! I’ve seen many 2
story homes on such lots with lesser front setbacks, and some have second floors
that are not even set back from the first floor. None have looked 3 stories. If
anything, they are less noticeable, as I would have to be intentionally looking up
to even see them. When I am walking or driving through the neighborhood, I am
looking straight ahead. This home is not noticeable. In addition, one
Commissioner even said “There’s no requirement that there’s any need to adjust
height because it’s on a hill,” which just makes logical sense. And despite all
this, the owners only proposed a total building height of 24’9”, which is well
under what they could have built. They are allowed to build to 30’. They have
made exhaustive efforts to appease the ARB and neighbors. I have seen the plans,
and the word “Humble,” comes to mind. I wish for the City Council to approve
the plans without the owners having to make any more compromises. It’s been 2
years they have struggled. We should all show some kindness. I want the City
Council to protect these homeowners and let the family have the home they
rightfully should have and deserve.
Sincerely,
Liqun Xie
1768 Oakwood Ave, Arcadia,CA91006
From:Debbie Hartranft
To:Mailbox - Planning
Cc:Julie Wu
Subject:planning approval meeting on 2011 Highland Oaks Dr August 4th
Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2020 4:17:24 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
We are residents of Arcadia and live on Highland Oaks Dr and are members of our local HOA. We
have written a letter in the past to support the plans submitted on this subject property. We see no
reason that the plans shouldn’t be approved. The Planning Commission and our HOA are in
agreement that Julie and Gary should be able to proceed with their remodel. It doesn’t seem right
that 1 resident should be able to stop their plans. They have been trying for several years and have
made a number of concessions to the HOA and the Planning Commission. We encourage you to
abide by the Commissions and HOA’s decision to allow the project to proceed. Debbie and Les
DeRing
From:Mailbox - Planning
To:Christine Song
Subject:FW: 2011 Highland Oak Dr
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:33:05 AM
From: 王 飞虹 <wfeihong22@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 4:46 PM
To: Mailbox - Planning <planning@ArcadiaCA.gov>
Subject: Re: 2011 Highland Oak Dr
Dear City Council members of Arcadia
I want you to approve the proposal for a second floor addition at 2011 Highland Oaks
Drive. Many neighbors like me are in support of this remodel. The size is sensible. The
style is the dominant style. The house is overall compatible. The owners have been
considerate and tried their best to appease their south neighbor, who is just unwilling to be
thoughtful in return. Sometimes in life you just can’t please everyone. Such is the case
here but it should not stop us from doing the right thing. The south neighbor has no solid
ground for his arguments, nor do any of his followers. There has been no evidence to
conclude that this 2 story house will not be compatible. At the last hearing, the primary
argument of the opponents and Commissioner Thompson is that the house will look like 3
stories (overwhelm its neighbors) because it is on a building pad 12 ft from the street. This
is not evidence. It is opinion. The fact is the house will be seen from a greater distance.
The fact is when you see less of the roof, the house looks smaller. The fact is every house
on the west side of this section of Highland Oaks Drive is on an elevated building pad. The
fact is much of the view of the house is obstructed by trees and hedges. The fact is this
house sits on a street that goes upward, so each house looks taller than the next as you go
up the street. The fact is the line across the rooftops is smooth. City Council should deny
the Appellant’s appeal entirely and Approve this project today.
Thank you
My Name: Feihong Wang
My Address: 2146 Highland Oaks Dr , CA91006
From:Mailbox - Planning
To:Christine Song
Subject:FW: Project location: 2011 Highland Oaks Drive APN: 5765-009-002
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:33:16 AM
From: Lilia Montano <lilia.montano@capitalglobal.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 7:20 PM
To: Mailbox - Planning <planning@ArcadiaCA.gov>
Cc: 'liliamontano@msn.com' <liliamontano@msn.com>
Subject: Project location: 2011 Highland Oaks Drive APN: 5765-009-002
To: City Council
I’m writing to express my continued support of the project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive. My
name is Lilia Montano and I live directly across the street at 2020 Highland Oaks Dr. I believe the
new house will help beautify our neighborhood, especially our particular block between Elkins Ave
and Carolwood Dr where many of the homes are dated. I believe the plans are well thought out and
the house will look gorgeous and in harmony with the neighborhood, especially as more homes are
being remodeled, such as 2012 Highland Oaks and 2017 Highland Oaks which was completely rebuilt
some years ago. Of course there are many others that have been updated as you travel further north
on Highland Oaks. The Wu family has cooperated with the Highlands ARB and has made many
concessions to appease their surrounding neighbors and help preserve their privacy. I
wholeheartedly support the new house plans.
Sincerely,
Lilia Montano
Your privacy is important to us. See our privacy policy (Europe & Asia, United States).
From:Mailbox - Planning
To:Christine Song
Subject:FW: 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, proposed residential project for a first and second floor addition, and minor
administrative modification
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:33:28 AM
From: 邓武强 <iamdengwuqiang@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:00 PM
To: Mailbox - Planning <planning@ArcadiaCA.gov>
Subject: 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, proposed residential project for a first and second floor addition,
and minor administrative modification
To the Arcadia City Council
I give my full support for this modest ranch style 2 story home. After over 2 years, the
Planning Commission rightfully approved the project. The ARB agreed with the
approval, as well as City Planning. I saw no reason not to have approved it. Those
who opposed did not have objective findings to support their arguments. The ARB
Action Report & Findings concluded that massing and verticality were not consistent
with the Guidelines due having additional roof pitch over 3:12 and a second floor roof
plate height in excess of the first floor plate height. There lacks evidence that this
statement is true. It is opinion. Their argument that having a building foundation that
is 11 ft above street level and proposing a height of 24’9” would create a structure
that is 36 feet above the street would present massing and scale issues in
comparison to neighboring homes, is also opinion. They make the comparison as
though the building foundations of the adjacent homes are at street level, so this
home would be 3 stories compared to 1 story homes. The reality is the south
adjacent neighbor’s (the Appellant’s) building foundation is about 15 feet above street
level, so the top of his home is 32 feet above the street. Therefore, the true
comparison is between 36 ft and 32 ft. Commissioner Thompson made this same
last argument against the project. Then, he argued that the 3 large trees cannot be
used as privacy screening as living things can be eliminated. It is the standard for
people to use foliage for privacy screening. It is also recommended by the City’s
Design Guidelines to utilize foliage for privacy screening. He also said if these trees
were eliminated, the 2nd floor would peer into the south neighbor’s property. In
actuality, if all the foliage was cleared along the property line, from the single south
second floor window, you would see the top of the south neighbor’s roof, not into the
house.
Finally, there was an abundance of clear and convincing evidence from City Planning,
the other 4 Commissioners, owner/architects, and supporters that the proposed 2
story home is indeed compatible.
I want the City Council to end this obstruction of the owner’s property rights by
denying the Appellant’s appeal in its entirety and approve the project without the
owner making any further compromises.
Thank you
Wuqiang Deng. 2039 Elkins Pl Arcadia
07/28/2020
From:Mailbox - Planning
To:Christine Song
Subject:FW: 2011 Highland Oaks Drive, Arcadia
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 2:02:25 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevar Windsor <diannewindsor@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 11:42 AM
To: Mailbox - Planning <planning@ArcadiaCA.gov>
Subject: 2011 Highland Oaks Drive, Arcadia
Dear City Council Members of Arcadia,
The proposed home re-model project of Julie and Gary, at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr. has been a long time in the
works. They have put up with numerous obstacles and have persevered with their dream, whereas I think most
people would have thrown in the towel. The objections seem too biased and personal and should not be considered
any longer.
Highland Oaks Drive is a beautiful area where we like to walk and drive. Fortunately there are only two properties
which deserve more attention, 2023 and the corner property at 2001.
The corner property is disgraceful with weeds, trash, exposed dirt and pipe, broken cement, ivy growing 3/4’s
up a boulevard tree, broken tree stump, dead grasses and untrimmed bushes. It’s a shame in this neighborhood.
Gary and Julie’s re-model will add more beauty to Highland Oaks Drive and we recommend approval of this project
.
Arcadia is beautiful and we feel the addition and design of this home will be welcomed.
Dr. and Mrs. Trevar L. Windsor
1947 Alta Oaks Drive, Arcadia
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 4
Planning Commission Minutes for the
May 26, 2020 Meeting
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2020
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made
available for public inspection in the City’s Planning Services Office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California,
during normal business hours.
CALL TO ORDER Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. In
order to comply with social distancing guidelines due to COVID-19, the meeting
was televised and streamed live and Vice Chair Wilander, and Commissioners
Chan, Lin, and Thompson participated by telephone. Assistant City Attorney
Maurer, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Jason
Kruckeberg, and Deputy Development Services Director/City Engineer Philip Wray
were also on the line. Lastly, she welcomed new City Council Liaison Paul Cheng.
She also informed the public of a call-in number that was established for public
comments.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Lewis
PRESENT (Via telephone): Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, Lin, and Thompson,
ABSENT: None
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
Planning & Community Development Administrator Lisa Flores announced that the City received 26
emails related to Agenda Item No. 1 that she would read into the record during the public hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person)
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. 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
Appellant and Property Owner: Julie Wu
Chair Lewis introduced the item and turned it over to Associate Planner Christine Song to present
the staff report.
Chair Lewis opened the public hearing and asked if the Appellant would like to speak on the item.
2 5-26-20
Appellant Julie Wu responded and provided a history of her proposal which has gone through
several iterations and four (4) Highlands Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board
(ARB) public hearings. She stated that she did not agree to install story poles because she felt
the ARB provided insufficient justification for this request. She discussed the characteristics of
the elevated lot and hillside properties and how this affects visual massing. She provided an
overview of the changes/compromises that have been made throughout the process to reduce
the impact of the project and provided justification as to how the proposed project complies with
the City’s Design Guidelines, and how the existing landscaping protects the privacy of the
neighbors to the south, north, and west. In summary, her desire is to create a functional home for
her family, and she is open to hearing the Planning Commission recommendations and is invested
in the community.
Commissioner Chan inquired as to how the roof pitch affects the usable space in the attic.
Ms. Wu responded that by reducing the roof pitch from 4:12 to 3:12, the attic clearance becomes
essentially a crawl space. This was further explained by Ms. Wu’s Architect, Ben Wu later in the
hearing.
Commissioner Lin asked for clarification from the Appellant that would she prefer the 4:12 roof
pitch?
Ms. Wu stated that she would prefer a 4:12 roof pitch and she would agree with the other three
(3) recommendations.
Commissioner Thompson inquired about the difference in height of the proposed roofline of the
subject property in comparison to the property to the south (2001 Highland Oaks Drive).
Ms. Wu stated that she believes it is approximately 10 feet but would defer the question to her
architect (She later clarified this height as 7 feet 9 inches).
Chair Lewis asked Dean Obst, Chair of the Highlands ARB, if he would like to respond on behalf
of the ARB.
Mr. Obst responded and stated that the project has improved throughout the iterations, but it has
been a difficult project due to the natural contours of the lot. He discussed the massing and scale
of the project which did not meet the design guidelines criteria with regard to the plate heights
within the immediate neighborhood, at approximately 8.5 feet (which was proposed in earlier
iterations but was 9 feet in the most recent proposal), the second-floor massing, etc. He discussed
the differences between this site and the property to the north, including that the latter is tiered
into the hillside. If the plate height and roof pitch of the subject property were reduced, it would
reduce the overall height of the subject property by approximately 1.5 feet. As proposed, the close
adherence to the guidelines was needed to mitigate the overall mass and scale as viewed from
the street.
Commissioner Lin asked Mr. Obst for clarification as to why the neighboring property at 2017
Highland Oaks Drive which appears to be closer to the street and more of a massing issue was
deemed to be compliant with the ARB guidelines?
Mr. Obst stated that to his understanding the basic structure of that home was already existing
when the home was remodeled, though he was not an ARB member at that time.
Commissioner Thompson asked if the four (4) staff recommendations would be consistent with
something the ARB would approve.
3 5-26-20
Mr. Obst responded that these items were discussed at the hearings, with slight variation. These
recommendations do help mitigate mass and they would be consistent with something the ARB
would approve.
Commissioner Thompson announced that he participated in two (2) of the Highlands
Homeowners Association ARB public hearings pertaining to this item and he stated that provided
no public comment at either of those hearings.
Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the item.
There were three (3) callers in support of the item:
1. Michelle Wu: The height is normal, and the proposal looks nice; she strongly supports
the project.
2. Gang Sun: In support of the project; improves the appearance of the neighborhood;
height of proposed is not higher than the property to the north; this house actually
balances out the look of the property to the north (which now is overwhelming the
subject property); square footage is modest and within the FAR and height limit;
discussed ARB findings and questioned the height stated in their denial
3. Lila Montano: Project will improve appearance of the neighborhood; does not appear
out of scope with other homes as there are other 2-story homes in the area;
Ms. Flores also read 26 emails received prior to the meeting which were in support of the
item.
Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the item.
There were nine (9) callers in opposition of the item:
1. Lee Marshall: The mass of the project makes it appear like a castle on a hill; it is out
of character with the neighborhood;
2. John Karumanantham: The design for this particular hillside lot makes it appear as a
3-story home; inappropriate for this location; will be an unsightly addition to the
neighborhood; story poles would help to see what the project will actually look like;
3. Collen Sartinsky: Ample land space on the lot, can’t a home with the square footage
they want be built without blocking views; listed privacy concerns with the second story
windows; there should be a compromise that works for everyone; why can’t poles be
installed to see what the height will look like;
4. Henry Huey: Privacy issues with the project that were raised at all four (4) ARB
hearings; occupants have a direct view into neighboring properties; west facing
windows still are privacy concern; requested to remove the north and south facing
windows on 2nd story; trees shown in photos are not accurate because the trees have
been trimmed; story poles would benefit all to see true impact of the project; reduce
size of 2nd story ; listed other recommendations;
5. Jasna Tomic: Proposal not compatible with homes in neighborhood; bulky design;
worries about setting a precedent; concerned with views obstructed; applicant should
work within the square footage in the back; offended with size and scope of the project;
6. Mareny Lagbao: Mass, height, and scale with overwhelm adjacent properties;
referenced Resolution No. 7272 with regard to height, size, scale, and preserved style
in the neighborhood;
4 5-26-20
7. Bertha Saleh: Listed privacy concerns and concerns with obstructed views; slope
causes it to look like a 3-story home; use land they have to add on without adding to
the 2nd floor; will not fit in with the character of the neighborhood;
8. Olga Hassler: The height will cause it to look like a 3-story home; will interfere with
views; the project is not compatible with the neighborhood; some slight differences
could make this acceptable; opposed to the project;
9. Ms. Perkins (first name inaudible): House sits on steep slope, would not be an issue
on a flat lot; compared this proposal the house to the north, which is a split-level and
sits on a lower foundation; will not be harmonious or compatible; prefers a first story
addition;
Chair Lewis asked if the Applicant would like to respond to any of the calls in opposition.
Ms. Wu thanked those that provided comments and addressed the concerns of the callers against the
project.
Ben Wu responded to a question posed earlier in the hearing with regard to what would be the useable
space in the attic as compared to the roof pitch height. The 4:12 roof pitch would leave 4 feet, 6 in. of
head room at the high point; the 3:12 roof pitch would leave 3 feet 5 inches of headroom which would
make maintenance of the heating system a challenge.
MOTION- PUBLIC HEARING
It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Wilander to close the public
hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Chan compared the subject site to nearby properties. With regard to comments made in
favor of a greater setback on the second floor, he referenced a property at 2025 Elkins Place with a
second-story addition where no setback was required; two neighbors spoke in favor of that project at that
time. The ARB representative stated that the ARB was not opposed to staff’s four (4) recommended
changes and Ms. Wu was in favor of the remaining three (3) recommended changes except for reducing
the second story roof pitch from 4:12 to 3:12. He discussed the characteristics of the hillside site and
noted that the setback of the proposed property causes the home to appear taller; however, from the
street level it appears smaller. Reducing the setback would cause the house to be more prominent. With
regard to public comment that a one-story addition is preferable, extending the first floor into the backyard
would result in there not being enough room to accommodate their swimming pool and many of the
surrounding homes on the block have pools which would not be fair to the Applicant. He is in favor of the
project with all four (4) of staff’s recommended changes, and he is open to reducing the roof pitch if his
fellow commissioners are in favor of that; however, if the roof pitch is reduced there may be a service
issue in the future due to the location of the heating system.
Commissioner Lin noted the consistency of the project with nearby properties; there were several
indicated in the staff report to be of similar size or larger in square footage, and the property at 2001
Elkins Place is two stories, of identical square footage, and it appears to be closer to the street. The
proposed project, while it is situated in a neighborhood with single-story homes, is not so far out of
character in size and massing, to be denied on those grounds. In addition, the architectural style of the
project is consistent with the neighborhood, and the City in general. He understands the concerns
regarding the roof pitch, and he would be open to either recommendation.
Commissioner Thompson commended the ARB for their efforts to protect compatibility and market values
for properties within their jurisdiction; he referenced the City’s Single-Family Residential Design
5 5-26-20
Guidelines which discusses neighborhood and city-wide compatibility. The property to the north of the
subject site (2017 Highland Oaks Drive) was correctly identified to have massing issues and appears
larger due to the reduced setback; however, it is an anomality and should therefore not be considered
the standard nor set a precedent for future development. The Development Code specifies that each
permit is evaluated on a case by case basis, and the approval of one permit does not create a precedent
or justification for a separate permit under current review. The height of the proposed structure, while
taking into account the elevation of the street and finished elevation of the slab, is consistent with the
view of a three (3) story structure. He also was concerned with the privacy of the neighbor to the south,
whose home is at a lower elevation than the subject property. The existing trees offer a privacy screening,
if they are properly maintained. The proposed Floor Area Ratio exceeds the average of the surrounding
properties. Lastly, he is concerned that the mass and scale of the proposed project may not be compatible
with the lot. He requested that, if approved, a condition of approval should be added to require the
maintenance of the existing landscape screening along the southern property line to protect the privacy
of the neighbor to the south of the subject site (2001 Highland Oaks Drive).
Vice Chair Wilander stated that there are other two-story homes in the area and there are no requirements
that the height be adjusted merely because the subject property is located on a hill- which is the
topography of the Highland Oaks area. In addition, the home to the north is higher than the proposed
(even though it is not as high from the base of the house). The Applicant has gone through several
iterations and responded to the ARB guidelines. The project appears balanced with its second story
setback; the scale and massing does not appear to be disproportionate to the neighborhood. She is
inclined to support the project, with a 4:12 roof pitch to allow for usable attic space. She also agrees with
Commissioner Thompson’s suggestion to maintain the existing landscaping on the south property line.
Chair Lewis discussed the unique challenges of the hillside properties in the Highlands area. She finds
the project to be relatedly modest in comparison to what could be proposed and will not overwhelm the
lot. The architectural style is compatible with the neighborhood. The property to the north is an anomaly,
however the proposed project will soften the appearance of that property given its position on the lot.
There are similar two-story homes in the area. The project will improve the appearance of the
neighborhood and promote compatibility between the subject and the property to the north. She
recommends lowering the second-floor plate height to 8.5 feet, decreasing the second story windows
and modify the dormers to accommodate the windows, and maintaining the existing 4:12 roof pitch as
lowering it may cause issues. She also agrees with Commissioner Thompson’s suggestion to maintain
the existing landscaping on the south property line.
Commissioner Thompson suggested that the item be continued so enable staff, the public, the Applicant,
ARB, and the Planning Commission to review revised plans with the recommend changes, if the
Commission is inclined to recommend some or all of them.
After some discussion, the Commission did not move forward with a continuance.
Commissioner Chan stated that several of the recommendations have already been outlined as the four
(4) recommended changes that included in the staff report as a part of this approval.
Three (3) of the four (4) Commissioners were in favor of the following staff recommended changes: to
lower the second floor plate height to 8.5 feet, reduce the window sizes on the second floor front elevation,
and adjust the second floor dormers to accommodate the new windows.
Based on the Commissioners comments, and support of Commissioner Thompson’s recommendation,
Assistant City Attorney Maurer clarified that the motion would include the above recommendations and
the following new condition of approval:
6 5-26-20
Condition No. 2: Landscape screening shall be installed along the southern property line between
the homes at the project site and 2001 Highland Oaks Drive. This condition shall be met by the
existing trees on the project site. If such trees are proposed to be removed, mitigation measures
for replacement screening shall be a condition of issuance of a permit to remove these trees,
unless the design review authority determines replacement screening is unnecessary.
MOTION
It was moved by Vice Chair Wilander, seconded by Commissioner Lin to approve 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, subject
to the amended conditions of approval as read into the record by Assistant City Attorney Maurer.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, and Lin
NOES: Commissioner Thompson
ABSENT: None
There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to
be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2020. Please send Appeal applications to
Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov or contact the Planning Division at (626) 574-5423. All decision letters
are posted on the City’s website.
2. Resolution No. 2055 – Approving Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 19-
05 and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-01 (83012) with a Categorical Exemption under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a three-unit multi-family residential condominium
development at 125 California Street
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2055
Applicant: Eric Tsang, on behalf of the property owner, 125 California Home, LLC.
Chair Lewis introduced the item and turned it over to Associate Planner Vanessa Quiroz to
present the staff report.
Chair Lewis opened the public hearing and asked if the App licant would like to speak on the item.
Applicant Eric Tsang responded.
Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the proposal.
There were no calls received in support of the proposal.
Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the proposal.
There were no calls received in opposition to the proposal.
MOTION - PUBLIC HEARING
It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Chair Lewis to close the public hearing.
Without objection, the motion was approved.
7 5-26-20
DISCUSSION
The Commission was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Thompson added that he appreciates that
the proposed garage sizes exceed the Code minimum, although the 4-bedroom condominium units may
contribute to on street parking.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Commissioner Vice Chair Wilander to adopt
Resolution No. 2055 – Approving Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 19-05
and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-01 (83012) with a Categorical Exemption under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a three-unit multi-family residential condominium
development at 125 California Street
ROLL CALL
AYES: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, Lin, and Thompson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to
be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2020. Please send Appeal applications to
Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov or contact the Planning Division at (626) 574-5423. All decision letters
are posted on the City’s website.
3. Resolution No. 2056 – Approving a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the 3.12 acre lot into two
legal lots for the approved mixed use development and Le Meridien hotel site (Seabiscuit Pacifica
Specific Plan) with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) at 180 W. Huntington Drive
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2056
Applicant: Jonathan Tseng on behalf of SAICP, LLC
Chair Lewis introduced the item and turned it over to Ms. Flores to present the staff report.
Chair Lewis opened the public hearing and asked if the Applicant would like to speak on the item.
Eric Chen responded on behalf of the SAICP, LLC.
Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the proposal.
There were no calls received in support of the proposal.
Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the proposal.
There were no calls received in opposition to the proposal.
MOTION- PUBLIC HEARING
It was moved by Chair Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Chan to close the public hearing.
Without objection, the motion was approved.
8 5-26-20
DISCUSSION
The Commission was in favor of the proposal; Commissioner Thompson stated that the facts to
support the findings are thorough and support approval of the project.
MOTIO N
It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Vice Chair Wilander to adopt Resolution
No. 2056 – Approving a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the 3.12 acre lot into two legal lots for
the approved mixed use development and Le Meridien hotel site (Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific
Plan) with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at 180
W. Huntington Drive
ROLL CALL
AYES: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, Lin, and Thompson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to
be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2020. Please send Appeal applications to
Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov or contact the Planning Division at (626) 574-5423. All decision letters
are posted on the City’s website.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. General Plan Conformity Finding for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2020-
21.
Recommendation: Find the CIP Program is Consistent with the City’s General Plan
It was moved by Commissioner Thompson to pull Consent Calendar Item. No. 4 for separate
discussion.
Commissioner Thompson provided comments on the items below:
1. Page 22 – Chilled water bottle chilling station for $8,000: These are available from commercial
supply stores for around $1,500. Unless there is substantial plumbing involved, this cost seems
high.
2. Page 56 - Replacement or maintenance of carpet at fire stations: He wondered why we are
replacing carpet in spite of the City’s fiscal issues. Carpet should be replaced with a more
durable/permanent flooring. Especially because this is a recurring item on the CIP schedule.
3. Page 58 - Arcadia High School track ($600,000-700,000 in City contribution): Of this total,
$150,000, is allotted for “plans, specs and engineering” – these companies replace tracks
nationwide, so this cost seems high when all tracks are replaced to the same standard. Further,
he noted that in the past proceeds from the Derby Day 5K have gone to AHS for installation of
a new track.
4. Page 202 – Minivan replaced with 29,000 miles: The mileage seems low for replacement.
9 5-26-20
5. Page 116 - $25,000 for an electrical panel at Longden Park: To his understanding, this
property isn’t in City limits/district.
Commissioner Chan agreed that the Arcadia High School track plans and specs cost seems high, and it
would be nice if the school district also contributed. Commissioner Thompson clarified that this is a shared
cost, but the plans and specs cost still seems high.
Vice Chair Wilander added that an alternative flooring at the fire station seems wise considering the
impact of work boots on the floor.
City Engineer/Deputy Development Services Director Phil Wray noted that due to COVID-19 pandemic,
several of the projects were not completed this year and were carried over to next fiscal year. He also
noted that the budgeted amount is a comprehensive total which includes prevailing wages, engineering,
and inspection. Additionally, any unused funds will be carried over into the next fiscal year. He also
clarified the various agreements the City has with regard to several of the items.
The Commission that Capital Improvement Program for FY 20-21 is consistent with the General Plan,
and the Commissioners comments will be forwarded to the City Council.
5. Minutes of the April 28, 2020 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
Recommendation: Approve
.
It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Vice Chair Wilander to approve the Consent
Calendar in its entirety (Agenda Items No. 4 and 5).
ROLL CALL
AYES: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, Lin, and Thompson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
Council Liaison Cheng introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He discussed the upcoming City
Council study session and stressed the importance of public input in the budget process. He invited the
Planning Commissioners to attend the budget session and he stated that he would forward their
comments regarding the Capital Improvement Program to the City Council. He thanked the Commission
and he is happy to serve in his new role as liaison.
MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSONERS
Commissioner Chan said that he received the environmental documents for the two upcoming projects.
and asked if he needs to read those for the June 23, 2020 meeting. He also welcomed Council Liaison
Cheng.
Ms. Flores confirmed that the documents were for the Artis Senior Living and Huntington Plaza projects
for the June 23, 2020 meeting.
MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Assistant City Attorney Maurer welcomed Council Liaison Cheng, and he thanked the Planning
Commissioners and staff for a well-organized meeting. He announced a new set of bills that would impact
10 5-26-20
single-family zoning in the State that he will continue to monitor and he would update the Commission
accordingly.
MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
Ms. Flores announced there are no items pending for the June 9, 2020 meeting, therefore it will most
likely be cancelled. There are two items pending for the June 23, 2020 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 5:58 p.m. to Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chamber for the next virtual meeting.
Deborah Lewis
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Lisa Flores
Secretary, Planning Commission
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Staff Report for the May 26, 2020 Planning
Commission Meeting, including all
attachments
DATE: 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
3&±0D\
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
3&±0D\
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
3&±0D\
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 4
Proposed Architectural Drawings
3&±0D\
$7,7/( 6,7(3/$1
$(;,67,1*)/2253/$1
$)/2253/$16+,*+/$1'2$.'5
$5&$',$&$
6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21
6,7(3/$16&$/(
,1'(;'()(55(''2&80(176
1(::$//
(;,67,1*:$//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*
&085(7$,1,1*:$//1(::$/.:$</$1'6&$3( ( ),5(3,772%(
'5,9(:$< (
'5,9(:$< ( +,*+/$1'2$.6'5$'225 :,1'2:6&+('8/(
$$'-2,1,1*/$1'86(3/$1
$$'-2,1,1*3523(57,(6
//$1'6&$3(3/$1
'(&. 75(//,65(/2&$7('
5(029('
72%(
5(029('
3$572)322/72%(),//('$1'&29(5(':,7+&21&5(7(
%%472%(5(029('
$ 522)3/$1(;,67,1*)/225$5($ 64)7
1(:6(&21')/225 64)7
(;,67,1**$5$*( 64)7
1(:&29(5(')5217325&+ 64)7
(;,67,1*75(//,65(/2&$7(' 64)7
/27&29(5$*(
2:1(5 -8/,(:8
-2%$''5(66 +,*+/$1'2$.'5
=21( 5
7<3(2)&216758&7,21 9%635,1./(5('
2&&83$1&<*5283 58
$5&$',$&$
$31
727$//,9,1*$5($ 64)7/$1'6&$3($5($727$/
6)
/276,=( 64)767)/225$)7(5$'',7,21 64)70$;,080)$5 6)
+,*+/$1'2$.'5
$5&$',$&$
7$51*&+,1*#<$+22&20
/(*$/'(6&5,37,21
75$&7/27
&29(5('5($5325&+72%((1/$5*(' 64)7
&21&5(7(
(
$(/(9$7,216
67)/225$'',7,21 64)7
3/
$6(&7,216
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
+,*+92/80(&(,/,1* 64)7
(
$675((76&$3(
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*&$5*$5$*(
(;,67,1*75(//,6
1(:1')/2251(:$'',7,21352326(')$5 6) 6)
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
6FDOH
3URMHFWQXPEHU
'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
5LYHUVLGH6WRQH9HQQHHU
6LOYHU(QJOLVK5XEEOH
:LQGRZV 6OLGLQJ'RRU
0LOJDUG)LEHUJODVV8OWUD6HULHV
)URVWFRORU9DODQFH*ULG
6'/9LQWDJH
*DUDJHGRRUVWHHO $PDUU+LOOFUHVW
%HDG%RDUG/RQJ3DQHO7KDPHV
:DOQXW)LQLVK
(DJOHFRQFUHWHWLOH
3RQGHURVD/LJKWZHLJKW
&KDUFRDO5DQJH
:RRGGHFR)DFLDO%RDUG
'XQQ(GZDUGV0LON*ODVV
'(:
(QWUDQFHGRRU 6LPSVRQGRRU
VROLGZRRG
VHSHOHPDKRJDQ\
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(//,6
1(:1')/2251(:$'',7,21(/.,163/(
/
.
,
1
6
3
/
6(&7,216&$/(
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%('5220
5(02'(/('/,9,1*5220(;,67,1*
)$0,/<5220
(;,67,1*325&+3523(57</,1(675((7&85%FRXOGVHHOLLWOHRIWKHURRIEH\RQGWKLVOLQHD
SHUVRQ
675((7
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Public Comments
3&±0D\
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:Jeramie Brogan
To:Lisa Flores; Christine Song
Subject:FW: Project at 211 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 4:26:04 PM
A public comment received in the Planning inbox for 2011 Highland Oaks Drive. I’ll reply to him that
we will provide his comment to the Commission.
Thanks,
Jeramie
From: Knut Dale <knut.o.dale@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020 11:40 AM
To: Mailbox - Planning <planning@ArcadiaCA.gov>
Subject: Project at 211 Highland Oaks Drive
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
From:richard carney
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Drive Planning Application
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:38:28 PM
I am writing in full support of the planning application for the remodeling of the property at
2011 Highland Oaks Drive. I have studied the plans for the remodel and I can see that this is a
professionally designed project that has remained sensitive to the character of the
neighborhood. The owners have obviously taken a great deal of time and care to ensure that
the height and style of the property is both complimentary and sensitive to the look and feel of
their local neighborhood. I fully support this application.
Regards,
Richard Carney, 2221 Highland Oaks Drive, Arcadia.
From:Jennifer Wang
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Support for 2011 Highland Oaks Project
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:53:52 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!
Jennifer Wang
515 W Duarte Rd #15
Arcadia, CA 91007
From:Laurie Johnson
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:35:43 PM
Commissioners:
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. I have looked at the plans and I
don't see any problems. The style, the windows, the color, and stones are all appealing. I
am surprised it wasn't already approved by the ARB. It appears quite comparable in size to
other similar homes in the Highlands. If anything, it looks smaller than existing two story
ranch homes in the area. I would like to see this project be approved today.
Thank you
Laurie Johnson
515 W. Duarte Rd.
Arcadia CA 91007
Sent from my iPhone
From:Rong Fan
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Dr
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:41:45 PM
To: Arcadia Planning Commissi
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to provide my full support for the proposed project located at 2011
Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia. I participated in and gave my support at the ARB’s last
hearing on this project. I have reviewed the plans. I run by this house nearly every
day. Having examined the plans, and heard neighbors’ and board members’
comments, I want to say that I see no problem with the size of this two story house.
Once built, it would still appear smaller than the two story house next door. I see no
problems with neighbors’ privacies or views because of very tall trees and bushes.
The style is appropriate. The exterior finish (siding and stones) is a good choice and
matches with the surrounding homes. I would like to see this house built.
Best Regards,
Rong Fan
Highlands Resident
From:枝David
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:31:18 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.
Thank you
Wei chen
Arcadia Resident
┦匿㍦䟙iPhone
From:bill dickey
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Proposed addition at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:45:49 PM
Dear Planning Dept,
I am emailing to show my support for the project of Gary Inouye and Julie Wu, located at Highland Oaks Dr. I
have reviewed the plans, and am very familiar with the property as I run by there several times per week. This 2
story addition will fit in nicely with the existing neighborhood, especially with the 2nd story windows.
I would like to see the project approved.
William Dickey
Sr building engineering inspector, retired,
Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works
Sent from my iPhone
From:Li Pan
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Support to Project located at 2011 Highland Oks Dr, Arcadia
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:22:09 PM
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. I like that the exterior appearance is elegant without any elements to
suggest grandness. It looks nice and complements the entire neighborhood well.
Thank you
Yifeng Yuan & Li Pan
2228 Highland vista drive, Arcadia
From:May Wu
To:Mailbox - Planning
Cc:may wu
Subject:Support the plans for the Project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia
Date:Friday, May 22, 2020 10:17:47 AM
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. Thank you.
Regards,
Shi Zhao Wu
2808 Ashmont Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006
From:Rebecca Yang
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:letter
Date:Friday, May 22, 2020 10:55:25 AM
May 22, 2020
To the City of Arcadia
I live at 1740 Oakwood Ave. I am writing to support the project located at 2011
Highland Oaks Dr for a 2 story addition, ranch style. I have been hearing about this
project for a long time from a friend who lives even closer than I do. We walk by this
house regularly. It is one of my favorite routes. I was surprised to hear that it has
not been approved as I have studied the plans online previously and again this week
for a closer look. It is not large by any measure, rather modest, and the ranch style
is already what most of the homes have. I find it refreshing to come across a
homeowner who is not trying to build a huge house. It is a rare find in Arcadia.
Every feature of this home is modest, from size, height, roof pitch and size,
decorative elements. It is actually rather plain. I did not previously participate in any
of the hearings, but want to express my support now after my friend shared with me
a handout placed in her mailbox by someone named Henry Huey. I was disturbed
by the exaggerations Henry made and planned to make regarding the project. He
wrote that his “main argument against the project,...what looks like a two-story
structure from the curb, to morph into a three-story structure that dwarfs the
surrounding homes” is simply not true. I am no spring chicken, but my eyes have
not deceived me. No two story home, on similar or higher lot, has ever looked like a
three story, especially not this ranch style home with such large setbacks. I have
seen the kids at this home play on their front yard, and ride their bikes. They are a
lovely lively bunch. I appeal to the Planning Commissioners to approve this project
so this family can have a nice home. It is the right thing to do.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Rebecca Yang
3please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From:Sun, Gang
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:In support of the Project at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Friday, May 22, 2020 1:11:12 PM
Dear City Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to support the remodeling and addition of a second story project at 2011 Highland
Oaks Drive. The new design of the house significantly improves the exterior appearance of
the existing house and increases the aesthetics of the adjacent neighborhood, thus increasing
the property value of the community. The design is tasteful and is compatible with its
original features. It will not only improve the living quality of the family but also brings
revenues to the city and school district.
Unfortunately, the ARB board does not appear to offer an accurate, objective, data-driven, and
fact-based findings. Instead, the findings used ambiguous languages, personal opinions,
exaggerated facts, and misleading data. For example, the ARB exaggerates the height of the
proposed plan by stating that it looks like a 36 feet three-story house over the street. That is
not a scientific and accurate assessment. From the lowest point of the street, which is from the
southside, the view of the house is blocked by the tall trees and heavy vegetation,
which significantly mitigated the visual effect of the house. From the high point of the street,
the proposed house is at all close to 36 feet above the street as stated by the findings. Another
example is that the findings stressed the 9 feet plate height of the second floor, however, it
failed to acknowledge that a 9 feet plate height is only 0.5 feet higher than what the findings
suggested 8.5 feet height that was established in the immediate neighborhood. The findings
did not provide any study or evidence to prove that half a feet difference will significantly
change the mass and the scale of the building. In fact, it is extremely difficult for a person
with a naked eye to tell a 0.5 feet difference on a 36 feet tall object from 20 to 30 feet away on
the street as the finding suggested. This finding lacks common sense and scientific evidence
but rather a personal opinion. The findings failed to consider that the height of the proposed
house is only about 7 feet higher than the existing house and is not higher than the height of
the existing adjacent house. Page A-7 and A-8 of the Design Plan clearly depicted
the comparison of the two houses. The ARB's findings stated the proposed second-story height
of 9 feet is not compatible with the 8.5 feet height of the immediate neighborhood is an
exaggeration and not convincing. The new plan actually provides a better balance of the visual
effect considering that the adjacent second story split level house is 7 to 8 feet higher than the
existing house. The new plan offers a more harmonious and balanced visual effect than the
existing house which appears to be dwarfed by the adjacent second story house. Most
importantly, the proposed height and square footage of the house are well within the FAR and
Height Limit, which were set by the city building code and guidelines at the recommendations
of the HOA and IRB itself.
I hope the Planning Commissioners can make a fair and reasonable decision on this project
based on city building code, rules, and guidelines rather than personal preferences and tastes
so the owners can enjoy their time with their young children in their new home. The loss of
precious time the owner can share with their children growing up in a better living place is
irreplaceable and unnecessary. A harmonious neighborhood is not what everything looks the
same or alike, but is what all neighbors being open-minded, considerate, tolerant, friendly, and
respect each other's needs, rather than causing resentment and pitting neighbors against each
other.
Sincerely,
Gang Sun
Resident of Arcadia
2235 Canyon Rd.
From:懨㲻わ
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia
Date:Friday, May 22, 2020 2:31:36 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.
Thank you
Wuqiang Deng
2039 Elkins Pl Arcadia
From:Lorri Licher
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks
Date:Saturday, May 23, 2020 8:18:45 AM
My name is Lorri Licher. My address is 2034 Highland Oaks. We have lived in our home for 35 years and have
seem many changes in the homes in the Highland Oaks area. It is a beautiful area to live and walk.
I am writing in support of the project at 2011 Highland Oaks.
I am aware of the many modifications that were made by the owners.
I just looked at the plans. It is a tasteful ranch style home and fits beautifully into our neighborhood.
There are hedges on all sides of the property to provide privacy for their neighbors on both sides.
From the street it is very modest and doesn’t look like the “mansionization” that was taking place in Arcadia. 3360
is not a huge home by today”s standards. It does not use all allowable space as some of the larger homes have,
leaving no yard, all house.
I 100% support this project and hope you will also
Thank you
Lorri Licher
From:Chantal Cravens
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia
Date:Saturday, May 23, 2020 4:42:08 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. I like that the exterior appearance is elegant without any elements to suggest
grandness. It looks nice and complements the entire neighborhood well.
They have several children and need the space. They are terrific neighbors, and exemplary
citizens. I've known the family for over a decade, through our running club, The Foothill
Flyers.
Thank you,
Chantal Cravens
602 W Maple Ave
Monrovia, CA 91016
--
Chantal Cravens
Science teacher, grades 7 & 8, Rio Hondo School
11425 Wildflower Road
Arcadia, CA 91006
Phone: (626) 575-2308 Fax: (626)-443-3508
Check out my classroom projects at the link below!
https://www.donorschoose.org/Ms.Cravens
From:Trevar Windsor
To:Christine Song; Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Re: 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia
Date:Saturday, May 23, 2020 4:48:13 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevar Windsor <dnlwindsor@verizon.net>
To: csong@Arcadia.gov <csong@Arcadia.gov>; planning@Arcadia.gov <planning@Arcadia.gov>
Sent: Sat, May 23, 2020 4:41 pm
Subject: 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia
As home owners for the past 44 years and members of Highland Oaks Homeowners Association, we are
in complete support of Julie Wu"s
home construction at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive.
We pass this site twice daily on our walks and with her plans in mind, view these changes she has put
forth and firmly believe that this home
improvement will be a significant benefit to the neighborhood.
Also, this will help fulfill Julie's dream for her and her family. We see no negatives in this project.
Sincerely,
Dr. and Mrs. Trevar Windsor
1947 Alta Oaks Dr.
Arcadia, California
91006
(626)355-7743
From:Hank Kan
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Public Hearing 2011 Highland Oaks Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006
Date:Sunday, May 24, 2020 10:27:46 AM
Dear Plan Review Committee,
Re: Public Hearing 2011 Highland Oaks Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006
My name is Hank Kan. My wife and I live at 2179 Highland Oaks Drive for over 20 years. I am
writing to express our support on the new second story project at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive.
We drive by this house daily so very familiar with the area. We had reviewed the proposed
plan online and feel this conservative 3,360 sq ft house will add great value to our Highlands
community. The ranch style home is exactly what is prefer in the area. Both north and south
neighbors’ privacy been considered with smaller window. It is nice to see our 50’s structures
get improvement to maintain Highlands’ standard of living and safety. We look forward to see
the completion of the project.
Thank you for your time,
Hank and Donna Kan
2179 Highland Oaks Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
(626)836-1839
hkan@spaxanadu.com
From:䓠 樳城
To:Mailbox - Planning
Cc:䂭ᾒ
Subject:support letter
Date:Sunday, May 24, 2020 10:38:01 PM
Hello,
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. I like that the exterior appearance is elegant without any elements to suggest
grandness. It looks nice and complements the entire neighborhood well.
Thank you
My Name: Feihong Wang
My Address: 2146 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia, CA91006
From:Nipa Patel
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Support 2011 Highland Oaks Dr
Date:Monday, May 25, 2020 8:46:05 AM
Dear City Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to support the remodeling and addition of a second story project at 2011 Highland Oak Drive.
We are the next door neighbors of the house. We believe the new design of the house
significantly improves the appearance of the old house, thus increasing the property value of the
community. Our house is remodeled. The neighbor in front of us is currently remodeling the house as
well. This remodel will increase the curb appeal. Per the plan, the height of the proposed second
story is at the about the same height or less as the house to the north, which has a second
story over its garage. Having read the staff report, looking at the plans, particularly diagram A-10, we
are not convinced that reducing roof pitch to 3:12 would make a discernible impact on visual massing
since you would see little of the roof, if any, even with a 4:12. Further, reducing the 2nd floor ceiling
height to 8'6" only leads to a reduction in building height of 6 inches, which is definitely not discernible
from 50+ feet away. The house will look modest in size and appearance. Our neighbor has been
considerate with our privacy and comfort. The second story will not block any views or have privacy
issues. There are tall trees and bushes that surround the house.
I hope the Planning Commissioner can make a fair and reasonable decision on this project. Looking at
the plans and attending previous hearing, we have no concerns about the project. We fully support it.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Nipa and Sanjay Patel
2017 Highland Oaks Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91006
From:Alan Fluhrer
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Public comment- 2011 Highland Oaks Dr- for planning commission hearing 5-26-20
Date:Monday, May 25, 2020 9:21:29 PM
Dear City Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to support the remodeling and addition of a second story project at 2011
Highland Oaks Drive. I have seen the various designs, think all were good, and this one is
very nice. Improving the appearance of the property, increasing the aesthetics of the
neighborhood, and increasing the property value of the community. The design is tasteful,
consistent and compatible with other houses remodeled within the recent past, nearby.
Reviewing the plans :
1.
It appears the property is within the FAR, and height limits established by the HOA in
conjunction with the ARB. Overall it appears some ARB decisions are very narrow in
scope.
2.
Within the Single Family Residence Design Guidelines document, there also appears
to be a great deal of interpretation available regarding massing, roof pitches and
other items.
3.
Page A6- Elevations appear similar to the home directly north with a thought-out
design. It appears the subject property has a lower total height than the house
adjacent north. This becomes confusing: How is the north adjacent home at 28ft 2
inches tall, ok, and the subject property height of 24ft 9 inches, not ok?
4.
Page A8 - Photo rendering- The images look very compatible in relation to the house
directly north, and others home throughout the neighborhood renovated in the last
few years. It also appears from photo renderings, the remodel will sit back from the
street more than the house directly north.
I hope the City Planning Commision will approve this design. Additionally, I can see the
house from my front-yard, and hope the commission takes other neighbors like me into
consideration.
Alan Fluhrer
2028 Highland Oaks Dr
--
Alan Fluhrer
626-585-1700
From:Eugene Tan
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks Dr
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:29:56 AM
Dear Planning Commission:
My name is Eugene Tan, my two children and Julie's children are classmates . I happened to
stop by her house this past Sunday and found her current home size could be quite challenging
for raising four children. I have reviewed her plans to remodel her home located on 2011
Highland Oaks Dr. I am in full support of plans for the Ranch style 2-story addition, as her
next door neighbor is already a two story home, and addition will only bring her elevation to
her neighbor. The project is within city FAR guidelines, and proposed size is rather modest in
size with home style design that fits right into the community. I do not see any the plan posing
any privacy issues as well as view blocking. Older home were built to raise smaller families
back in the 40's and 50's and just does not fit for modern families that has multiple children.
Thank you,
Eugene Tan
Arcadia Resident
From:Hannah Sun
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:for 2011 Highland Oaks Drive
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 11:59:29 AM
Dear Arcadia City Officials,
I am a student at Highland Oak Elementary. I recently heard that you would not let my
friend Minami’s family have a second story house. Me and my family have a two-story
house. Why can’t other people? Minami has many siblings. One sister and two brothers.
One is even a baby! They also have a dog! Don’t you think that during this pandemic that
is an awful lot of living things in their house. They have a rather small house but they want
a bigger one. Think of how cramped it would be in that house. People want houses that
they can enjoy and have fun in. When they are cramped in that tiny little home, how do you
expect them to have fun. The whole family has work or homework to do. What if they all
have online meetings at one time. How will they listen when they can hear each other in
every corner of the house. If they had a bigger, 2 story house that wouldn’t be a problem.
Why can’t we all be safer and less disturbed. That would work in a bigger house. I have a
bigger house. My family and I can play games and we also have space while doing work.
Maybe you even have a two story house. How is that fair to all the people who want 2 story
houses but can’t get them because of you. Do you think that just because you have more
power, you can get all the better things? Are you only saying no because the house they
have right now looks better than the two story house? If so do you think looks are more
important, or comfort and happiness. Are you really doing the right thing?
Sincerely,
Hannah Sun
Student in Highland Oak Elementary
From:fredhoweyy@gmail.com
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011 Highland Oaks project
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 12:14:34 PM
Hi there,
Thanks for your efforts to make our community look better and better.
But after I study the details of the project located at 2011 Highland Oaks, Arcadia, I think it will fit the environment
harmoniously. So I support this project and hope you will agree with it ASAP. The family needs it.
Thanks.
Fred Howe
1428 Santa Margarita Dr
Arcadia
From:Jing Latona
To:Mailbox - Planning
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 1:03:53 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. I like that the exterior
appearance is elegant without any elements to suggest grandness. It looks
nice and complements the entire neighborhood well.
Thank you
Jing Latona
317 E Floral Ave, Arcadia,CA 91006
From:Alice Zhang
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Can"t find any reason to refuse the project- 2011 Highland Oaks Dr.
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 1:23:32 PM
To the Planning Commission:
I have reviewed the plans for the Project located at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia. I fully support the plans for
the 2-story Ranch style addition. I see no problems with privacy or views. It will fit in nicely with the surrounding
homes.
In addition, the project meets our City Codes requirements. Therefore, I am firmly opposed to several responsible
persons who refused the property owner ’s request based on their subjective preferences.
Thank you,
Judy Xu
Arcadia Resident
From:Sidney Chan
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Support 2011 Highland Oaks Dr
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 1:55:11 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 on a lot of 12270 sf, it is quite modest. I like that the
exterior appearance is elegant without any elements to suggest grandness. It looks nice and complements the entire
neighborhood well.
Thank you and Sincerely Appreciate
Arcadia Resident
Sidney Chan
From:Angi Barrera
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:Fwd: 2011 Highland Oaks Drive project
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 2:11:06 PM
Hello,
I hope this list not too late. I wanted to write in quickly in support of Julie Wu's proposed 2 story
addition.
I reviewed the plans and I believe that they are consistent with the esthetic of our neighborhood. (I have
seen other projects that went way overboard in comparison to what this is)
I do believe that the project will not affect the beauty of our street, nor will it affect any views any more
so that the property North of 2011.
This is a growing family and I believe they should have the right to expand as to give themselves more
room.
We have lived on the Highland Oaks for over 13 years and support this family in their quest to
improve their home.
--
Angi Barrera
818-795-4844
From:Jeanine L. Jackson
To:Mailbox - Planning
Subject:2011Highland Oaks Dr
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:07:44 PM
To the Planning Commission,
As a long time resident of Arcadia highland oaks, we appreciate the HOA . This is a beautiful neighborhood. We are
happy to be apart of this community. Today you are having a hearing for 2011 Highland Oaks Dr. I am writing in
support of this family’s proposal. They have an original home in this area. It needs a lot of work. A new house
would be an asset to the street. There are quite a number of two story houses on the street behind Julies and Gary’s
house. The proposed house looks nice and appears to be within limits of the lot size. I always feel badly , for a
family who is very invested in their home and neighborhood but is getting caught up in this planning process. It
should not be this difficult for them to improve their property. It should not take over two years to get approval.
They have made many changes already. It’s frustrating for everyone . I hope they can build the house they need ,
and stay in this area. Sincerely , Jeanine Jackson
307 Marilyn Place
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No. 6
Homeowners Association Resolution No.
7272
3&±0D\
Attachment No. 7
Attachment No. 7
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
3&±0D\
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
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No. 6
Architectural Plans approved by the
Planning Commission May 26, 2020
$7,7/( 6,7(3/$1
$(;,67,1*)/2253/$1
$)/2253/$16+,*+/$1'2$.'5
$5&$',$&$
6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21
6,7(3/$16&$/(
,1'(;'()(55(''2&80(176
1(::$//
(;,67,1*:$//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*
&085(7$,1,1*:$//1(::$/.:$</$1'6&$3( ( ),5(3,772%(
'5,9(:$< (
'5,9(:$< ( +,*+/$1'2$.6'5$'225 :,1'2:6&+('8/(
$$'-2,1,1*/$1'86(3/$1
$$'-2,1,1*3523(57,(6
//$1'6&$3(3/$1
'(&. 75(//,65(/2&$7('
5(029('
72%(
5(029('
3$572)322/72%(),//('$1'&29(5(':,7+&21&5(7(
%%472%(5(029('
$ 522)3/$1(;,67,1*)/225$5($ 64)7
1(:6(&21')/225 64)7
(;,67,1**$5$*( 64)7
1(:&29(5(')5217325&+ 64)7
(;,67,1*75(//,65(/2&$7(' 64)7
/27&29(5$*(
2:1(5 -8/,(:8
-2%$''5(66 +,*+/$1'2$.'5
=21( 5
7<3(2)&216758&7,21 9%635,1./(5('
2&&83$1&<*5283 58
$5&$',$&$
$31
727$//,9,1*$5($ 64)7/$1'6&$3($5($727$/
6)
/276,=( 64)767)/225$)7(5$'',7,21 64)70$;,080)$5 6)
+,*+/$1'2$.'5
$5&$',$&$
7$51*&+,1*#<$+22&20
/(*$/'(6&5,37,21
75$&7/27
&29(5('5($5325&+72%((1/$5*(' 64)7
&21&5(7(
(
$(/(9$7,216
67)/225$'',7,21 64)7
3/
$6(&7,216
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
3/
+,*+92/80(&(,/,1* 64)7
(
$675((76&$3(
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*75((725(0$,1
(;,67,1*&$5*$5$*(
(;,67,1*75(//,6
1(:1')/2251(:$'',7,21352326(')$5 6) 6)
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
6FDOH
3URMHFWQXPEHU
'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
5LYHUVLGH6WRQH9HQQHHU
6LOYHU(QJOLVK5XEEOH
:LQGRZV 6OLGLQJ'RRU
0LOJDUG)LEHUJODVV8OWUD6HULHV
)URVWFRORU9DODQFH*ULG
6'/9LQWDJH
*DUDJHGRRUVWHHO $PDUU+LOOFUHVW
%HDG%RDUG/RQJ3DQHO7KDPHV
:DOQXW)LQLVK
(DJOHFRQFUHWHWLOH
3RQGHURVD/LJKWZHLJKW
&KDUFRDO5DQJH
:RRGGHFR)DFLDO%RDUG
'XQQ(GZDUGV0LON*ODVV
'(:
(QWUDQFHGRRU 6LPSVRQGRRU
VROLGZRRG
VHSHOHPDKRJDQ\
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(//,6
1(:1')/2251(:$'',7,21(/.,163/(
/
.
,
1
6
3
/
6(&7,216&$/(
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%('5220
5(02'(/('/,9,1*5220(;,67,1*
)$0,/<5220
(;,67,1*325&+3523(57</,1(675((7&85%FRXOGVHHOLLWOHRIWKHURRIEH\RQGWKLVOLQHD
SHUVRQ
675((7
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