The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-08-04_CC_Meeting_Agenda - Item 8aCITY OF ARCADIA City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 7:00 p.m. Location: City Council Chambers, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia COVID-19 NOTICE As part of the City of Arcadia’s COVID-19 transmission mitigation efforts, Arcadia City Council Meetings are closed to the public. Pursuant to Executive Order N-25-20 and the Brown Act, the Arcadia City Council will meet virtually. The public is welcome to view City Council Meetings as they take place on the City’s website at ArcadiaCA.gov/livegov or on ACTV (check your local listings). How to Submit Public Comment: Citizens who wish to submit public comment may do so using one of the following methods. Public comment is limited to the time and words allotted. 1.Website: Use our online public comment form at ArcadiaCA.gov/comment at least 30 minutes prior to the posted meeting time. Your comments should be 300 words or less. 2.Email: Please submit your comments via email to cityclerk@ArcadiaCA.gov so that it is received at least 30 minutes prior to the posted meeting time. Your email must be 300 words or less. 3.Phone: A conference line has been established for public comment. Your call will be recognized in the order it was received. Please keep your phone on MUTE until you are recognized for public comment. Conference Line: (669) 224-3412 Access Code: 604-838-893# Please contact the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@ArcadiaCA.gov or at (626) 574-5455 for more information. 1 Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (626) 574-5455. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. 根据《美国残障人法案》，需要调整或提供便利设施才能参加会议的残障人士（包括辅助器材或服务）可与市书记官办公室联系（电话：626-574-5455）。请在会前 48 小时通知市书记官办公室，以便作出合理安排，确保顺利参加会议。 Pursuant to the City of Arcadia’s Language Access Services Policy, limited-English proficient speakers who require translation services in order to participate in a meeting may request the use of a volunteer or professional translator by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 574-5455 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. 根据阿凯迪亚市的语言便利服务政策，英语能力有限并需要翻译服务才能参加会议的人可与市书记官办公室联系（电话：626-574- 5455），请求提供志愿或专业翻译服务，请至少在会前 72 小时提出请求。 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.INVOCATION First Reader Kristin Bennett, First Church of Christ, Scientist 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4.ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Roger Chandler, Mayor Sho Tay, Mayor Pro Tem Tom Beck, Council Member Paul P. Cheng, Council Member April A. Verlato, Council Member 2019 年新型冠状病毒（COVID-19）通知作为阿凯迪亚市减轻 COVID-19 传播工作的一部分，阿凯迪亚市议会会议不对公众开放。根据第 N-25-20 号行政命令和《布朗法案》的规定，阿凯迪亚市议会将以虚拟方式召开。欢迎公众在市政府网站 ArcadiaCA.gov/livegov 或 ACTV 上查看市议会会议（请查看地方频道列表）。如何提交公众评论意见：希望提交公众评论意见的公民可使用下列方法之一。公众评论意见受时间和字数限制。 1.网站：请在公布的会议时间前至少提前 30 分钟填写 ArcadiaCA.gov/comment 网站上的在线公众评论意见表。您的评论意见不得超过 300 个字。 2.电子邮件：请通过向 cityclerk@ArcadiaCA.gov 发电子邮件的方式提交您的评论意见，我们必须在公布的会议时间前至少提前 30 分钟收到提交的评论意见。您的电子邮件不得超过 300 个字。 3.电话：已经为公众提交评论意见设立一条会议专线。将按先后顺序接听您打来的电话。您应当将您的电话设为“静音”，直至轮到您提出评论意见。会议专线：(669) 224-3412 接入代码：604-838-893# 详情请洽市书记官办公室，电子邮件 cityclerk@ArcadiaCA.gov，电话号码 (626) 574-5455。 2 5. REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING CLOSED/STUDY SESSION ITEMS 6. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS 7. MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL 8. PUBLIC HEARING In accordance with Executive Order N-29-20 all public participation will be conducted virtually. Comments on a public hearing item can be submitted via the methods described in the COVID- 19 Notice posted on this agenda. Under the Brown Act, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. a. 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. Recommended Action: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission’s Decision 9. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit each speaker) In accordance with Executive Order N-29-20 all public participation will be conducted virtually. Public comments can be submitted via the methods described in the COVID-19 Notice posted on this agenda. Under the Brown Act, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. 10. REPORTS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK (including reports from the City Council related to meetings attended at City expense [AB 1234]). 11. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council, staff, or the public requests that a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action. a. Special and Regular Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2020. Recommended Action: Approve b. Resolution No. 7325 approving certain Transfer Agreements between the City of Arcadia and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (“District”) for the Safe, Clean Water Program – Municipal Program and Regional Program. Recommended Action: Adopt c. Purchase of ammunition from San Diego Police Equipment Co., Inc. in an amount not to exceed $112,700. Recommended Action: Waive the Formal Bid Process and Approve 3 d. Purchase Order with Core & Main for the purchase of Data Log Radio Read Water Meters for the City’s Water Distribution System in the amount of $250,000. Recommended Action: Approve e. Purchase Order with OverDrive, Inc. for Electronic Materials in the amount of $60,000. Recommended Action: Approve f. Amendment to the Service Agreement with Tyler Technologies for improvements to the EnerGov Permit Tracking System to add Citizen Self-Service and Mobile Inspections Technology in the amount of $18,301. Recommended Action: Approve. g. Contract with Hardy & Harper, Inc. for the Pavement Rehabilitation of Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street and Fifth Avenue, and 2019 Miscellaneous Arterial Rehabilitation in the amount of $1,796,000. Recommended Action: Approve h. Accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the Live Oak Well TCE Treatment Construction Project as complete. Recommended Action: Approve 12. CITY MANAGER a. Report, discussion, and direction regarding COVID-19. 13. ADJOURNMENT The City Council will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, August 18, 2020, 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. 4 Welcome to the Arcadia City Council Meeting! The City Council encourages public participation, and invites you to share your views on City business. MEETINGS: Regular Meetings of the City Council are held on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. A full City Council agenda packet with all backup information is available at City Hall, the Arcadia Library, and on the City’s website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov. Copies of individual Agenda Reports are available via email upon request (CityClerk@ArcadiaCa.gov). Documents distributed to a majority of the City Council after the posting of this agenda will be available for review at the Office of the City Clerk, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California. Live broadcasts and replays of the City Council Meetings are on cable television. Your attendance at this public meeting may result in the recording and broadcast of your image and/or voice as previously described. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Your participation is welcomed and invited at all City Council meetings. Time is reserved at each regular meeting for those in the audience who wish to address the City Council. The City requests that persons addressing the City Council refrain from making personal, slanderous, profane, or disruptive remarks. Where possible, please submit a Speaker Card to the City Clerk prior to your comments, or simply come to the podium when the Mayor asks for those who wish to speak, and state your name and address (optional) for the record. Please provide the City Clerk with a copy of any written materials used in your address to the City Council as well as 10 copies of any printed materials you would like distributed to the City Council. The use of City equipment for presentations is not permitted. MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA should be presented during the time designated as “PUBLIC COMMENTS.” In general, each speaker will be given five (5) minutes to address the City Council; however, the Mayor, at his/her discretion, may shorten the speaking time limit to allow all speakers time to address the City Council. By State law, the City Council may not discuss or vote on items not on the agenda. The matter will automatically be referred to staff for appropriate action or response or will be placed on the agenda of a future meeting. MATTERS ON THE AGENDA should be addressed when the City Council considers that item. Please indicate the Agenda Item Numbers(s) on the Speaker Card. Your name will be called at the appropriate time and you may proceed with your presentation within the five (5) minute time frame. The Mayor, at his/her discretion, may shorten the speaking time limit to allow all speakers to address the City Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS are items scheduled for which public input is either required or desired. Separate and apart from the applicant (who may speak longer in the discretion of the City Council), speakers shall be limited to five (5) minutes per person. The Mayor, at his/her discretion, may shorten the speaking time limit to allow all speakers to address the City Council. The applicant may additionally submit rebuttal comments. AGENDA ITEMS: The Agenda contains the regular order of business of the City Council. Items on the Agenda have generally been reviewed and investigated by the City Staff in advance of the meeting so that the City Council can be fully informed about a matter before making its decision. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be acted upon by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a member of the City Council, Staff, or the public so requests. In this event, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered and acted on separately. DECORUM: While members of the public are free to level criticism of City policies and the action(s) or proposed action(s) of the City Council or its members, members of the public may not engage in behavior that is disruptive to the orderly conduct of the proceedings, including but not limited to, conduct that prevents other members of the audience from being heard when it is their opportunity to speak or which prevents members of the audience from hearing or seeing the proceedings. Members of the public may not threaten any person with physical harm or act in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as an imminent threat of physical harm. All persons attending the meeting are expected to adhere to the City’s policy barring harassment based upon a person’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, or age. The Chief of Police, or such member or members of the Police Department, shall serve as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the City Council meeting. The Sergeant-at- Arms shall carry out all orders and instructions given by the presiding official for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at the meeting. Any person who violates the order and decorum of the meeting may be placed under arrest and such person may be prosecuted under the provisions of Penal Code Section 403 or applicable Arcadia Municipal Code section. 5 欢迎参加阿凯迪亚市议会会议! 市议会鼓励公众参与，并邀请您分享对城市管理的看法。会议：市议会定期会议于每个月第一个和第三个星期二下午七时在市议会会议厅举行。在市政厅、阿凯迪亚图书馆和市政府网站（www.ArcadiaCa.gov）可以找到包含所有相关信息的完整市议会议程。单独的议程报告可应请求通过电子邮件索取（CityClerkGeneralMailbox@ArcadiaCa.gov）。至于在发布该议程后向市议会多数成员分发的文件，公众可在阿凯迪亚市书记官办公室查阅，地址：240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California。市议会会议实况将通过有线电视进行现场直播和回放。如在以往的通知中所提示，如果您参加这次公开会议，您的图像和/或声音可能被录下并播出。公民参与：市议会欢迎并邀请您参加市议会的所有会议。在每次定期会议上都为那些希望在会上发言的市民留出时间。市政府要求在市议会发言的人杜绝个人攻击、诽谤、亵渎或破坏性言论。如有可能，请在发表意见之前向市书记官提交一张发言卡，亦可在市长宣布自由发言时直接上台发言，并说出您的姓名和地址（如果您愿意），以便制作会议记录。请向市书记官提供一份您在发言中使用的任何书面材料，以及 10 份您希望分发给市议会的任何印刷材料。不允许把市政府设备用于准备发言内容。议程之外的事项应当在指定的“公众评议”时间提出。在一般情况下，每位发言者将有五（5）分钟时间向市议会陈述意见，但市长可酌情缩短发言时限，以便让所有希望发言的人都有机会发言。根据州法，市议会不得讨论或表决未列入议程的事项。此类事项将自动转给工作人员采取适当行动或作出回应，或将其列入未来会议的议程。列入议程的事项应当在市议会审议该事项时讨论。请在发言卡上标明事项的议程编号。在适当的时间会叫到您的名字，您可以在五（5）分钟时限内发言。市长可酌情缩短发言时限，以便让所有希望发言的人都有机会发言。公开听证和上诉是为需要或希望征求公众意见的事项安排的日程。除申请人外（市议会可酌情决定延长申请人的发言时间），每位发言人的发言不得超过五（5）分钟。市长可酌情缩短发言时限，以便让所有希望发言的人都有机会发言。申请人还可以另外提交反驳意见。议程事项：议程包含市议会的例行议题。一般而言，由市政府工作人员在会议前对议程中的事项进行审查和调查，以便市议会在作出决定之前能够充分了解情况。同意日历：在同意日历上列出的事项被市议会视为例行公事，并将通过一项动议采取行动。除非市议员、工作人员或公众提出请求，否则不会对这些事项进行单独讨论。如果有人提出请求，该事项将从同意日历中删除，单独进行审议和采取行动。行为规范：尽管市民可对市政府的政策和市议会或其成员的行动或拟议行动自由地提出批评，但不得出现干扰会议正常秩序的行为，包括但不限于在别人的发言时间内阻止别人发言，或妨碍公众听到发言内容或看到议程进展状况。市民亦不得威胁进行身体伤害或以可能被合理理解为作出身体伤害紧迫威胁的方式行事。所有出席会议的人都必须遵守市政府的反骚扰政策，禁止基于个人种族、宗教信仰、肤色、原国籍、祖籍、身体残障、疾病、婚姻状况、性别、性取向或年龄骚扰他人。警察局长或警察局其他成员将担任维持市议会会议秩序的保安官。保安官将执行会议主持人的一切命令和指示，以维持会议秩序和行为规范。对任何违反会议秩序和行为规范的人可执行拘捕，并可能根据《刑法典》第 403 条或《阿凯迪亚市政法典》相关条款提出起诉。 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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). 10 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 11 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.” 12 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 13 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. 14 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 15 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. 16 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 17 Attachment No. 1 Resolution No. 7329 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 2 Appeal Application from Mr. Huey, dated June 8, 2020 29 20-01 6/8/20 600.00 CS4642 30 31 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 32 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. 33 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 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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. 40 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. 41 Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 3 Public Comments 42 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 43 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 44 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 45 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 46 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.”] 47 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 48 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 49 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 50 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 51 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 52 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. 53 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 54 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. 55 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. 56 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 57 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 58 Red dots denote supporters 59 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 60 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 61 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 62 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 63 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 64 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 65 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. 66 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 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 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 78 Sent from my iPhone 79 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 80 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 81 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 82 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 83 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). 84 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 85 owner making any further compromises. Thank you Wuqiang Deng. 2039 Elkins Pl Arcadia 07/28/2020 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 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 102 Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 4 Planning Commission Minutes for the May 26, 2020 Meeting 103 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. 104 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. 105 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; 106 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 107 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: 108 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. 109 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. 110 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. 111 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 112 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 113 Attachment No. 5 Attachment No. 5 Staff Report for the May 26, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, including all attachments 114 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 115 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 116 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; 117 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. 118 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. 119 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 120 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 121 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). 122 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 123 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 124 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 125 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. 126 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. 127 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 128 Attachment No. 1 Attachment No. 1 Appeal Application 3&±0D\ 129 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 ✔ 130 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<HVOLVWWKHFRQGLWLRQQXPEHUVKHUHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 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. ✔ ✔ 131 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. 132 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 133 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. 134 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 135 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. 136 Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 2 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of the Subject Property and Vicinity 3&±0D\ 137 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 1138 Project Site – 2011 Highland Oaks Drive South of Project Site – 2001 Highland Oaks Drive 139 North of Project Site – 2017 Highland Oaks Drive Southeast of Project Site – 2000 Highland Oaks Drive 140 East of Project Site – 2012 Highland Oaks Drive 141 Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 3 Highlands ARB Meeting Minutes and ARB Findings and Action Report 3&±0D\ 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 4 Proposed Architectural Drawings 3&±0D\ 149 $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 $$'-2,1,1*3523(57,(6 //$1'6&$3(3/$1 '(&. 75(//,65(/2&$7(' 5(029(' 72%( 5(029(' 3$572)322/72%(),//('$1'&29(5(':,7+&21&5(7( %%472%(5(029(' $522)3/$1(;,67,1*)/225$5($64)7 1(:6(&21')/22564)7 (;,67,1**$5$*(64)7 1(:&29(5(')5217325&+64)7 (;,67,1*75(//,65(/2&$7('64)7 /27&29(5$*( 2:1(5-8/,(:8 -2%$''5(66+,*+/$1'2$.'5 =21(5 7<3(2)&216758&7,219%635,1./(5(' 2&&83$1&<*528358 $5&$',$&$ $31 727$//,9,1*$5($64)7/$1'6&$3($5($727$/ 6) /276,=(64)767)/225$)7(5$'',7,2164)70$;,080)$5 6) +,*+/$1'2$.'5 $5&$',$&$ 7$51*&+,1*#<$+22&20 /(*$/'(6&5,37,21 75$&7/27 &29(5('5($5325&+72%((1/$5*('64)7 &21&5(7( ( $(/(9$7,216 67)/225$'',7,2164)7 3/ $6(&7,216 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ +,*+92/80(&(,/,1*64)7 ( $675((76&$3( (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*&$5*$5$*( (;,67,1*75(//,6 1(:1')/2251(:$'',7,21352326(')$5 6)6) 150 6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$$352-(&7$''5(66151 152 153 )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 '(: (QWUDQFHGRRU6LPSVRQGRRU VROLGZRRG VHSHOHPDKRJDQ\ 154 155 6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$$+,*+/$1'2$.6'5(/.,16$9( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( (;,67,1*&$5*$5$*( (;,67,1*75(//,6 1(:1')/2251(:$'',7,21(/.,163/( / . , 1 6 3 / 156 157 158 6(&7,216&$/( 352-(&7$''5(666,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$$ )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((7 159 160 Attachment No. 5 Attachment No. 5 Public Comments 3&±0D\ 161 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 162 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” 163 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 164 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. 165 * see architectural drawings (795 ft, elevation at foundation, minus 783 ft, elevation at curb, = 12 ft) Lee Marshall, Elevado Avenue, Arcadia 166 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) 167 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 168 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 169 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 170 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 171 Highland Oaks homeowner 172 173 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 174 Highland Oaks resident 175 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 176 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 177 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 178 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 179 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 180 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 181 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 182 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 183 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 184 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. 185 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 186 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 187 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 188 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 189 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 190 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 191 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 192 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. 193 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. 194 Sincerely, Gang Sun Resident of Arcadia 2235 Canyon Rd. 195 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 196 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 197 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 198 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 199 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 200 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 201 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 202 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 203 -- Alan Fluhrer 626-585-1700 204 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 205 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 206 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 207 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 208 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 209 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 210 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 211 212 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 213 Attachment No. 6 Attachment No. 6 Homeowners Association Resolution No. 7272 3&±0D\ 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 Attachment No. 7 Attachment No. 7 Preliminary Exemption Assessment 3&±0D\ 233 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 234 Attachment No. 6 Attachment No. 6 Architectural Plans approved by the Planning Commission May 26, 2020 235 $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 $$'-2,1,1*3523(57,(6 //$1'6&$3(3/$1 '(&. 75(//,65(/2&$7(' 5(029(' 72%( 5(029(' 3$572)322/72%(),//('$1'&29(5(':,7+&21&5(7( %%472%(5(029(' $522)3/$1(;,67,1*)/225$5($64)7 1(:6(&21')/22564)7 (;,67,1**$5$*(64)7 1(:&29(5(')5217325&+64)7 (;,67,1*75(//,65(/2&$7('64)7 /27&29(5$*( 2:1(5-8/,(:8 -2%$''5(66+,*+/$1'2$.'5 =21(5 7<3(2)&216758&7,219%635,1./(5(' 2&&83$1&<*528358 $5&$',$&$ $31 727$//,9,1*$5($64)7/$1'6&$3($5($727$/ 6) /276,=(64)767)/225$)7(5$'',7,2164)70$;,080)$5 6) +,*+/$1'2$.'5 $5&$',$&$ 7$51*&+,1*#<$+22&20 /(*$/'(6&5,37,21 75$&7/27 &29(5('5($5325&+72%((1/$5*('64)7 &21&5(7( ( $(/(9$7,216 67)/225$'',7,2164)7 3/ $6(&7,216 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ +,*+92/80(&(,/,1*64)7 ( $675((76&$3( (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*75((725(0$,1 (;,67,1*&$5*$5$*( (;,67,1*75(//,6 1(:1')/2251(:$'',7,21352326(')$5 6)6) 236 6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$$352-(&7$''5(66237 238 239 )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 '(: (QWUDQFHGRRU6LPSVRQGRRU VROLGZRRG VHSHOHPDKRJDQ\ 240 241 6,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$$+,*+/$1'2$.6'5(/.,16$9( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( (;,67,1*&$5*$5$*( (;,67,1*75(//,6 1(:1')/2251(:$'',7,21(/.,163/( / . , 1 6 3 / 242 243 244 6(&7,216&$/( 352-(&7$''5(666,1*/()$0,/<+286($'',7,21+,*+/$1'2$.'5$5&$',$&$$ )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((7 245 246 Attachment No. 7 Attachment No. 7 Preliminary Exemption Assessment 247 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 248 ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2020 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Chandler called the Special Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beck, Cheng, Verlato, Tay, and Chandler ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENTS – No public comments were received. CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) to confer with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation: one (1) case. No reportable action was taken on the Closed Session Item. The Closed Session ended at 6:17 p.m. Linda Rodriguez Assistant City Clerk 249 1 07-21-2020 ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Chandler called the regular meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. INVOCATION – Rabbi Sholom Stiefel, Chabad of Arcadia 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – City Manager Lazzaretto 4. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beck, Cheng, Verlato, Tay, and Chandler ABSENT: None 5. REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING CLOSED/STUDY SESSION ITEMS City Attorney Deitsch announced that prior to the regular meeting the City Council met in a Closed Session to consider the one item listed on the posted agenda; and no reportable action was taken. 6. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS City Manager Lazzaretto stated that there was no supplemental information. 7. MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL A motion was made by Council Member Beck, and seconded by Council Member Cheng, to read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive the reading in full. 8. PRESENTATIONS a. Legislative update presented by Senator Susan Rubio. 9. PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Lazzaretto stated that citizens who wish to submit public comments may do so by calling the conference line. a. Confirm the County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures Weed Abatement Charges, and order the County Auditor to enter the amounts of the assessment against the parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. Recommended Action: Approve City Manager Lazzaretto provided the staff report. Mayor Chandler opened the public hearing. 250 2 07-21-2020 No comments were received. A motion to close the public hearing was made by Council Member Beck, the City Council concurred, and seeing no objection, Mayor Chandler declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Council Member Beck, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Tay, and carried on roll call vote to confirm the County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures weed abatement charges, and order the County Auditor to enter the amounts of the assessment against the parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. AYES: Beck, Tay, Cheng, Verlato, and Chandler NOES: None ABSENT: None 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mark Kemp, a certified arborist, called and commented on the proposed removal of Liquid Ambar trees; he indicated that he supports the removal of those trees; he noted that disease is affecting protected trees throughout the City; and encouraged the City Council to consider the removal of those trees. City Manager Lazzaretto noted for the record that one email was submitted for Public Comment and read it into the record. Chris Hurley – Regarding the City’s response to the civil unrest the Country is experiencing due to racial injustice and provided questions for the City Council to address. 11. REPORTS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK (including reports from the City Council related to meetings attended at City expense [AB 1234]). Mayor Pro Tem Tay stated that the Chamber of Commerce is very active in the community; he commented on the meetings hosted by the Chamber of Commerce; he noted that on Wednesday, July 15, he and Council Member Cheng participated in a Chamber meeting in Mandarin; he encouraged everyone to attend those meetings; and commented on the brushfire that occurred in the City on Monday, July 20. Council Member Cheng shared a childhood story involving his neighbor Helen; he encouraged everyone to be kind during this pandemic; and thanked the longtime residents of Arcadia that have welcomed people to the community; Council Member Verlato addressed the public comment submitted regarding the Black Lives Matter movement; she thanked Chief of Police Guthrie for addressing residents’ concerns regarding this matter; she commented on the brushfire that occurred on Monday, July 20; she thanked all the Fire Departments that responded to the fire; she provided fire prevention and safety tips; she reminded those that live north of Foothill Boulevard to be respectful of wildlife; she commented on COVID-19 updates; and reminded everyone to continue best practices; Council Member Beck commented on the passing of longtime resident Carol Libby; he requested City Council support for a future Study Session to consider naming a City facility in honor of Ms. Libby; Council Member Verlato and Council Member Cheng concurred; he wished City Clerk Glasco a speedy recovery; he commented on COVID-19 updates; he reminded everyone to wear 251 3 07-21-2020 a mask; he also commented on an article he read regarding CalPERS; and expressed his concerns regarding rising pension costs. Mayor Chandler congratulated Anabell Xu, an Arcadia High School student, for receiving a scholarship to the University of Chicago from the National Merit Scholarship Corporation; he reported that Sunday, July 19, Arcadia firefighters responded to a call and rescued three small owls from a chimney; and commended the Fire Department for their hard work and quick response. City Manager Lazzaretto noted that there is a policy in place regarding the naming of City facilities; he explained the process; and stated that the matter will be placed on a future Study Session. 12. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Regular Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2020, and Special Meeting Minutes of June 25, 2020. Recommended Action: Approve b. Resolution No. 7319 acknowledging receipt of a report made by the Fire Chief of the Arcadia Fire Department regarding inspections of certain occupancies required by Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health and Safety Code. Recommended Action: Adopt c. Resolutions extending existing Memoranda of Understanding with no changes to existing compensation and related benefits for the represented employee groups. Resolution No. 7320 extending existing Memorandum of Understanding with no changes to existing compensation and related benefits for employees represented by the Arcadia Fire Fighters Association (“AFFA”). Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 7321 extending existing Memorandum of Understanding with no changes to existing compensation and related benefits for employees represented by the Arcadia City Employees Association (“ACEA”). Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 7322 extending existing Memorandum of Understanding with no changes to existing compensation and related benefits for employees represented by the Arcadia Public Works Employees Association (“APWEA”). Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 7323 extending existing Memorandum of Understanding with no changes to existing compensation and related benefits for employees represented by the Arcadia Police Civilian Employees Association (“APCEA”). Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 7328 extending existing Memorandum of Understanding with no changes to existing compensation and related benefits for employees represented by the Arcadia Police Officers Association (“APOA”). Recommended Action: Adopt 252 4 07-21-2020 d. Resolution No. 7324 extending the terms and conditions of City Council Resolution No. 7210 establishing compensation and related benefits for City Council, Executive Management, Management, and Unrepresented Confidential employees. Recommended Action: Adopt e. Resolution No. 7326 authorizing examination of sales, use and transactions tax records and authorizing a contract with Hinderliter, de Llamas and Associates (“HdL”) Companies to provide Sales Tax Related Services. Recommended Action: Adopt f. Resolution No. 7327 adopting the City of Arcadia Debt Management Policy pursuant to Government Code Section 8855(i). Recommended Action: Adopt g. Direct the City Manager to review the City’s Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974. Recommended Action: Approve h. Reject low bid from CEM Construction Corp. and contract with GRBCON, Inc. for the Baldwin Avenue Sewer Capacity Improvement Project in the amount of $424,465. Recommended Action: Approve i. Contract with Perry C. Thomas Construction, Inc. for the Live Oak Plant Improvement Project in the amount of $309,160. Recommended Action: Approve j. Extension to the Contract with General Pump Company, Inc. for unscheduled maintenance and emergency repair of City wells and pumps in the amount of $137,550. Recommended Action: Approve k. Professional Services Agreement with Hawran Malm, LLC to provide appraisal services for the Arcadia Par 3 Golf Course in an amount not to exceed $26,000. Recommended Action: Approve l. Professional Services Agreement with Moss, Levy & Hartzheim, LLP for the City’s Financial Auditing Services. Recommended Action: Approve m. Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Security Patrol Management & Services for Security Guard Services in an amount not to exceed $59,000. Recommended Action: Approve n. Agreement with Beacon Media, Inc. for Legal Advertising Services in an amount not to exceed $24,000. Recommended Action: Approve o. Purchase Order with Daniels Tire Service, Inc. for the purchase of tires and tire related services for City vehicles in an amount not to exceed $75,000. Recommended Action: Approve 253 5 07-21-2020 p. Purchase Order with Superion LLC for financial system software maintenance in an amount not to exceed $47,100. Recommended Action: Approve It was moved by Council Member Beck, seconded by Council Member Verlato, and carried on a roll call vote to approve Consent Calendar Items 12.a through 12.p. AYES: Beck, Verlato, Cheng, Tay, and Chandler NOES: None ABSENT: None Council Member Cheng thanked City staff and represented employee groups for accepting the one-year extension to the existing Memoranda of Understanding. 13. CITY MANAGER a. Report, discussion, and direction regarding the Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy. Recommended Action: Provide Direction Deputy City Manager Bruckner provided the staff report. Council Member Beck requested that cost recovery levels for senior events and services, promoting healthy lifestyles, and protecting the environment be at a low recovery level. He also stated that he believes the City should use the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for annual updates of City fees. Council Member Cheng stated that he likes the User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy and would like to see fees like the Vacant Home Registry set at a high cost recovery level. At the request of Mayor Chandler, Chief of Police Guthrie explained that the Police Department uses false alarm fees to educate citizens rather than pursue punitive measures; he indicated that those fees have helped reduce false alarms. At the request of Mayor Chandler, Deputy Fire Chief Spriggs spoke about the Paramedic Membership Program; and explained what the annual fee covers. A motion was made by Council Member Verlato, and seconded by Council Member Beck, and carried on a roll call vote to adopt the User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy. AYES: Verlato, Beck, Cheng, Tay, and Chandler NOES: None ABSENT: None a. Report, discussion, and direction regarding COVID-19. City Manager Lazzaretto provided an update on COVID-19. No action was requested or taken. 14. ADJOURNMENT City Manager Lazzaretto provided Carol Libby’s eulogy. 254 6 07-21-2020 The City Council meeting adjourned in memory of long-time Arcadia resident and historian Carol Libby at 8:41 p.m. to Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Linda Rodriguez Assistant City Clerk 255 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Tait, Public Works Services Director By: Vanessa Hevener, Environmental Services Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7325 APPROVING CERTAIN TRANSFER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (“DISTRICT”) FOR THE SAFE, CLEAN WATER PROGRAM – MUNICIPAL PROGRAM AND REGIONAL PROGRAM Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY On November 6, 2018, the Safe, Clean Water (“SCW”) Program, also known as Measure W, was passed by Los Angeles County voters. The SCW Program provides local dedicated funding to improve water quality, increase water supply, and provide community enhancements throughout Los Angeles County. The SCW Program is estimated to generate up to $285 million annually in Parcel Tax revenues collected, with the City of Arcadia expected to receive approximately $1,030,000 annually to fund the implementation, operations and maintenance, and administration of eligible projects and programs to comply with stormwater regulations. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7325 authorizing the City Manager to enter into transfer agreements between the City of Arcadia and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the Safe, Clean Water Program – Municipal Program and Regional Program. BACKGROUND Municipalities traditionally have relied on their General Funds to pay for stormwater compliance. The costs for complying with expanding stormwater regulations continues to steadily increase, putting pressure on local budgets. As a result of the municipalities’ efforts to find a sustainable funding source, in October 2017, Assembly Bill 1180 (Holden) was signed into law. This law amended the Los Angeles County Flood Control Act and authorized the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (“District”) to levy a tax to pay 256 Transfer Agreements – Safe, Clean Water Program August 4, 2020 Page 2 of 3 the costs and expenses of carrying out projects and programs to improve water quality, increase stormwater capture, and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution subject to voter approval. In July 2018, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) adopted a resolution calling for and giving notice of an election on a measure to impose a special tax, of 2.5 cents per square foot, on each parcel’s impermeable area (e.g. building footprints, concrete, hardscape) located within the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The Parcel Tax revenue would be allocated based on the following formula: • 10 percent to the County to fund countywide education programs, countywide projects, and administration of the program. • 40 percent to municipalities to fund the implementation, operations and maintenance, and administration of eligible projects and programs. • 50 percent to the nine watershed areas to fund regional watershed-based multi- benefit projects to be implemented by project developers, and to provide technical resources, and conduct scientific studies. On November 6, 2018, the SCW Program, also known as Measure W, was passed by the voters. Measure W is estimated to generate up to $285 million annually in Parcel Tax revenues collected, with the City of Arcadia expected to receive approximately $1,030,000 annually to fund projects and programs to comply with stormwater regulations, to increase stormwater capture and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution. DISCUSSION In order to receive the funds from the SCW Program, the City of Arcadia must enter into Transfer Agreements with the District. The Transfer Agreements under the Municipal Program will expire every four years, and funds received are to be used for implementation, operations and maintenance, and administration of eligible projects and programs at the municipal level during each four-year period. Transfer Agreements under the Regional Program will be handled through execution of an addenda to the Transfer Agreement for each fiscal year and will generally cover a specific municipality’s allocated costs for the various phases of a project, from planning and design, to construction, operation, and administration and maintenance. The ongoing agreements are subject to the project's continued inclusion in Board approved Stormwater Investment Plans for subsequent fiscal years, and routine reports to reflect progress and satisfaction of all agreement provisions. Without the Transfer Agreements, the City would not receive any Measure W funds. 257 Transfer Agreements – Safe, Clean Water Program August 4, 2020 Page 3 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), given that these projects by definition will not have a negative impact on the environment. Thus, this matter is exempt under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT The City of Arcadia is expected to receive up to $1,030,000 annually to fund projects and programs to comply with stormwater regulations, to increase stormwater capture and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution. The proposed agreements make the transfer of these funds possible. In addition, the City is able to apply for competitive grants within the watershed area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council determine that this action is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and adopt Resolution No. 7325 approving certain Transfer Agreements between the City of Arcadia and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (“District”) for the Safe, Clean Water Program – Municipal Program and Regional Program. Attachments: Resolution No. 7325 Transfer Agreement Template - Municipal Program Transfer Agreement Template - Regional Program 258 259 260 261 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 1 of 23 TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND (insert MUNICIPALITY) AGREEMENT NO. _______________ SAFE, CLEAN WATER PROGRAM – MUNICIPAL PROGRAM This Transfer Agreement, hereinafter referred to as “Agreement,” is entered into as of ____________________ by and between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, hereinafter referred to as "District," and _______, hereinafter referred to as "Municipality." WHEREAS, District, pursuant to the Los Angeles Region Safe, Clean Water (SCW) Program ordinance (Chapter 16 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code) and the SCW Program Implementation Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code), administers the SCW Program for the purpose of funding Projects and Programs to increase stormwater and urban runoff capture and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution in the District; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.04.A.2. of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code, forty percent (40%) of annual SCW Program tax revenues shall be allocated to Municipalities within the District, in the same proportion as the amount of revenues collected within each Municipality, to be expended by those cities within the cities' respective jurisdictions and by the County within the unincorporated areas that are within the boundaries of the District, for the implementation, operation and maintenance, and administration of Projects and Programs, in accordance with the criteria and procedures established in this Chapters 16 and 18 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.05.A.1. of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code, prior to their receipt of SCW Program funds, Municipalities must enter into an agreement with the District to transfer SCW Program funds; WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors has approved a standard template Agreement, as required by and in accordance with Section 18.09 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code, for the transfer of SCW Program funds to Municipalities. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, mutual representations, covenants and agreements in this Agreement, the District and the Municipality, each binding itself, its successors and assigns, do mutually promise, covenant, and agree as follows: I. DEFINITIONS The definitions set forth in Sections 16.03 and 18.02 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code shall apply to this Agreement. In addition, the following definitions shall also apply: 262 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 2 of 23 “Agreement” means this Transfer Agreement, including all exhibits and attachments hereto. “Annual Plan” means the plan referred to in Section 18.09.B.5 of the Code that includes the contents specified in Exhibit A. "Code" means the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code. “Days” means calendar days unless otherwise expressly indicated. “Fiscal Year” means the period of twelve (12) months terminating on June 30 of any year. “Safe Clean Water (SCW) Program Payment” means the Municipality's annual allocation of SCW Program funds as described in Section 16.04.A.2. of the Code disbursed by the District to the Municipality. “Year” means calendar year unless otherwise expressly indicated. II. PARTY CONTACTS The District and the Municipality designate the following individuals as the primary points of contact and communication regarding the Municipal Program and the administration and implementation of this Agreement. Los Angeles County Flood Control District Municipality: Name: Name: Address: Address: Phone: Phone: Email: Email: Either party to this Agreement may change the individual identified as the primary point of contact above by providing written notice of the change to the other party. III. EXHIBITS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following exhibits to this Agreement, including any amendments and supplements hereto, are hereby incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement: EXHIBIT A – ANNUAL PLAN CONTENTS EXHIBIT B – GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS EXHIBIT C – NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS (Best Management Practices) EXHIBIT D – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 263 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 3 of 23 IV. MUNICIPAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION A. The Municipality shall annually prepare and submit to the District, an Annual Plan. The Annual Plan for the 2020-21 Fiscal Year shall be submitted to the District no later than 45-days after the execution of this Agreement by the last party to sign. An Annual Plan for each subsequent Fiscal Year shall be submitted not later than 90-days prior to the start of the Fiscal Year for which the Plan is prepared. B. The Municipality shall utilize the SCW Program Payments in compliance with Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code. C. The Municipality shall comply with the terms and conditions in Exhibits B, C, and D, of this Agreement, and all applicable provisions of Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code, specifically including, without limitation, Section 18.06. V. SCW PROGRAM PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES A. The District shall disburse the Municipality's SCW Program Payment for the 2020 - 21 Fiscal Year within 45-days of the signed executed Agreement or within 14-days of the District’s receipt of the Annual Plan for 2020 -21 Fiscal Year in compliance with Exhibit A, whichever comes later. The initial disbursement of SCW Program Payments shall include the amount of revenue collected by the District at the time of Agreement execution; any additional funds that are subsequently collected will be disbursed by August 31, 2020. B. SCW Program Payments in subsequent Fiscal Years will generally be available for disbursement by August 31, provided a duly executed transfer agreement is in effect and subject to the Municipality's compliance with the conditions described in paragraph C, below; however the District may, in its discretion, change the date and number of the actual disbursements for any Fiscal Year based on the amount and timing of revenues actually collected by the District. C. For subsequent Fiscal Years, the District shall disburse the Municipality's SCW Program Payment upon satisfaction of the following conditions: (1) the District has received the Annual Progress/Expenditure Report required pursuant to Section 18.06.D of the Code; (2) the District has received Municipality's Annual Plan for that Fiscal Year, and (3) the Municipality has complied with the audit requirements of Section B-6 of Exhibit B. D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no disbursement shall be made at any time or in any manner tha t is in violation of or in conflict with federal, state, County laws, policies, or regulations. E. All disbursements shall be subject to and be made in accordance with the terms and conditions in this Agreement and Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code. 264 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 4 of 23 VI. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall expire at the end of the 2023-24 Fiscal Year. The parties shall thereafter enter into a new agreement based on the most recent standard template agreement approved by the Board. VII. Execution of Agreement This Agreement may be executed simultaneously or in any number of counterparts, including both counterparts that are executed manually on paper and counterparts that are in the form of electronic records and are executed electronically, whether digital or encrypted, each of which shall be deemed an original and together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The District and the Municipality hereby agree to regard facsimile/electronic representations of original signatures of authorized officers of each party, when appearing in appropriate places on this Agreement and on any addenda or amendments thereto, delivered or sent via facsimile or electronic mail or other electronic means, as legally sufficient evidence that such original signatures have been affixed to this Agreement and any addenda or amendments thereto such that the parties need not follow up facsimile/electronic transmissions of such documents with subsequent (non- facsimile/electronic) transmission of “original” versions of such documents. Further, the District and the Municipality: (i) agree that an electronic signature of any party may be used to authenticate this Agreement or any addenda or amendment thereto, and if used, will have the same force and effect as a manual signature; (ii) acknowledge that if an electronic signature is used, the other party will rely on such signature as binding the party using such signature, and (iii) hereby waive any defenses to the enforcement of the terms of this agreement based on the foregoing forms of signature. 265 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 5 of 23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. ___________________________________: (Municipal Contact) By: ____________________________________ Name: Title: Date: __________________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: By: ____________________________________ Name: Title: Date: __________________________________ 266 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 6 of 23 EXHIBIT A – ANNUAL PLAN CONTENTS A-1. Description of all projects anticipated to be funded using the SCW Program Payment. Include a discussion of how the projects will result in the achievement of one or more SCW Program Goals, including quantitative targets and corresponding metrics for subsequent reporting of all applicable parameters. A-2. Description of all programs anticipated to be funded using the SCW Program Payment. Include a discussion of how the programs will result in the achievement of one or more SCW Program Goals; including quantitative targets and corresponding metrics for subsequent reporting of all applicable parameters. A-3. Description of all operation and maintenance activities anticipated to be funded using the SCW Program Payment. Include a discussion of how those activities will result in the achievement of one or more SCW Program Goals. Additional operation and maintenance activities, even if funded by other sources, should be referenced to provide an overview of anticipated overall project approach. A-4. Description of the stakeholder and community outreach/engagement activities anticipated to be funded with the SCW Program Payment, including discussion of how local NGOs or CBOs will be involved, if applicable, and if not, why. Additional outreach/engagement activities, even if funded by other sources, should be referenced to provide an overview of anticipated overall project approach. A-5. Description of post-construction monitoring for projects completed using the SCW Program Payment. Additional post-construction monitoring activities, even if funded by other sources, should be referenced to provide an overview of anticipated overall project approach. A-6. Provide the status of any projects that have been awarded (or are seeking award of) Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) verification, if applicable. A-7. Provide the budget for the activities described in provisions A1 through A -5 SCW Program Payment. 267 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 7 of 23 EXHIBIT B – GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS B-1. Accounting and Deposit of Funding Disbursement 1. SCW Program Payments distributed to the Municipality shall be held in a separate interest-bearing account and shall not be combined with other funds. Interest earned from each account shall be used by the Municipality only for eligible expenditures consistent with the requirements of the SCW Program. 2. The Municipality shall not be entitled to interest earned on undisbursed SCW Program Payments; interest earned prior to disbursement is property of the District. 3. The Municipality shall operate in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). 4. The Municipality shall be strictly accountable for all funds, receipts, and disbursements for their SCW Program Payment. B-2. Acknowledgement of Credit and Signage The Municipality shall include appropriate acknowledgement of credit to the District’s Safe, Clean Water Program for its support when promoting activities funded with SCW Program funds or using any data and/or information developed SCW Program funds. When the SCW Program Payment is used, in whole or in part, for construction of an infrastructure Project, signage shall be posted in a prominent location at Project site(s) or at the Municipality’s headquarters and shall include the Safe, Clean Water Program color logo and the following disclosure statement: “Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s Safe, Clean Water Program.” At a minimum the sign shall be 2’ x 3’ in size. The Municipality shall also include in each of its contracts for work under this Agreement a provision that inco rporates the requirements stated within this paragraph. When the SCW Program Payment is used, in whole or in part, for a scientific study, the Municipality shall include the following statement in the study report: “Funding for this study has been provided in full or in part from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s Safe, Clean Water Program.” The Municipality shall also include in each of its contracts for work under this Agreement a provision that incorporates the requirements stated within this paragraph. B-3. Acquisition of Real Property - Covenant Any real property acquired in whole or in part with SCW Program funds shall be used for Projects and Programs that are consistent with the SCW Program Goals and with the provisions of Chapter 16 and 18 of the Code. Any Municipality that acquires the fee title to real property using, in whole or in part, SCW Program funds shall record a document in the office of the Registrar -Recorder/County 268 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 8 of 23 Clerk containing a covenant not to sell or otherwise convey the r eal property without the prior express written consent of the District, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. B-4. Amendment Except as provided in Section II of the Agreement, no amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties. No oral or written understanding or agreement not incorporated in this Agreement is binding on any of the parties. B-5. Assignment The Municipality shall not assign this Agreement. B-6. Audit and Recordkeeping 1. The Municipality shall retain for a period of seven (7) years, all records necessary in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to determine the amounts expended, and eligibility of Projects implemented using SCW Program Payments. The Municipality, upon demand by authorized representatives of the District, shall make such records available for examination and review or audit by the District or its authorized representatives. Records shall include accounting records, written policies and procedures, contract files, original estimates, correspondence, change order files, including documentation covering negotiated settlements, invoices, and any other supporting evidence deemed necessary to substantiate charges related to SCW Program Payments and expenditures. 2. The Municipality is responsible for obtaining an independent audit to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all requirements applicable to the Municipality contained in chapters 16 and 18 of the Code. Municipality shall obtain an independent audit of their SCW Program Payments every three (3) years. Audits shall be funded with Municipal Program funds. 3. Municipality shall file a copy of all audit reports by the ninth (9th) month from the end of each three (3) year period to detail the preceding three (3) years of expenditures. Audit reports shall be posted on the District’s publicly accessible website. Every Third Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Audit Begins Audit Report Due to District 2020-21 7/1/2023 No later than 3/31/2024 4. Upon reasonable advanced request, the Municipality shall permit the Chief Engineer to examine the infrastructure Projects using SCW Program Payments. The Municipality shall permit the authorized District representative, including the Auditor-Controller, to examine, review, audit, and transcribe any and all audit 269 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 9 of 23 reports, other reports, books, accounts, papers, maps, and other records that relate to the SCW Program Payments. Examination activities are considered District administration of the SCW Program. 5. Expenditures determined by an audit to be in violation of any provision of Chapters 16 or 18 of the Code, or of this Agreement, shall be subject to the enforcement and remedy provisions of Section 18.14 of the Code. B-7. Availability of Funds District’s obligation to disburse the SCW Program Payment is contingent upon the availability of sufficient funds to permit the disbursements provided for herein. If sufficient funds are not available for any reason including, but not limite d to, failure to fund allocations necessary for disbursement of the SCW Program Payment, the District shall not be obligated to make any disbursements to the Municipality under this Agreement. This provision shall be construed as a condition precedent to the obligation of the District to make any disbursements under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to provide the Municipality with a right of priority for disbursement over any other Municipality. If any disbursements due to the Municipality under this Agreement are deferred because sufficient funds are unavailable, it is the intention of the District that such disbursement will be made to the Municipality when sufficient funds do become available, but this intention is not binding. If this Agreement’s funding for any Fiscal Year is reduced or deleted by order of the Board, the District shall have the option to either cancel this Agreement with no liability occurring to the District or offer an amendment to the Municipality to reflect the reduced amount. B-8. Choice of Law The laws of the State of California govern this Agreement. B-9. Claims Any claim of the Municipality is limited to the rights, remedies, and claims procedures provided to the Municipality under this Agreement. Municipal expen ditures of a SCW Program Payment that involves the District shall utilize a separate and specific agreement to that Project that includes appropriate indemnification superseding that in this Agreement. B-10. Compliance with SCW Program The Municipality shall comply with and require its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all provisions of Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code. B-11. Compliance with Law, Regulations, etc. The Municipality shall, at all times, comply with and require its contract ors and subcontractors to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules, guidelines, regulations, and requirements. 270 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 10 of 23 B-12. Continuous Use of Municipal Projects; Lease or Disposal of Municipal Projects The Municipality shall not abandon, substantially discontinue use of, lease, or dispose of all or a significant part or portion of any Project funded in whole or in part with SCW Program Payments during the useful life (defined as 30 years unless specified otherwise in annual plans and subsequent reports) of the Project without prior written approval of the District. Such approval may be conditioned as determined to be appropriate by the District, including a condition requiring repayment of a pro rata amount of the SCW Program Payments used to fund the Project together with interest on said amount accruing from the date of lease or disposal of the Project. B-13. Disputes Should a dispute arise between the parties, the party asserting the dispute will notify the other parties in writing of the dispute. The parties will then meet and confer within 21 calendar days of the notice in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. If the matter has not been resolved through the process set forth in the preceding paragraph, any party may initiate mediation of the di spute. Mediation will be before a retired judge or mediation service mutually agreeable to the parties. All costs of the mediation, including mediator fees, will be paid one-half by the District and one-half by the Municipality. SCW Program Payments shall not be used to pay for any costs of the mediation. The parties will attempt to resolve any dispute through the process set forth above before filing any action relating to the dispute in any court of law. B-14. Final Inspection and Certification of Registered Professional Upon completion of the design phase and before construction of a project, the Municipality shall provide certification by a California Registered Professional (i.e., Professional Civil Engineer, Engineering Geologist) that the design has been completed. Upon completion of the project, the Municipality shall provide for a final inspection and certification by a California Registered Professional (i.e., Professional Civil Engineer, Engineering Geologist), that the Project has been comp leted in accordance with submitted final plans and specifications and any modifications thereto and in accordance with this Agreement. B-15. Force Majeure. In the event that Municipality is delayed or hindered from the performance of any act required hereunder by reason of strikes, lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, riots, insurrection, war, or other reasons of a like nature beyond the control of the Municipality, then performance of such acts shall be excused for the period of the delay, and the period for the performance of any such act shall be extended for a period equivalent to the period of such delay. 271 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 11 of 23 B-16. Funding Considerations and Exclusions 1. All expenditures of SCW Program Payments by Municipality must comply with the provisions of Chapters 16 and 18 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code, including but not limited to the provisions regarding eligible expenditures contained in Section 16.05.A.2 and the provision regarding ineligible exp enditures contained in Section 16.05.A.3. 2. SCW Program Payments shall not be used in connection with any Project implemented as an Enhanced Compliance Action ("ECA") and/or Supplemental Environmental Project ("SEP") as defined by State Water Resources Co ntrol Board Office of Enforcement written policies, or any other Project implemented pursuant to the settlement of an enforcement action or to offset monetary penalties imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board, a Regional Water Quality Control Board, or any other regulatory authority; provided, however, that SCW funds may be used for a Project implemented pursuant to a time schedule order ("TSO") issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board if, at the time the TSO was issued, the Project was included in an approved watershed management program (including enhanced watershed management programs) developed pursuant to the MS4 Permit. B-17. Indemnification The Municipality shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the District, the County o f Los Angeles and their elected and appointed officials, agents, and employees from and against any and all liability and expense, including defense costs, legal fees, claims, actions, and causes of action for damages of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to bodily injury, death, personal injury, or property damage, arising from or in conjunction with: (1) any Project or Program implemented by the Municipality, in whole or in part, with SCW Program Payments or (2) any breach of this Agreement by the Municipality. B-18. Independent Actor The Municipality, and its agents and employees, if any, in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the District. The Municipality shall not contract work with a contractor who is in a period of debarment from any agency within the District. (LACC Chapter 2.202) B-19. Integration This is an integrated Agreement. This Agreement is intended to be a full and complete statement of the terms of the agreement between the District and Municipality, and expressly supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements, covenants, representations and warranties, express or implied, concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. 272 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 12 of 23 B-20. Lapsed Funds 1. The Municipality shall be able to carry over uncommitted SCW Program Payments for up to five (5) years from the end of the fiscal year in which those funds are transferred from the District to the Municipality. 2. If the Municipality is unable to expend the SCW Program Payment within five (5) years from the end of the fiscal year in which those funds are transferred from the District to the Municipality, then lapsed funding procedures will apply. Lapsed funds are funds that were transferred to the Municipality but were not committed to eligible expenditures by the end of the fifth (5 th) fiscal year after the fiscal year in which those funds were transferred from the District. 3. Lapsed funds shall be allocated by the Watershed Area Steering Committee of the respective Watershed Area to a new Project with benefit to that Municipality, if feasible in a reasonable time frame, or otherwise to the Watershed Area. 4. In the event that funds are to lapse, due to circumstances beyond the Municipality’s control, then the Municipality may request an extension of up to twelve (12) months in which to commit the funds to eligible expenditures. Extension Requests must contain sufficient justification and be submitted to the District in writing no later than three (3) months before the funds are to lapse. 5. The decision to grant an extension is at the sole discretion of the District. 6. Funds still uncommitted to eligible expenditures after an extension is granted will be subject to lapsed funding procedures without exception. Fiscal Year Transferred Funds Lapse After Extension Request Due Commit By 2019-20 6/30/2025 No later than 3/31/2025 No later than 6/30/2026 B-21. Municipal Project Access Upon reasonable advance request, the Municipality shall ensure that the District or any authorized representative, will have safe and suitable access to the site of any Project implemented by the Municipality in whole or in part with SCW Program Payments at all reasonable times. B-22. Non-Discrimination The Municipality agrees to abide by all federal, state, and County laws, regulations, and policies regarding non-discrimination in employment and equal employment opportunity. 273 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 13 of 23 B-23. No Third-Party Rights The parties to this Agreement do not create rights in, or grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement, or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein B-24. Notice 1. The Municipality shall notify the District in writing within five (5) working days of the occurrence of the following: a. Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the Municipality; or b. Actions taken pursuant to State law in anticipation of filing for bankruptcy. 2. The Municipality shall notify the District within ten (10) working days of any litigation pending or threatened against the Municipality regarding its continued existence, consideration of dissolution, or disincorporation. 3. The Municipality shall notify the District promptly of the following: a. Any significant deviation from the submitted Annual Plan for the current Fiscal Year, including discussion of any major changes to the scope of funded projects or programs, noteworthy delays in implementation, reduction in benefits or community engagement, and/or modifications that change the SCW Program Goals intended to be accomplished. b. Discovery of any potential archaeological or historical resource. Should a potential archaeological or historical resource be discovered during construction, the Municipality agrees that all work in the area of the find will cease until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation and made recommendations regarding preservation of the resource, and the District has determined what actions should be taken to protect and preserve the resource. The Municipality agrees to implement appropriate actions a s directed by the District. c. Any public or media event publicizing the accomplishments and/or results of this Agreement and provide the opportunity for attendance and participation by District representatives with at least fourteen (14) days’ notice to the District. B-25. Municipality’s Responsibility for Work The Municipality shall be responsible for all work and for persons or entities engaged in work performed pursuant to this Agreement including, but not limited to, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and providers of services. The Municipality shall be responsible for responding to any and all disputes arising out of its contracts for work on the Project. The District will not mediate disputes between the Municipality and any other entity concerning responsibility for performance of work. 274 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 14 of 23 B-26. Reporting The Municipality shall be subject to and comply with all applicable requirements of the District regarding reporting requirements. Municipalities shall report available data through the SCW Reporting Module, once available. 1. Annual Progress/Expenditure Reports. The Municipality shall submit Annual Progress/Expenditure Reports, using a format provided by the District, within six (6) months following the end of the Fiscal Year to the District to detail the activities of the prior year. The Annual Progress/Expenditure Reports shall be posted on the District’s publicly accessible website and on the Municipality’s website. The Annual Progress/Expenditure Report shall include: a. Amount of funds received; b. Breakdown of how the SCW Program Payment has been expended; c. Documentation that the SCW Program Payment was used for eligible expenditures in accordance with Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code; d. Description of activities that have occurred, milestones achieved, and progress made to date, during the applicable reporting period including comparison to the Annual Plan and corresponding metrics; e. Discussion of any existing gaps between what was planned and what was achieved for the prior year, include any lessons learned; f. Description of the Water Quality Benefits, Water Supply Benefits, and Community Investment Benefits and a summary of how SCW Program Payments have been used to achieve SCW Program Goals for the prior year, including graphical representation of available data and specific metrics to demonstrate the benefits being achieved through the years’ investments. g. Discussion of alignment with other local, regional, and state efforts, resources, and plans, as applicable. This includes discussion of opportunities for addressing additional SCW Program Goals, leveraging SCW Program Goals, and increasing regional capacity to supplement the SCW Program. h. Additional financial or Project-related information in connection with activity funded in whole or in part using SCW Program Payments a s required by the District. i. Certification from a California Registered Professional (Civil Engineer or Geologist, as appropriate), that projects implemented with SCW Program Payments were conducted in accordance with Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code. 275 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 15 of 23 j. Report on annual and total (since inception of program) benefits provided by programs and projects funded by SCW Program Payment. This includes comparisons to annual plans and alignment with corresponding specific quantitative targets and metrics (note that SCW Reporting Module will facilitate calculation of benefits and graphical representation of pertinent data): i. Annual volume of stormwater captured and treated ii. Annual volume of stormwater captured and reused iii. Annual volume of stormwater captured and recharged to a managed aquifer iv. Annual creation, enhancement, or restoration of Community Investment Benefits. If none, discuss considerations explored and reasons to not include. v. Annual acreage increases in Nature-Based Solutions and claimed level of NBS (with matrix demonstrating determination of good, better, best, as outlined in Exhibit C). If none, discuss considerations explored and reasons to not include. vi. Annual expenditures providing DAC Benefits. If none, discuss considerations explored and reasons to not include. 2. Documentation of the Community Outreach and Engagement utilized for and/or achieved with the SCW Program Payment described in the Annual Plan Exhibit A. This information must be readily accessible to members of the public. 3. As Needed Information or Reports. The Municipality agrees to promptly provide such reports, data, and information as may be reasonably requested by the District including, but not limited to material necessary or appropriate for evaluation of the SCW Program or to fulfill any reporting requirements of the County, state or federal government. B-27. Representations, Warranties, and Commitments The Municipality represents, warrants, and commits as follows: 1. Authorization and Validity. The execution and delivery of this Agreement, inc luding all incorporated documents, by the individual signing on behalf of Municipality, has been duly authorized by the governing body of Municipality, as applicable. This Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the Municipality, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as such enforcement may be limited by law. 2. No Violations. The execution, delivery, and performance by the Municipality of this Agreement, including all incorporated documents, do not violate any provision of any law or regulation in effect as of the date set forth on the first page hereof, or result in any breach or default under any contract, obligation, indenture, or other 276 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 16 of 23 instrument to which the Municipality is a party or by which the Municipality is bound as of the date set forth on the first page hereof. 3. No Litigation. There are no pending or, to the Municipality’s knowledge, threatened actions, claims, investigations, suits, or proceedings before any governmental authority, court, or administrative agency which affect the Municipality's ability to complete the Annual Plan. 4. Solvency. None of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement will be or have been made with an actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any present or future creditors of the Municipality. As of the date set forth on the first page hereof, the Municipality is solvent and will not be rendered insolvent by the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. The Municipality is able to pay its debts as they become due. 5. Legal Status and Eligibility. The Municipality is duly organized and existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. The Municipality shall at all times maintain its current legal existence and preserve and keep in full force and effect its legal rights and authority. 6. Good Standing. The Municipality must demonstrate it has not failed to comply with previous County and/or District audit disallowances within the preceding five years. B-28. Travel Any reimbursement for necessary ground transportation and lodging shall be at rates not to exceed those set by the California Department of Human Resources; per diem costs will not be eligible expenses. These rates may be found at http://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/Pages/travel-reimbursements.aspx. Reimbursement will be at the State travel amounts that are current as of the date costs are incurred by the Municipality. No travel outside the Los Angeles County Flood Control District region shall be reimbursed unless prior written authorization is obtained from the Program Manager. B-29. Unenforceable Provision In the event that any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, the parties agree that all other provisions of this Agreement have force and effect and shall not be affected thereby. B-30. Withholding of Disbursements and Material Violations Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the District may withhold all or any portion of the SCW Program Payment for any Fiscal Year in the event that: 1. The Municipality has violated any provision of this Agreement; or 277 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 17 of 23 2. The Municipality fails to maintain reasonable progress in achieving SCW Program Goals, following an opportunity to cure. 3. Failure to remain in Good Standing, described in Section B -26 of Exhibit B. 4. Failure to submit annual reports on meeting SCW Program Goals. 278 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 18 of 23 EXHIBIT C – NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS (NBS) BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Municipalities shall consider incorporation of Nature-based solutions (NBS) into their projects. NBS refers to the sustainable management and use of nature for undertaking socio-environmental challenges, including climate change, water security, water pollution, food security, human health, and disaster risk management. As this environmental management practice is increasingly incorporated into projects for the SCW Program, this guidance document may be expanded upon to further quantify NBS practices based on benefits derived from their incorporation on projects. The SCW Program defines NBS as a Project that utilizes natural processes that slow, detain, infiltrate or filter Stormwater or Urban Runoff. These methods may include relying predominantly on soils and vegetation; increasing the permeability of Impermeable Areas; protecting undeveloped mountains and floodplains; creating and restoring riparian habitat and wetlands; creating rain gardens, bioswales, and parkway basins; enhancing soil through composting, mulching; and, planting tre es and vegetation, with preference for native species. NBS may also be designed to provide additional benefits such as sequestering carbon, supporting biodiversity, providing shade, creating and enhancing parks and open space, and improving quality of life for surrounding communities. NBS include Projects that mimic natural processes, such as green streets, spreading grounds and planted areas with water storage capacity. NBS may capture stormwater to improve water quality, collect water for reuse or aquifer recharge, or to support vegetation growth utilizing natural processes. Municipalities are to include in each Annual Progress/Expenditure Report whether and how their project achieves a good, better, or best for each of the 6 NBS methods in accordance with the guidance below. Additionally, Annual Progress/ Expenditure Reports should include discussion on any considerations taken to maximize the class within each method. If at least 3 methods score within a single class, the overall project can be characterized as that class. Municipalities must attach a copy of the matrix for each project with the good, better, or best column indicated for each method, to facilitate District tracking of methods being utilized. BEST BETTER GOOD 279 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 19 of 23 METHODS GOOD BETTER BEST Vegetation/Green Space Use of climate- appropriate, eco-friendly vegetation (groundcover, shrubs, and trees) / green space 5%-15% covered by new climate-appropriate vegetation Use of native, climate- appropriate, eco-friendly vegetation (groundcover, shrubs, and trees) / green space 16%-35% covered by new native vegetation Establishment of plant communities with a diversity of native vegetation (groundcover, shrubs, and trees) / green space that is both native and climate-appropriate More than 35% covered by new native vegetation Increase of Permeability Installation of vegetated landscape – 25%-49% paved area removed Redesign of existing impermeable surfaces and/or installation of permeable surfaces (e.g. permeable pavement and infiltration trenches) Installation of vegetated landscape – 50%-74% paved area removed Improvements of soil health (e.g., compaction reduction) Installation of vegetated landscape – 75%-100% paved area removed Creation of well- connected and self- sustained natural landscapes with healthy soils, permeable surfaces, and appropriate vegetation Protection of Undeveloped Mountains & Floodplains ● Preservation of native vegetation ● Minimal negative impact to existing drainage system ● Preservation of native vegetation ● Installation of new feature(s) to improve existing drainage system ● Creation of open green space ● Installation of features to improve natural hydrology Creation & Restoration of Riparian Habitat & Wetlands Partial restoration of existing riparian habitat and wetlands Planting of climate appropriate vegetation - between 11 and 20 different climate- appropriate or native plant species newly planted No potable water used to sustain the wetland ● Full restoration of existing riparian habitat and wetlands ● Planting of native vegetation - between 21 and 40 different native plant species newly planted No potable water used to sustain the wetland ● Full restoration and expansion of existing riparian habitat and wetlands Planting of plant communities with a diversity of native vegetation – between 41 and 50 different native plant species newly planted No potable water used to sustain the wetland 280 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 20 of 23 New Landscape Elements Elements designed to capture runoff for other simple usage (e.g. rain gardens and cisterns), capturing the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event for at least 50% of the entire parcel Elements that design to capture/redirect runoff and filter pollution (e.g. bioswales and parkway basins), capturing the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event from the entire parcel Large sized elements that capture and treat runoff to supplement or replace existing water systems (e.g. wetlands, daylighting streams, groundwater infiltration, floodplain reclamation), capturing the 90th percentile 24-hour storm event from the entire parcel and/or capturing off-site runoff Enhancement of Soil Use of soil amendments such as mulch and compost to retain moisture in the soil and prevent erosion Planting of new climate- appropriate vegetation to enhance soil organic matter Use of soil amendments such as mulch and compost that are locally generated to retain moisture in the soil, prevent erosion, and support locally based composting and other soil enhancement activities Planting of new native, climate-appropriate vegetation to enhance soil organic matter Use of soil amendments such as mulch and compost that are locally generated, especially use of next-generation design with regenerative adsorbents (e.g. woodchips, biochar) to retain moisture in the soil, prevent erosion, and support on-site composting and other soil enhancement activities Planting of new native, climate appropriate vegetation to enhance soil organic matter 281 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 21 of 23 EXHIBIT D – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Municipalities shall operate and maintain infrastructure projects for the useful life of the project and are to consider using the following guidance for operations and maintenance for infrastructure projects. Operational maintenance is the care and upkeep of Projects that may require detailed technical knowledge of the Project’s function and design. Project specific operational and maintenance plans shall consider the activities listed below and set forth specific activities and frequencies (not limited to those below) as determined to be appropriate by the Municipalities and best practices, including stakeholder engagement as applicable. Operational maintenance is to be performed by the operator of the Project with a purpose to make the operator aware of the state of readiness of the Project to deliver stormwater and urban runoff benefits. 1. Litter Control • Regular removal of litter, nonhazardous waste materials, and accumulated debris near planted areas, rock areas, decomposed granite areas, rest areas, fence perimeters, adjoining access roads and driveways, drains, pedestrian trails, viewing stations, shelter houses, and bicycle pathways. • Regular inspection and maintenance of pet waste stations • Maintaining trash receptacles • Removal of trash, debris, and blockages from bioswales • Inspection and cleaning of trash booms • Inspection of weir gates and stop logs to clean debris, as required. 2. Vegetation Maintenance • Weed control o Recognition and removal of weeds, such as perennial weeds, morning glory, vine-type weeds, ragweed, and other underground spreading weeds. o Avoiding activities that result in weed seed germination (e.g. frequent soil cultivation near trees or shrubs) o Regular removal of weeds from landscape areas, including from berms, painted areas, rock areas, gravel areas, pavement cracks along access roads and driveways, drains, pedestrian trails, viewing stations, park shelters, and bicycle paths. • Tree and shrubbery trimming and care o Removal of dead trees and elimination of diseased/damaged growth o Prevent encroachment of adjacent property and provide vertical clearance o Inspect for dead or diseased plants regularly • Wetland vegetation and landscape maintenance o Installation and maintenance of hydrophytic and emergent plants in perennially wet and seasonal, intermittent habitats. o Draining and drawdown of wetland and excessive bulrush removal 282 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 22 of 23 o Weed and nuisance plant control o Removal of aquatic vegetation (e.g. algae and primrose) using appropriate watercraft and harvesting equipment o Wildflower and meadow maintenance o Grass, sedge, and yarrow management o Removal of unwanted hydroseed 3. Wildlife Management • Exotic species control • Provide habitat management; promote growth of plants at appropriate densities and promote habitat structure for animal species • Protect sensitive animal species (e.g. protection during critical life stages including breeding and migration) • Avoid disturbances to nesting birds • Avoid spread of invasive aquatic species 4. Facility Inspection • Inspect project sites for rodent and insect infestations on a regular basis • Inspect for and report graffiti in shelter houses, viewing stations, benches, paving surfaces, walls, fences, and educational and directional signs • Inspect facilities for hazardous conditions on roads and trails (e.g. access roads and trails, decomposed granite pathways, and maintenance roads) • Inspect shade structures for structural damage or defacement • Inspect hardscapes • Inspect and maintain interpretive and informational signs • Inspect site furnishings (e.g. benches, hitching posts, bicycle racks) • Maintain deck areas (e.g. benches, signs, decking surfaces) • Visually inspect weirs and flap gates for damage; grease to prevent locking. • Inspect all structures after major storm events, periodically inspect every 3 months, and operate gates through full cycles to prevent them from locking up. 5. Irrigation System Management • Ensuring automatic irrigation controllers are functioning properly and providing various plant species with proper amount of water. o Cycle controller(s) through each station manually and automatically to determine if all facets are functioning properly. o Inspection should be performed at least monthly. o Recover, replace, or refasten displaced or damaged valve box covers. o Inspect and repair bubbler heads. 283 Municipal Program Agreement No. _________ Page 23 of 23 o Repair and replace broken drip lines or emitters causing a loss of water (to prevent ponding and erosion). o Maintain drip system filters to prevent emitters from clogging. Inspection and cleaning should occur at least monthly. o Inspect and clean mainline filters, wye strainers, basket filters, and filters at backflow devices twice a year. o Maintain and check function of the drip system. • Keeping irrigation control boxes clear of vegetation • Operating irrigation system to ensure it does not cause excessively wet, waterlogged areas, and slope failure • Utilizing infrequent deep watering techniques to encourage deep rooting, drought tolerant plant characteristics to promote a self-sustaining, irrigation free landscape • Determine watering schedules based on season, weather, variation in plant size, and plant varieties. At least four times a year (e.g. change of season), reschedule controller systems. • Turn off irrigation systems at the controller at the beginning of the rainy season, or when the soil has a high enough moisture content. • Use moisture sensing devices to determine water penetration in soil. 6. Erosion Management and Control • Inspect slopes for erosion during each maintenance activity • Inspect basins for erosion • Take corrective measures as needed, including filling eroded surfaces, reinstalling or extending bank protection, and replanting exposed soil. 7. Ongoing Monitoring Activities • Monitor controllable intake water flow and water elevation • Examine inflow and outflow structures to ensure devices are functioning properly and are free of obstructions. • Water quality sampling (quarterly, unless justified otherwise) • Checking telemetry equipment • Tracking and reporting inspection and maintenance records 8. Vector and Nuisance Insect Control • Monitoring for the presence of vector and nuisance insect species • Adequate pretreatment of influent wastewater to lessen production of larval mosquitos • Managing emergent vegetation • Using hydraulic control structures to rapidly dewater emergent marsh areas • Managing flow velocities to reduce propagation of vectors 284 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 1 of 34 -DRAFT TEMPLATE- TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND (INSERT PROJECT DEVELOPER) AGREEMENT NO. _______________ SAFE, CLEAN WATER PROGRAM – REGIONAL PROGRAM This Transfer Agreement, hereinafter referred to as “Agreement,” is entered into as of ____________________ by and between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, hereinafter referred to as "District," and ___(Project Developer/Scientific Studies Applicant Entity)____, hereinafter referred to as "Recipient." WHEREAS,District, pursuant to the Los Angeles Region Safe, Clean Water (SCW) Program ordinance (Chapter 16 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code) and the SCW Program Implementation Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code), administers the SCW Program for the purpose of funding Projects and Programs to increase stormwater and urban runoff capture and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution in the District; WHEREAS,Recipient proposes to implement a Funded Activity (as hereafter defined) that is eligible for funding under the SCW Program; WHEREAS,the Funded Activity is included in a Stormwater Investment Plan (SIP) that has been approved by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors; WHEREAS,the Board approved a standard template Agreement as required by and in accordance with Section 18.09 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, mutual representations, covenants and agreements in this Agreement, the District and the Recipient, each binding itself, its successors and assigns, do mutually promise, covenant, and agree as follows: I. DEFINITIONS The definitions set forth in Sections 16.03 and 18.02 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code shall apply to this Agreement. In addition, the following definitions shall also apply: “Activity Completion” means that the Funded Activity is complete to the reasonable satisfaction of the District based on review of reports and other documentation as deemed appropriate by the District. If the Funded Activity is an Infrastructure Program Project on District Right-of-Way a separate use and maintenance agreement is required. “Activity Costs” means the total costs necessary to achieve Activity Completion. The Activity Costs for the Funded Activity are described in Exhibit A. “Agreement” means this Transfer Agreement, including all exhibits and attachments hereto. 285 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 2 of 34 “Budget Plan” means a Recipient’s plan for funding Activity Completion, including a description of all sources of funds for Activity Costs and a description of how the SCW Program Contribution will be allocated among the tasks identified in the Scope of Work within each fiscal year. Recipient's Budget Plan is described in Exhibit A. “Days” means calendar days unless otherwise expressly indicated. “Fiscal Year” means the period of twelve (12) months terminating on June 30 of any year. “Funded Activity” means the Infrastructure Program Project, or Scientific Study described in Exhibit A – Scope of Work, including the Stakeholder and Community Outreach Plan and all other tasks and activities described in Exhibit A. “Safe Clean Water (SCW) Program Contribution” means the portion of the Activity Costs to be paid for with Regional Program funds provided by the District from the SCW Program as described in the Budget Plan. “Year” means calendar year unless otherwise expressly indicated. II. PARTY CONTACTS The District and the Recipient designate the following individuals as the primary points of contact and communication regarding the Funded Activity and the administration and implementation of this Agreement. Los Angeles County Flood Control District Recipient: Name: (Program Manager) Name: (Project Manager) Address:Address: Phone:Phone: Email:Email: Either party to this Agreement may change the individual identified above by providing written notice of the change to the other party. III. EXHIBITS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following exhibits to this Agreement, including any amendments and supplements hereto, are hereby incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement: EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT B – GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS EXHIBIT C – SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXHIBIT D – ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT EXHIBIT E – NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS (Best Management Practices) EXHIBIT F – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 286 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 3 of 34 IV. ACTIVITY COMPLETION A. The Recipient shall implement and complete the Funded Activity in accordance with the work schedule described in Exhibit A, B. The Recipient shall comply with the terms and conditions in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F of this Agreement, and all applicable provisions of Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code. C. The Recipient shall fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations, and commitments made by the Recipient in its application for SCW Program Contributions, accompanying documents, and communications filed in support of its application for SCW Program Contributions. V. SCW PROGRAM FUNDING FOR FUNDED ACTIVITY A. The District shall disburse the SCW Program Contribution for the 2020-2021 Fiscal Year as described in the corresponding approved Stormwater Investment Plan (SIP) within 45-days of receipt of the signed executed Agreement. B. If the Funded Activity is included in a duly approved SIP for a subsequent Fiscal Year, the parties shall enter into an addendum to this Agreement, in the form attached as Exhibit D, regarding the disbursement of the SCW Program Contribution for that subsequent Fiscal Year. The Recipient expressly acknowledges and agrees that the District is not obligated to disburse any SCW Program Contributions to Recipient for any Fiscal Year beyond the 2020-21 Fiscal Year unless the Funded Activity is included in a duly approved SIP for a subsequent Fiscal Year , the Recipient has complied with the provisions related to the California Environmental Quality Act in Exhibit C, and the parties have duly executed an addendum to this Agreement for that Fiscal Year. C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no disbursement shall be made at any time or in any manner that is in violation of or in conflict with federal, state, County laws, policies, or regulations. D. All disbursements shall be subject to and be made in accordance with the terms and conditions in this Agreement and Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code. E. The Recipient shall submit the scope of work described in Exhibit A 45-days after execution of this Agreement. If the Funded Activity is included in a duly approved SIP for a subsequent Fiscal Year, subsequent Exhibit A – Scope of Work will be required 45-days after execution of the addendum to this Agreement. 287 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 4 of 34 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. ______(Recipient)__________: By: ____________________________________ Name: Title: Date: __________________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: By: ____________________________________ Name: Title: Date: __________________________________ 288 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 5 of 34 EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK A-1. Budget Plan The Recipient shall submit a detailed Budget Plan for all eligible expenditures (those incurred after November 7, 2018) for all phases and tasks included in the work schedule for the Funded Activity. The Recipient shall include a summary of leveraged funds and in-kind services for the Funded Activity. For a Funded Activity that will be performed over more than one Fiscal Year, the Budget Plan must clearly identify the amount of SCW Program Contribution for each Fiscal Year. A-2. Consistent with SCW Program Goals By signing this Agreement, the Recipient shall provide certification that the Budget Plan is consistent with SCW Program Goals as described in Chapter 18.04 of the Code. The Recipient shall include a summary of how the identified SCW Program Goals are expected to be achieved through the Funded Activity, including quantitative targets and corresponding metrics for subsequent reporting of all applicable parameters. A-3. Estimated Reasonable Total Activity Cost The Recipient shall submit a detailed estimate total Activity Cost for all phases and tasks included in the work schedule for the Funded Activity. A-4. Funded Activity Description and Scope of Work The Recipient shall provide a general description of the Funded Activity and a detailed scope of work. The scope of work may include: 1. Project Management, including required reporting 2. General Compliance Requirements/Project Effectiveness and Performance 3. Permitting and Environmental Compliance 4. Planning, Design, and Engineering 5. Stakeholder and Community Outreach/Engagement Activities 6. Right of Way Acquisition 7. Construction and Implementation 8. Operation and Maintenance 289 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 6 of 34 A-5. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan Where the Funded Activity is an Infrastructure Program Project, the Recipient shall submit a plan describing the activities that are expected to be necessary to perform O&M for the Infrastructure Program Project to ensure it remains in good working order throughout the useful life of the Infrastructure Program Project using SCW Program Contributions. The O&M plan shall address the activities described in Exhibit F to the greatest extent feasible and in as much detail as possible based on the completeness of the Project design and construction. The Recipient shall update the O&M plan in connection with each Addenda until completion of the Infrastructure Program Project and the submittal of a final O&M plan. The Recipient shall specifically identify the entity that will be performing the O&M for the lifetime of the Project. If this is not the Recipient, the Recipient shall submit a letter of commitment from the entity that will be performing the O&M (See Exhibit F, for example activities). The letter of commitment shall include details demonstrating how the provider is qualified and capable of providing the necessary ongoing O&M services. The Recipient may elect to request the local Municipality or District to provide O&M for the useful life of the Infrastructure Program Project using SCW Program Contributions. If the Recipient does not elect to seek the District’s services or if the District is unable to provide the services as requested, the Recipient shall include in the letter of commitment reference to the above details demonstrating how the provider is qualified and capable of providing the necessary ongoing O&M services. A-6. Post-Construction Monitoring Where the Funded Activity is an Infrastructure Program Project, stormwater quality monitoring data shall be collected and reported in a manner consistent with the SWRCB database, the CEDEN for a period of three years. The Recipient shall submit a post- construction monitoring plan when the design phase is complete. The post-construction monitoring plan will evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater treatment facilities and include the project description; quality objectives; sampling design; sampling procedures; quality control; data management verification, and reporting; data quality assessment; and data analysis procedures. A-7. Sustainability Rating Where the Funded Activity is an Infrastructure Program Project that has applied for Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) verification, the Recipient shall submit the final score and Envision award level. A-8. Stakeholder and Community Outreach/Engagement Plan The Recipient shall submit a Stakeholder and Community Outreach/Engagement Plan for Infrastructure Program Projects and include a discussion of how local NGOs or CBOs will be involved, if applicable, and if not, why. Additional outreach/engagement 290 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 7 of 34 activities, even if funded by other sources, should be referenced to provide an overview of anticipated overall project approach. The plan shall, at a minimum include: 1. Community outreach activities to provide information to residents and information about upcoming meetings or other engagement activity event is scheduled. Outreach methods used should be appropriate in scale and type to the community being served. Outreach methods include but are not limited to: Online Media Outreach (email blasts, social media, publication on a website) Local Media Outreach (newsletters, local and regional newspapers, and local radio and television) and/or Grassroots Outreach (door-to-door canvassing, phone banking, surveys and focus groups, and distribution of flyers or other printed materials). The District will support outreach efforts through web-based platforms if requested at least four weeks prior to the requested publish date. The District should be included in all social media outreach and notified of all meetings and other engagement events. 2. Community engagement activities solicit, address and seek input from community members for Funded Activities. These events may occur as part of any public meeting with multiple agenda items such as council, commission or committee meetings where public input is invited; or at festivals, fairs, or open houses where a table or booth may be set up. 3. Stakeholder and Community Outreach/Engagement Plan requirements: Stakeholder and Community Outreach/Engagement Plan activities should occur at the onset of the project, during the design phase, and during construction. Infrastructure Program Project Funds Required Activity 1 Required Activity 2 Up to $2 M Outreach or Engagement Up to $10 M Outreach ≥1 Engagement Over $10 M Outreach ≥ 2 Engagements 4. If the Funded Activity is for the O&M of an Infrastructure Program Project Stakeholder and Community Outreach/Engagement Plan activities should occur biennially to remind communities of the SCW Program Contribution. 5. Activities and measures to mitigate against displacement and gentrification. This includes, as applicable, an acknowledgment that the Funded Activity will be fully subject to and comply with any County-wide displacement policies as well as with any specific anti-displacement requirements associated with other funding sources. 291 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 8 of 34 A-9. Tracking Infrastructure Program Project Benefits The Recipient shall submit an overview of the benefits achieved upon the Activity Completion. SOW shall include quantitative targets and corresponding metrics for subsequent reporting of all applicable parameters. A-10. Work Schedule and Completion Date The Recipient shall submit a detailed schedule, including start and completion dates for all phases and tasks of the scope of work for the Funded Activity. For Funded Activities that will be performed over more than one Fiscal Year, the work schedule must clearly identify the phases and tasks that will be performed in each Fiscal Year. 292 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 9 of 34 EXHIBIT B – GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS B-1. Accounting and Deposit of Funding Disbursement 1. SCW Program Contributions distributed to the Recipient shall be held in a separate interest-bearing account and shall not be combined with other funds. Interest earned from each account shall be used by the Recipient only for eligible expenditures consistent with the requirements of the SCW Program. 2. The Recipient shall not be entitled to interest earned on undisbursed SCW Program Contributions; interest earned prior to disbursement is property of the District. 3. The Recipient shall operate in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). 4. The Recipient shall be strictly accountable for all funds, receipts, and disbursements related to all SCW Program Contributions made to the Recipient. B-2. Acknowledgement of Credit and Signage The Recipient shall include appropriate acknowledgement of credit to the District for its support when promoting the Funded Activity or using any data and/or information developed under this Agreement. When the Funded Activity involves the construction phase of an Infrastructure Program Project, signage shall be posted in a prominent location at Project site(s) or at the Recipients headquarters and shall include the Safe, Clean Water Program color logo and the following disclosure statement: “Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s Safe, Clean Water Program.” At a minimum the sign shall be 2’ x 3’ in size. The Recipient shall also include in each of its contracts for work under this Agreement a provision that incorporates the requirements stated within this paragraph. When the Funded Activity involves a scientific study, the Recipient shall include the following statement in the study report: “Funding for this study has been provided in full or in part from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s Safe, Clean Water Program.” The Recipient shall also include in each of its contracts for work under this Agreement a provision that incorporates the requirements stated within this paragraph. B-3. Acquisition of Real Property – Covenant Any real property acquired in whole or in part with SCW Program funds shall be used for Projects and Programs that are consistent with the SCW Program Goals and with the provisions of Chapter 16 and 18 of the Code. Any Recipient that acquires the fee title to real property using, in whole or in part, SCW Program funds shall record a document in the office of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk containing a covenant not to sell or otherwise convey the real property without the 293 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 10 of 34 prior express written consent of the District, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. B-4. Amendment Except as provided in Section II of the Agreement, no amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties. No oral or written understanding or agreement not incorporated in this Agreement is binding on any of the parties. B-5. Assignment The Recipient will not assign this Agreement without the prior consent of the District. B-6. Audit and Recordkeeping 1. The Recipient shall retain for a period of seven (7) years after Activity Completion, all records necessary in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to determine the amounts expended, and eligibility of Projects implemented using SCW Program Contributions. The Recipient, upon demand by authorized representatives of the District, shall make such records available for examination and review or audit by the District or its authorized representatives. Records shall include accounting records, written policies and procedures, contract files, original estimates, correspondence, change order files, including documentation covering negotiated settlements, invoices, and any other supporting evidence deemed necessary to substantiate charges related to SCW Program Contributions and expenditures. 2. The Recipient is responsible for obtaining an independent audit to determine Funded Activity compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all requirements applicable to the Recipient contained in chapters 16 and 18 of the Code promptly upon Activity Completion. For a Funded Activity that will be performed over the course of a period exceeding three years, the District may also perform an interim independent audit every three (3) years until Activity Completion. Audits shall be funded with Regional Program funds. 3. Recipient shall file a copy of the Activity Completion audit report with the District by the end of the ninth (9th) month from Activity Completion. Recipient shall file a copy of all interim audit reports by the ninth (9th) month from the end of each three (3) year period. Audit reports shall be posted on the District’s publicly accessible website. 294 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 11 of 34 End-of-Activity Every Third Fiscal Year Projected End Date Audit Report Due to District SIP Fiscal Year Audit Period Audit Report Due to District 1/15/2022 No later than 10/31/2022 2020-21 7/1/2020 to 6/30/2023 No later than 3/31/2024 4. Upon reasonable advanced request, the Recipient shall permit the Chief Engineer, at the District's cost and expense, to examine the Funded Activity. The Recipient shall permit the authorized District representative, including the Auditor-Controller, at the District's cost and expense, to examine, review, audit, and transcribe any and all audit reports, other reports, books, accounts, papers, maps, and other records that relate to the Funded Activity. 5. Expenditures determined by an audit to be in violation of any provision of Chapters 16 or 18 of the Code, or of this Agreement, shall be subject to the enforcement and remedy provisions of Section 18.14 of the Code. If at any time the Funded Activity cannot fulfill the provisions outlined in Exhibit A, the accounts and books of the Recipient may be reviewed or audited by the District. B-7. Availability of Funds District’s obligation to disburse the SCW Program Contribution is contingent upon the availability of sufficient funds to permit the disbursements provided for herein. If sufficient funds are not available for any reason including, but not limited to, failure to fund allocations necessary for disbursement of the SCW Program Contribution, the District shall not be obligated to make any disbursements to the Recipient under this Agreement. This provision shall be construed as a condition precedent to the obligation of the District to make any disbursements under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to provide the Recipient with a right of priority for disbursement over any other recipient. If any disbursements due the Recipient under this Agreement are deferred because sufficient funds are unavailable, it is the intention of the District that such disbursement will be made to the Recipient when sufficient funds do become available, but this intention is not binding. If this Agreement’s funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by order of the Board, the District shall have the option to either cancel this Agreement with no liability occurring to the District or offer an amendment to the Recipient to reflect the reduced amount. 1. The Recipient will not seek disbursement of any Activity Costs that will be disbursed or reimbursed from other funding sources. 2. The Recipient agrees that it will not request a disbursement unless that cost is allowable, reasonable, and allocable. 295 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 12 of 34 B-8. Choice of Law The laws of the State of California govern this Agreement. B-9. Claims Any claim of the Recipient is limited to the rights, remedies, and claims procedures provided to the Recipient under this Agreement. Recipient expenditures of a SCW Program Contribution that involves the District shall utilize a separate and specific agreement to that Project that includes appropriate indemnification superseding that in this Agreement. B-10. Completion of Funded Activity by the Recipient The Recipient agrees to pay any and all Activity Costs in excess of the SCW Program Contribution necessary for Activity Completion. The Recipient expressly acknowledges and agrees that if the SCW Program Contribution is not sufficient to pay the Activity Costs in full, the Recipient shall nonetheless complete the Funded Activity and pay that portion of the Activity Costs in excess of the SCW Program Contribution, subject to the provisions of Exhibit C, as applicable. B-11. Compliance with Law, Regulations, etc. The Recipient shall, at all times, comply with and require its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all applicable County, state and federal laws, rules, guidelines, regulations, and requirements. Without limitation of the foregoing, the Recipient agrees that, to the extent applicable, the Recipient shall comply with the Code. B-12. Competitive Bidding and Procurements The Recipient’s contracts with other entities for the acquisition of goods and services and construction of public works with SCW Program Contributions must be in writing and shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the securing of competitive bids and undertaking competitive negotiations. If the Recipient does not have a written policy to award contracts through a competitive bidding or sole source process, the State Contracting Manual rules must be followed and are available at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Legal-Services- Resources-List-Folder/State-Contracting#@ViewBag.JumpTo B-13. Continuous Use of Funded Activity; Lease or Disposal of Funded Activity Where the Funded Activity involves an Infrastructure Program Project, the Recipient shall not abandon, substantially discontinue use of, lease, or dispose of all or a significant part or portion of the Funded Activity during the useful life of 30 years of the Funded Activity without prior written approval of the District. Such approval may be conditioned as determined to be appropriate by the District, including a condition requiring repayment of pro rata amount of all disbursed SCW Program Contributions together with interest on 296 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 13 of 34 said amount accruing from the date of abandonment, substantial discontinuance, lease or disposal of the Project. B-14. Default Provisions The Recipient will be in default under this Agreement under any of the following circumstances: 1. The Recipient has made or makes any false warranty, representation, or statement with respect to this Agreement, any addendum or the application filed to obtain this Agreement; 2. The Recipient materially breaches this Agreement or any addendum, including but not limited to: a. Fails to operate or maintain Project in accordance with this Agreement; b. Fails to submit timely Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports. c. Fails to remain in Good Standing (see Section B-34, below). d. The Recipient fails to maintain reasonable progress toward SCW Program Goals as described in Section 18.04 of the Code, following an opportunity to cure. e. The Recipient fails to maintain reasonable progress toward Project Completion. f. Use of SCW Program Contributions for ineligible expenses and/or activities not consistent with the Agreement. g. Inappropriate use of SCW Program Contributions, as deemed by the District Should an event of default occur, the District shall provide a notice of default to the Recipient and shall give the Recipient at least ten calendar days or such longer period as the District, in its reasonable discretion, may authorize, to cure the default from the date the notice is sent via first-class mail to the Recipient. If the Recipient fails to cure the default within the time prescribed by the District, the District may do any of the following: 1. Declare the SCW Program Contribution be immediately repaid, with interest, which shall be equal to the State of California general obligation bond interest rate in effect at the time of the default. 2. Terminate any obligation to make future payments to the Recipient. 3. Terminate the Agreement. 297 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 14 of 34 4. Take any other action that it deems necessary to protect its interests. The Recipient shall not be in default under this Agreement as a result of any breach of this Agreement by the Recipient that is the direct result of the District’s failure to make a SCW Program Contribution for any Fiscal Year. Under these circumstances the District may, in its reasonable discretion, terminate this Agreement by providing the Recipient with a written notice of termination. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this paragraph, the parties shall thereafter have no further obligations to each other in connection with the Funded Activity except that the Recipient's indemnification obligations shall survive the termination of this Agreement and continue in full force and effect. B-15. Disputes Should a dispute arise between the parties, the party asserting the dispute will notify the other parties in writing of the dispute. The parties will then meet and confer within 21 calendar days of the notice in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. If the matter has not been resolved through the process set forth in the preceding paragraph, any party may initiate mediation of the dispute. Mediation will be before a retired judge or mediation service mutually agreeable to the parties. All costs of the mediation, including mediator fees, will be paid one-half by the District and one-half by the Recipient. SCW Program Contributions shall not be used to pay for any costs of the mediation. The parties will attempt to resolve any dispute through the process set forth above before filing any action relating to the dispute in any court of law. B-16. Final Inspection and Certification of Registered Professional Where the Funded Activity is an Infrastructure Program Project, upon completion of the design phase and before construction, the Recipient shall provide certification by a California Registered Professional (i.e., Professional Civil Engineer, Engineering Geologist) that the design has been completed. Where the Funded Activity is an Infrastructure Program Project, upon completion of the Project, the Recipient shall provide for a final inspection and certification by a California Registered Professional (i.e., Professional Civil Engineer, Engineering Geologist), that the Project has been completed in accordance with submitted final plans and specifications and any modifications thereto and in accordance with this Agreement. B-17. Force Majeure. In the event that Recipient is delayed or hindered from the performance of any act required hereunder by reason of strikes, lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, riots, insurrection, war, or other reasons of a like nature beyond the control of the Recipient, then performance of such acts shall be 298 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 15 of 34 excused for the period of the delay, and the period for the performance of any such act shall be extended for a period equivalent to the period of such delay. B-18. Funded Activity Access When the Funded Activity involves an Infrastructure Program Project the Recipient shall, upon receipt of reasonable advance notice from the District, ensure that the District or any authorized representative of the foregoing, will have safe and suitable access to the site of the Funded Activity at all reasonable times through Activity Completion. B-19. Funding Considerations and Exclusions 1. All expenditures of the SCW Program Contribution by Recipient must comply with the provisions of Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code, including but not limited to the provisions regarding eligible expenditures contained in Section 16.05.A.2 and the provision regarding ineligible expenditures contained in Section 16.05.A.3. 2. SCW Program Contributions shall not be used in connection with any Funded Activity implemented as an Enhanced Compliance Action ("ECA") and/or Supplemental Environmental Project ("SEP") as defined by State Water Resources Control Board Office of Enforcement written policies, or any other Funded Activity implemented pursuant to the settlement of an enforcement action or to offset monetary penalties imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board, a Regional Water Quality Control Board, or any other regulatory authority; provided, however, that SCW funds may be used for a Funded Activity implemented pursuant to a time schedule order ("TSO") issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board if, at the time the TSO was issued, the Funded Activity was included in an approved watershed management program (including enhanced watershed management programs) developed pursuant to the MS4 Permit. Recipient certifies that: (a) the Funded Activity is not being implemented as an ECA or SEP; (b) the Funded Activity is not being implemented pursuant to the settlement of an enforcement action or to offset monetary penalties imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board, a Regional Water Quality Control Board, or any other regulatory authority; and (c) the Funded Activity is not being implemented pursuant to a TSO issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board unless, at the time the TSO was issued, the Funded Activity was included in an approved watershed management program (including enhanced watershed management programs) developed pursuant to the MS4 Permit. B-20. Indemnification The Recipient shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the District and their elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all liability and expense arising from any act or omission of the Recipient, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants or contractors in conjunction with Recipient’s performance under or pursuant to this Agreement, including defense costs, legal fees, claims, actions, and 299 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 16 of 34 causes of action for damages of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to bodily injury, death, personal injury, or property damage. B-21. Independent Actor The Recipient, and its agents and employees, if any, in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the District. The Recipient shall not contract work with a contractor who is in a period of debarment from any agency within the District. (LACC Chapter 2.202) B-22. Integration This is an integrated Agreement. This Agreement is intended to be a full and complete statement of the terms of the agreement between the District and Recipient, and expressly supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements, covenants, representations and warranties, express or implied, concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. B-23. Lapsed Funds 1. The Recipient shall be able to carry over uncommitted Special Parcel Tax funds for up to five (5) years from the end of the fiscal year in which those funds are transferred from the District to the Recipient. 2. If the Recipient is unable to expend the SCW Program Contribution within five (5) years from the end of the Fiscal Year in which those funds are transferred from the District to the Recipient, then lapsed funding procedures will apply. Lapsed funds are funds that were transferred to the Recipient but were not committed to eligible expenditures by the end of the fifth (5th) fiscal year after the fiscal year in which those funds were transferred from the District. 3. Lapsed funds shall be allocated by the Watershed Area Steering Committee of the respective Watershed Area to a new Project with benefit to that Municipality or Watershed Area. 4. In the event that funds are to lapse, due to circumstances beyond the Recipient’s control, then the Recipient may request an extension of up to twelve (12) months in which to commit the funds to eligible expenditures. Extension Requests must contain sufficient justification and be submitted to the District in writing no later than three (3) months before the funds are to lapse. 5. The decision to grant an extension is at the sole discretion of the District. 6. Funds still uncommitted to eligible expenditures after an extension is granted will be subject to lapsed funding procedures without exception. 300 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 17 of 34 7. Example: Fiscal Year Transferred Funds Lapse After Extension Request Due Commit By 2020–21 6/30/2026 No later than 3/31/2026 No later than 6/30/2027 B-24. Modification This Agreement may be amended or modified only by mutual written consent of the Board and Recipient. B-25. Non-Discrimination The Recipient agrees to abide by all federal, state, and County laws, regulations, and policies regarding non-discrimination in employment and equal employment opportunity. B-26. No Obligation of the District The District will transfer the SCW Program Contribution to the Recipient for the funding of the Funded Activity. The District will have no further obligation, other than to transfer the funds, with respect to the Funded Activity itself. B-27. No Third-Party Rights The parties to this Agreement do not create rights in, or grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement, or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein B-28. Notice 1. The Recipient shall notify the District in writing within five (5) working days of the occurrence of the following: a. Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the Recipient; or b. Actions taken pursuant to State law in anticipation of filing for bankruptcy. 2. The Recipient shall notify the District within ten (10) working days of any litigation pending or threatened against the Recipient regarding its continued existence, consideration of dissolution, or disincorporation. 3. The Recipient shall notify the District promptly of the following: a. Any significant deviation from in the submitted scope of the Funded Activity for the current Fiscal Year, including discussion of any major changes to the scope of the Funded Activity, noteworthy delays in implementation, anticipated 301 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 18 of 34 reduction in benefits, and/or modifications that change the SCW Program Goals intended to be accomplished by the Funded Activity. Under no circumstances may the Recipient make changes to the scope of the Funded Activity without receiving prior approval. b. Cessation of work on the Funded Activity where such cessation of work is expected to or does extend for a period of thirty (30) days or more; c. Any circumstance, combination of circumstances, or condition, which is expected to or does delay Activity Completion; d. Discovery of any potential archaeological or historical resource. Should a potential archaeological or historical resource be discovered during construction, the Recipient agrees that all work in the area of the find will cease until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation and made recommendations regarding preservation of the resource. When the District is acting as the Lead Agency under CEQA for the Funded Activity, all work in the area of the find will remain suspended until the District has determined what actions should be taken to protect and preserve the resource and the Recipient agrees to implement appropriate actions as directed by the District; e. Any public or media event publicizing the accomplishments and/or results of this Agreement and provide the opportunity for attendance and participation by District representatives with at least fourteen (14) days’ notice to the District; f. Activity completion. B-29. Public Records The Recipient acknowledges that, except for a subset of information regarding archaeological records, the Funded Activity records and locations are public records including, but not limited to, all of the submissions accompanying the application, all of the documents incorporated by reference into this Agreement, and all reports, disbursement requests, and supporting documentation submitted hereunder. B-30. Recipient’s Responsibility for Work The Recipient shall be responsible for all work and for persons or entities engaged in work performed pursuant to this Agreement including, but not limited to, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and providers of services. The Recipient shall be responsible for responding to any and all disputes arising out of its contracts for work on the Project. The District will not mediate disputes between the Recipient and any other entity concerning responsibility for performance of work. B-31. Related Litigation The Recipient is prohibited from using the SCW Program Contribution to pay costs associated with any litigation described in Section 16.05.A.3. of the Code. Regardless of 302 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 19 of 34 whether the Project orany eventual related project is the subject of litigation, the Recipient agrees to complete the Project funded by the Agreement or to repay all the SCW Program Contribution plus interest to the District. B-32. Remaining Balance In the event that the Recipient does not spend all the SCW Program Contribution disbursed for the Funded Activity, Recipient shall promptly return the unspent SCW Program Contribution to the District. B-33. Reporting The Recipient shall be subject to and comply with all applicable requirements of the District regarding reporting requirements. Recipients shall report available data through the SCW Reporting Module, once available. Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports. The Recipient shall submit Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports, using a format provided by the District, within forty- five (45) days following the end of the calendar quarter (March, June, September, and December) to the District. The Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports shall be posted on the District’s publicly accessible website. The Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report shall include: a. Amount of funds received; b. Percent overall Funded Activity completion estimate; c. Breakdown of how the SCW Program Contribution has been expended; d. Documentation that the SCW Program Contribution was used for eligible expenditures in accordance with Chapters 16 and 18 of the Code; e. Description of activities that have occurred, milestones achieved, and progress made to date, during the applicable reporting period including comparison to Exhibit A submission and corresponding metrics; f. Identification of any phases or tasks of the scope of work that were scheduled to be started or completed during the reporting period (according to the work schedule), but which were delayed, and a discussion of the reasons for the delay, and of lessons learned; g. Scheduling concerns and issues encountered that may delay completion of the task; h. Work anticipated for the next reporting period; i. Any anticipated schedule or budget modifications; 303 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 20 of 34 j. Photo documentation (e.g. photos of community outreach events, stakeholder meetings, groundbreaking ceremonies, and project site that may be used on the publicly accessible District website) of the phases or tasks of the Project completed during the reporting period, as appropriate; k. Additional financial or project-related information as required by the District; l. Certification from a California Registered Professional (Civil Engineer or Geologist, as appropriate), that the Project was conducted in accordance with Exhibit A; m. Status of Recipient’s insurance; and n. Description of post-performance for each completed infrastructure project is required after the first operational year and for a total of three years after the project begins operation. Post-performance reports shall focus on how each project is actually performing compared to its expected performance; whether the project is operated and maintained and providing intended benefits as proposed. A post-performance template will be provided by the District. Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports shall be submitted to the District Program Manager no later than forty-five days following the end of the calendar quarter as follows: Quarter End of Quarter Report Due First Quarter September 15 November Second Quarter December 15 February Third Quarter March 15 May Fourth Quarter June 15 August Annually, a summary of the Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports shall be submitted to the Watershed Area Steering Committees to explain the previous year’s Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports by the Recipient. The summary report shall be submitted six (6) months after the close of the Fourth Quarter. The summary report shall include: Description of the Water Quality Benefits, Water Supply Benefits, and Community Investment Benefits and a summary of how funds have been allocated to achieve SCW Program Goals as articulated in Chapter 18.04 of the Code for the prior year. This includes comparisons to Exhibit A and alignment with corresponding specific quantitative targets and metrics (note that SCW Reporting Module will facilitate graphical representation of pertinent data). 304 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 21 of 34 When the Funded Activity is an Infrastructure Program Project, include a description of how the County’s Local and Targeted Worker Hire Policy has been applied and enforced; or if the Recipient is a Municipality and has adopted its own policy, include a description of how its policy was applied and enforced. Where the Funded Activity is an Infrastructure Program Project that has applied for Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) verification, include a description of the final score and Envision award level. Annually, the Recipient shall prepare and provide members of the public with up-to-date information on the actual and budgeted use of the SCW Program Contribution. As Needed Information or Reports. The Recipient agrees to promptly provide such reports, data, and information as may be reasonably requested by the District including, but not limited to material necessary or appropriate for evaluation of the SCW Program or to fulfill any reporting requirements of the County, state or federal government. B-34. Representations, Warranties, and Commitments The Recipient represents, warrants, and commits as follows: 1. Authorization and Validity. The execution and delivery of this Agreement, including all incorporated documents, by the individual signing on behalf of Recipient, has been duly authorized by the governing individual(s), board or body of Recipient, as applicable. This Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the Recipient, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as such enforcement may be limited by law. 2. No Violations. The execution, delivery, and performance by the Recipient of this Agreement, including all incorporated documents, do not violate any provision of any law or regulation in effect as of the date set forth on the first page hereof, or result in any breach or default under any contract, obligation, indenture, or other instrument to which the Recipient is a party or by which the Recipient is bound as of the date set forth on the first page hereof. 3. No Litigation. There are no pending or, to the Recipient’s knowledge, threatened actions, claims, investigations, suits, or proceedings before any governmental authority, court, or administrative agency which affect the Recipient's ability to complete the Funded Activity. 4. Solvency. None of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement will be or have been made with an actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any present or future creditors of the Recipient. As of the date set forth on the first page hereof, the Recipient is solvent and will not be rendered insolvent by the transactions 305 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 22 of 34 contemplated by this Agreement. The Recipient is able to pay its debts as they become due. 5. Legal Status and Eligibility. The Recipient is duly organized and existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California and will remain so through Activity Completion. The Recipient shall at all times maintain its current legal existence and preserve and keep in full force and effect itslegal rights and authority through Activity Completion. 6. Insurance. The Recipient shall follow the Insurance Manual prepared by the Risk Management Office of the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office. For Infrastructure Program Projects the Recipient shall provide General Liability, Automobile Liability, Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability, Builder’s Risk Course of Construction Insurance, and Professional Liability as specified in the Insurance Manual:https://riskmanagement.lacounty.gov/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/Insurance-Manual-revised-May-2019.pdf B-35. Requirements for Good Standing The Recipient must currently be in compliance with the District requirements set forth in this Agreement. The Recipient must demonstrate it has not failed to comply with previous County and/or District audit disallowances within the preceding five years. B-36. Requirements Related to Recipient's Contractors 1. The Recipient shall apply and enforce provisions mirroring those set forth in the then-current version of the County's Local and Targeted Worker Hire Policy (LTWHP) as to contractors performing work on such a Project. Alternatively, if the Recipient is a Municipality and has adopted its own policy that is substantially similar to the LTWHP, the Recipient may, at its election, choose to apply and enforce the provisions of its own such policy as to contractors performing work on such a Project in lieu of the provisions of the LTWHP. 2. The Recipient shall apply and enforce provisions mirroring those set forth in Los Angeles County Code (LACC) Chapter 2.211 (Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Preference Program), LACC, Chapter 2.204 (Local Small Business Enterprise Preference Program), LACC, Chapter 2.205 (Social Enterprise Preference Program), LACC, Chapter 2.203 (Contractor Employee Jury Service Ordinance), LACC Chapter 2.206 (Defaulted Tax Program), LACC, Chapter 2.200 (Child Support Compliance Program, LACC, Chapter 2.160 (County Lobbyist Ordinance), Safely Surrendered Baby Law, and Zero Tolerance Policy on Human Trafficking, as to contractors performing work on such an Infrastructure Program Project, subject to statutory authorization for such preference program(s), and subject to applicable statutory limitations for such preference(s); and, furthermore, the Recipient shall take actions to promote increased contracting opportunities for Women-Owned Businesses on the Project, subject to applicable State or federal constitutional limitations. 306 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 23 of 34 3. The Recipient shall obtain all necessary approvals, entitlements, and permits required to implement the Project. Failure to obtain any necessary approval, entitlement, or permit shall constitute a breach of a material provision of this Agreement. 4. With respect to a Project funded with SCW Program Contributions through the Regional Program, if the Project has an estimated capital cost of over twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000),as adjusted periodically by the Chief Engineer in accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers in the Los Angeles area, or other appropriate index, a provision that the Infrastructure Program Project Developer for such a Project must require that all contractors performing work on such a Project be bound by the provisions of: (1) a County- wide Project Labor Agreement (Community Workforce Agreement), if such an agreement has been successfully negotiated between the County and the Trades and is approved by the Board, or (2) a Project Labor Agreement ("PLA") mirroring the provisions of such Community Workforce Agreement. 5. With respect to a Project funded with SCW Program Contributions through the Regional Program, if one or more of the Municipalities that is a financial contributor to a Project has its own PLA, a provision that the Infrastructure Program Project Developer for the Project must require that contractors performing work on the Project are bound to such PLA. If more than one of the contributing Municipalities to a capital project has a PLA, the Project Developer shall determine which of the PLAs will be applied to the Project. 6. Payment Bond. Payment bonds for exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars are required. A payment bond is defined as a surety bond posted by a contractor to guarantee that its subcontractors and material suppliers on the Project will be paid. 7. Performance Bond. Where contractors are used, the Recipient shall not authorize construction to begin until each contractor has furnished a performance bond in favor of the Recipient in the following amounts: faithful performance (100%) of contract value, and labor and materials (100%) of contract value. This requirement shall not apply to any contract for less than $25,000.00. Any bond issues pursuant to this paragraph must be issued by a California-admitted surety. (Pub. Contract Code, 7103; Code Civ. Proc. 995.311.) 8. Prevailing Wage. The Recipient agrees to be bound by all the provisions of Sections 1771 and 1774 of the California Labor Code regarding prevailing wages and requires each of subcontractors to also comply. The Recipient shall monitor all contracts resulting from this Agreement to assure that the prevailing wage provisions of the Labor Code are being met. The Recipient affirms that it is aware of the provisions of section 3700 of the Labor Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self- insurance, and the Recipient affirms that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work under this Agreement and will make it contractors and subcontractors aware of this provision . 307 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 24 of 34 9. Public Funding. This Funded Activity is publicly funded. Any service provider or contractor with which the Recipient contracts must not have any role or relationship with the Recipient, that, in effect, substantially limits the Recipient's ability to exercise its rights, including cancellation rights, under the contract, based on all the facts and circumstances. B-37. Travel Any reimbursement for necessary ground transportation and lodging shall be at rates not to exceed those set by the California Department of Human Resources; per diem costs will not be eligible expenses. These rates may be found at http://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/Pages/travel-reimbursements.aspx. Reimbursement will be at the State travel amounts that are current as of the date costs are incurred by the Recipient. No travel outside the Los Angeles County Flood Control District region shall be reimbursed unless prior written authorization is obtained from the Program Manager. B-38. Unenforceable Provision In the event that any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, the parties agree that all other provisions of this Agreement have force and effect and shall not be affected thereby. 308 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 25 of 34 EXHIBIT C – SPECIAL CONDITIONS [If the Recipient is a public agency] C-1. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the Recipient is the "lead agency" regarding compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the Funded Activity and shall be responsible for the preparation of all documentation, analysis and other work and any mitigation necessary to comply with CEQA in connection with the Funded Activity. By entering into this Agreement, the District is not approving any activity that would be considered a project under CEQA. C-2. Upon the completion of the documentation, analysis and other work necessary to comply with CEQA as described in section C-1, the Recipient shall promptly provide such documentation, analysis and work to the District. The Recipient acknowledges that the District is a Responsible Agency under CEQA in connection with the Funded Activity and that the District will not disburse the SCW Program Contribution for any activities that meet the definition of a project under CEQA until the Recipient has provided such documentation, analysis and other work to the District and the District has complied with its obligations as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. C-3. In addition to its other indemnification obligations pursuant to this Agreement, the Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless District, the County of Los Angeles and their officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims and/or actions related to the Funded Activity that may be asserted by any third party or public agency alleging violations of CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines or the NEPA. C-4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, if any documentation or other analysis pursuant to CEQA discloses that the Funded Activity, or portion thereof, will have one or more significant environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly mitigated, the Recipient shall promptly notify and consult with the District. With the District's approval, the Recipient may determine to terminate or modify the implementation of all or any portion of the Funded Activity in order to avoid such environmental impacts. C-5. In the event the parties, pursuant to the preceding paragraph, determine to terminate the implementation of the entirety of the Funded Activity, the Recipient shall promptly return all previously disbursed but unspent SCW Program Contributions and the Recipient shall thereafter have no further obligation under this Agreement to implement the Funded Activity. In the event the parties determine to terminate the implementation of a portion of the Funded Activity, the Recipient shall promptly return all previously disbursed but unspent SCW Program Contributions for the terminated portion of the Funded Activity and the Recipient shall thereafter have no further obligation under this Agreement to implement the 309 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 26 of 34 terminated portion of the Funded Activity, but this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as to the portion of the Funded Activity not terminated. [If the Recipient is not a public agency] C-1. The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all documentation, analysis and other work including any mitigation, necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the Funded Activity. Environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Funded Activity will be subject to the review and analysis of the District. Any decisions based on the documentation prepared by the Recipient will reflect the independent judgment of District. By entering into this Agreement, the District is not approving any activity that would be considered a project under CEQA and the Recipient acknowledges that the District will not disburse the SCW Program Contribution for any activities that meet the definition of a project under CEQA until the Recipient has prepared the documentation, analysis and other work necessary to comply with CEQA to the District's satisfaction. C-2. In addition to its other indemnification obligations pursuant to this Agreement, the Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless District, the County of Los Angeles and their officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims and/or actions related to the Funded Activity that may be asserted by any third party or public agency alleging violations of CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines or the NEPA. C-3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, if any documentation or other analysis pursuant to CEQA discloses that the Funded Activity or any portion thereof will have one or more significant environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly mitigated, the District, after consultation with the Recipient, may terminate the SCW Program Contribution for all or any portion of the Funded Activity or may request that the Funded Activity be modified in order to avoid such environmental impact(s). C-4. In the event that the District terminates the SCW Program Contribution for the entirety of the Funded Activity, the Recipient shall promptly return all previously disbursed but unspent SCW Program Contributions and the Recipient shall thereafter have no further obligation under this Agreement to implement the Funded Activity. In the event the District terminates the SCW Program Contribution for a portion on of the Funded Activity, the Recipient shall promptly return all previously disbursed but unspent SCW Program Contributions for the terminated portion of the Funded Activity and the Recipient shall thereafter have no further obligation under this Agreement to implement the terminated portion of the Funded Activity, but this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as to the portion of the Funded Activity for which the SCW Program Contribution was not terminated. 310 Regional Program Agreement No._________ Page 27 of 34 EXHIBIT D – ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT -DRAFT TEMPLATE- ADDENDUM NO. ___ TO TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. _______________ BETWEEN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND (INSERT PROJECT DEVELOPER) SAFE, CLEAN WATER PROGRAM – REGIONAL PROGRAM This Addendum No. ___ to Transfer Agreement No. _______________, hereinafter referred to as “Addendum No. ___”, is entered into as of ____________________ by and between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, hereinafter referred to as "District," and ___(Project Developer/Scientific Studies Applicant)____, hereinafter referred to as "Recipient." WHEREAS,District and Recipient entered into Transfer Agreement No. _______________ , hereinafter referred to as "Agreement", pertaining generally to the transfer of a SCW Program Contribution (as therein defined) from District to Recipient for the implementation by Recipient of a Funded Activity (as therein defined) to increase stormwater and/or urban runoff capture and/or reduce stormwater and/or urban runoff pollution, on _______________; WHEREAS,the Agreement provides for the disbursement of the SCW Program Contribution for the 2020-21 Fiscal Year (as therein defined), and further provides that if the Funded Activity is included in a duly approved Stormwater Investment Plan (as therein defined) for a subsequent Fiscal Year, the parties shall enter into an addendum to the Agreement regarding the disbursement of the SCW Program Contribution for that subsequent Fiscal Year; WHEREAS,the Funded Activity has been included in a duly approved Stormwater Investment Plan for Fiscal Year __________; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, mutual representations, covenants and agreements in this Agreement, the District and the Recipient, each binding itself, its successors and assigns, do mutually promise, covenant, and agree as follows: 1. The definitions set forth in Sections 16.03 and 18.02 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Code together with the definitions set forth in the Agreement shall apply to this Addendum No. ___. 2. The District shall disburse the SCW Program Contribution for the __________ Fiscal Year as described in the Budget Plan within ___ days of the execution of this Addendum by the last party to sign. 3. All terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 311 Page 28 of 34 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum No. ___ has been executed by the parties hereto. ________(Recipient)_________: By: ____________________________________ Name: Title: Date: __________________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: By: ____________________________________ Name: Title: Date: __________________________________ 312 Page 29 of 34 EXHIBIT E – NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS (NBS) BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Nature-based solutions (NBS) refers to the sustainable management and use of nature for undertaking socio-environmental challenges, including climate change, water security, water pollution, food security, human health, and disaster risk management. As this environmental management practice is increasingly incorporated into projects for the SCW Program, this guidance document may be expanded upon to further quantify NBS practices based on benefits derived from their incorporation on projects. The SCW Program defines NBS as a Project that utilizes natural processes that slow, detain, infiltrate or filter Stormwater or Urban Runoff. These methods may include relying predominantly on soils and vegetation; increasing the permeability of Impermeable Areas; protecting undeveloped mountains and floodplains; creating and restoring riparian habitat and wetlands; creating rain gardens, bioswales, and parkway basins; enhancing soil through composting, mulching; and, planting trees and vegetation, with preference for native species. NBS may also be designed to provide additional benefits such as sequestering carbon, supporting biodiversity, providing shade, creating and enhancing parks and open space, and improving quality of life for surrounding communities. NBS include Projects that mimic natural processes, such as green streets, spreading grounds and planted areas with water storage capacity. NBS may improve water quality, collect water for reuse or aquifer recharge, or to support vegetation growth utilizing natural processes. Recipients are to consider using Nature-Based Solutions for infrastructure projects and include in each Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report and annual summary whether and how their project achieves a good, better, or best for each of the 6 NBS methods in accordance with the guidance below. Additionally, Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports should include discussion on any considerations taken to maximize the class within each method. If at least 3 methods score within a single class, the overall project can be characterized as that class. Recipients must attach a copy of the matrix for each Project with the good, better, or best column indicated for each method, to facilitate District tracking of methods being utilized. BEST BETTER GOOD 313 Page 30 of 34 METHODS GOOD BETTER BEST Vegetation/Green Space Use of climate- appropriate, eco-friendly vegetation (groundcover, shrubs, and trees) / green space 5%-15% covered by new climate-appropriate vegetation Use of native, climate- appropriate, eco-friendly vegetation (groundcover, shrubs, and trees) / green space 16%-35% covered by new native vegetation Establishment of plant communities with a diversity of native vegetation (groundcover, shrubs, and trees) / green space that is both native and climate-appropriate More than 35% covered by new native vegetation Increase of Permeability Installation of vegetated landscape – 25%-49% paved area removed Redesign of existing impermeable surfaces and/or installation of permeable surfaces (e.g. permeable pavement and infiltration trenches) Installation of vegetated landscape – 50%-74% paved area removed Improvements of soil health (e.g., compaction reduction) Installation of vegetated landscape – 75%-100% paved area removed Creation of well- connected and self- sustained natural landscapes with healthy soils, permeable surfaces, and appropriate vegetation Protection of Undeveloped Mountains & Floodplains ●Preservation of native vegetation ●Minimal negative impact to existing drainage system ●Preservation of native vegetation ●Installation of new feature(s) to improve existing drainage system ●Creation of open green space ●Installation of features to improve natural hydrology Creation & Restoration of Riparian Habitat & Wetlands Partial restoration of existing riparian habitat and wetlands Planting of climate appropriate vegetation - between 5 and 15 different climate- appropriate or native plant species newly planted No potable water used to sustain the wetland ●Full restoration of existing riparian habitat and wetlands ●Planting of native vegetation - between 16 and 30 different native plant species newly planted ●No potable water used to sustain the wetland ●Full restoration and expansion of existing riparian habitat and wetlands ●Planting of plant communities with a diversity of native vegetation – greater than 31 native plant species newly planted ●No potable water used to sustain the wetland 314 Page 31 of 34 New Landscape Elements Elements designed to capture runoff for other simple usage (e.g. rain gardens and cisterns), capturing the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event for at least 50% of the entire parcel Elements that design to capture/redirect runoff and filter pollution (e.g. bioswales and parkway basins), capturing the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event from the entire parcel Large sized elements that capture and treat runoff to supplement or replace existing water systems (e.g. wetlands, daylighting streams, groundwater infiltration, floodplain reclamation), capturing the 90th percentile 24-hour storm event from the entire parcel and/or capturing off-site runoff Enhancement of Soil Use of soil amendments such as mulch and compost to retain moisture in the soil and prevent erosion Planting of new climate- appropriate vegetation to enhance soil organic matter Use of soil amendments such as mulch and compost that are locally generated to retain moisture in the soil, prevent erosion, and support locally based composting and other soil enhancement activities Planting of new native, climate-appropriate vegetation to enhance soil organic matter Use of soil amendments such as mulch and compost that are locally generated, especially use of next-generation design with regenerative adsorbents (e.g. woodchips, biochar) to retain moisture in the soil, prevent erosion, and support on-site composting and other soil enhancement activities Planting of new native, climate appropriate vegetation to enhance soil organic matter 315 Page 32 of 34 EXHIBIT F – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Recipient or approved Project operator shall operate and maintain infrastructure projects for the useful life of the project and are to consider using the following guidance for operations and maintenance. Operational maintenance is the care and upkeep of Projects that may require detailed technical knowledge of the Project’s function and design. Project specific operational and maintenance plans shall consider the activities listed below and set forth specific activities and frequencies (not limited to those below) as determined to be appropriate by the Municipalities and best practices, including stakeholder engagement as applicable. Operational maintenance is to be performed by the operator of the Project with a purpose to make the operator aware of the state of readiness of the Project to deliver stormwater and urban runoff benefits. 1. Litter Control Regularly removal of litter, nonhazardous waste materials, and accumulated debris near planted areas, rock areas, decomposed granite areas, rest areas, fence perimeters, adjoining access roads and driveways, drains, pedestrian trails, viewing stations, shelter houses, and bicycle pathways. Regularly inspection and maintenance of pet waste stations Maintaining trash receptacles Removal of trash, debris, and blockages from bioswales Inspection and cleaning of trash booms Inspection of weir gates and stop logs to clean debris, as required. 2. Vegetation Maintenance Weed control o Recognition and removal of weeds, such as perennial weeds, morning glory, vine-type weeds, ragweed, and other underground spreading weeds. o Avoiding activities that result in weed seed germination (e.g. frequent soil cultivation near trees or shrubs) o Regularly removal of weeds from landscape areas, including from berms, painted areas, rock areas, gravel areas, pavement cracks along access roads and driveways, drains, pedestrian trails, viewing stations, park shelters, and bicycle paths. Tree and shrubbery trimming and care o Removal of dead trees and elimination of diseased/damaged growth o Prevent encroachment of adjacent property and provide vertical clearance o Inspect for dead or diseased plants regularly Wetland vegetation and landscape maintenance o Installation and maintenance of hydrophytic and emergent plants in perennially wet and seasonal, intermittent habitats. 316 Page 33 of 34 o Draining and drawdown of wetland and excessive bulrush removal o Weed and nuisance plant control o Removal of aquatic vegetation (e.g. algae and primrose) using appropriate watercraft and harvesting equipment o Wildflower and meadow maintenance o Grass, sedge, and yarrow management o Removal of unwanted hydroseed 3. Wildlife Management Exotic species control Provide habitat management; promote growth of plants at appropriate densities and promote habitat structure for animal species Protect sensitive animal species (e.g. protection during critical life stages including breeding and migration) Avoid disturbances to nesting birds Avoid spread of invasive aquatic species 4. Facility Inspection Inspect project sites for rodent and insect infestations on a regular basis Inspect for and report graffiti in shelter houses, viewing stations, benches, paving surfaces, walls, fences, and educational and directional signs Inspect facilities for hazardous conditions on roads and trails (e.g. access roads and trails, decomposed granite pathways, and maintenance roads) Inspect shade structures for structural damage or defacement Inspect hardscapes Inspect and maintain interpretive and informational signs Inspect site furnishings (e.g. benches, hitching posts, bicycle racks) Maintain deck areas (e.g. benches, signs, decking surfaces) Visually inspect weirs and flap gates for damage; grease to prevent locking. Inspect all structures after major storm events, periodically inspect every 3 months, and operate gates through full cycles to prevent them from locking up. 5. Irrigation System Management Ensuring automatic irrigation controllers are functioning properly and providing various plant species with proper amount of water. o Cycle controller(s) through each station manually and automatically to determine if all facets are functioning properly. o Inspection should be performed at least monthly. o Recover, replace, or refasten displaced or damaged valve box covers. o Inspect and repair bubbler heads. 317 Page 34 of 34 o Repair and replace broken drip lines or emitters causing a loss of water (to prevent ponding and erosion). o Maintain drip system filters to prevent emitters from clogging. Inspection and cleaning should occur at least monthly. o Inspect and clean mainline filters, wye strainers, basket filters, and filters at backflow devices twice a year. o Maintain and check function of the drip system. Keeping irrigation control boxes clear of vegetation Operating irrigation system to ensure it does not cause excessively wet, waterlogged areas, and slope failure Utilizing infrequent deep watering techniques to encourage deep rooting, drought tolerant plant characteristics to promote a self-sustaining, irrigation free landscape Determine watering schedules based on season, weather, variation in plant size, and plant varieties. At least four times a year (e.g. change of season), reschedule controller systems. Turn off irrigation systems at the controller at the beginning of the rainy season, or when the soil has a high enough moisture content. Use moisture sensing devices to determine water penetration in soil. 6. Erosion Management and Control Inspect slopes for erosion during each maintenance activity Inspect basins for erosion Take corrective measures as needed, including filling eroded surfaces, reinstalling or extending bank protection, and replanting exposed soil. 7. Ongoing Monitoring Activities Monitor controllable intake water flow and water elevation Examine inflow and outflow structures to ensure devices are functioning properly and are free of obstructions. Water quality sampling (quarterly, unless justified otherwise) Checking telemetry equipment Tracking and reporting inspection and maintenance records 8. Vector and Nuisance Insect Control Monitoring for the presence of vector and nuisance insect species Adequate pretreatment of influent wastewater to lessen production of larval mosquitos Managing emergent vegetation Using hydraulic control structures to rapidly dewater emergent marsh areas Managing flow velocities to reduce propagation of vectors 318 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert Guthrie, Chief of Police By: Dr. Jennifer Brutus, Sr. Management Analyst SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF AMMUNITION FROM SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $112,700 Recommendation: Waive the Formal Bid Process and Approve SUMMARY It is recommended that the City Council authorize the purchase of new factory ammunition from San Diego Police Equipment Co., Inc. in an amount not to exceed $112,700. DISCUSSION All police officers are required to maintain standards of proficiency for various weapons used in their line of duty. Purchases of ammunition are made on an as-needed basis to maintain adequate inventory and officers’ proficiency levels through monthly qualifications and scheduled trainings. The Police Department maintains a variety of weapons in order to respond to any potential threats to the safety and welfare of the citizens of Arcadia. The Department’s weapons all require specialized types of ammunition, which are limited to specific manufacturers and authorized dealers. The Department utilizes two primary brands of ammunition, Federal Premium and Speer, which are owned and manufactured solely by Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (“ATK”). San Diego Police Equipment Co., Inc. is the sole authorized dealer and distributor of ATK ammunition for the Western United States region. Separately, the Department also purchases ammunition from Blackhills Ammunition, Inc., for ammunition specifically used for SWAT-sniper training and operations. ATK and Blackhills’ ammunition have been utilized by the Department for over a decade and continue to meet the Department’s ammunition standards based on ballistic capabilities, performance, and function reliability. 319 Police Department Ammunition Purchase August 4, 2020 Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), based on Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment. Thus, this matter is exempt under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT Based on previous usage, approximately $112,700 in ammunition will be necessary during the Fiscal Year to meet the Department’s needs. Sufficient funds for the purchase of ammunition have been allocated in the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget under Patrol FTU supplies. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council determine that this project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and waive the formal bid process and authorize the purchase of ammunition from San Diego Police Equipment Co., Inc. in an amount not to exceed $112,700. 320 Award Purchase Order for Water Meters August 4, 2020 Page 1 of 3 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Tait, Public Works Services Director By: John Corona, Utilities Superintendent SUBJECT: PURCHASE ORDER WITH CORE & MAIN FOR THE PURCHASE OF DATA LOG RADIO READ WATER METERS FOR THE CITY’S WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY As part of the Annual Meter Replacement Program, the Public Works Services Department (“PWSD”) Warehouse maintains a supply of water meters for the Utilities Section. To ensure that the City is receiving the most competitive prices for data log radio read water meters, a formal bid process was conducted. Core & Main submitted the lowest responsive bid. It is recommended that the City Council approve a purchase order with Core & Main for the purchase of data log radio read water meters for the City’s water distribution system in the amount of $250,000, with the option of three one-year extensions. BACKGROUND The Annual Meter Replacement Program was created to replace manual read water meters with new meters that are capable of being read via radio frequency. In Fiscal Year 2020-21, $250,000 was budgeted for the purchase and replacement of approximately 1,000 water meters, ranging from 5/8” to 2” in size. Radio read water meters have the capability of capturing precise measurements of water flow and readings of customer water usage. These meters also include leak detection and data logging functions, which enable PWSD to alert customers for possible leaks and provide historical water usage data. Water meter register accuracy is critical in calculating and forecasting water demand, while also aiding in conservation efforts. 321 Award Purchase Order for Water Meters August 4, 2020 Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION The PWSD Warehouse is responsible for maintaining an inventory of water meters in various sizes for distribution to the Utilities Section, for meter replacement and new installations. The American Water Works Association (“AWWA”) recommends a standard replacement schedule for 5/8” to 2” water meters to ensure water meter accuracy. Water meters in the City’s system are typically replaced once every 15 years to ensure accurate flow measurements. In order to receive the best prices possible for water meters, the City conducted a formal bid. A notice inviting bids was published in the City’s adjudicated newspaper and bid packages were provided to vendors who provide radio read water meters. On July 16, 2020, the City Clerk received three bids with the following result: BIDDER LOCATION BID AMOUNT Core & Main Valencia, CA $275,928.68 The B.E.S.T Meter Co., Inc. Covina, CA $334,669.33 Master Meter Inc. Mansfield, TX $414,157.45 All bid documents were reviewed for content and the contractor’s background was investigated. Based on this review, it has been determined that Core & Main is the lowest responsive bidder. Core & Main has supplied the City with water meters in the past and has always provided excellent service. The quantities provided in the bid specifications are based on estimates. Bid documents state that the City may purchase an amount above or below the provided estimate according to the needs of the City at the unit prices quoted in the bid. In order to ensure sufficient inventory of water meters available in the PWSD Warehouse, the purchase order amount will be requested for $250,000, which is the amount budgeted for radio read water meters in Fiscal Year 2020-21. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) per Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as it can be seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment. Thus, this matter is exempt under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $250,000 have been budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Capital Improvement Plan for the Annual Meter Replacement Program. 322 Award Purchase Order for Water Meters August 4, 2020 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council determine that this project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and approve a purchase order with Core & Main for the purchase of data log radio read water meters for the City’s water distribution system in the amount of $250,000, with the option of three one-year extensions. 323 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Darlene Bradley, Director of Library and Museum Services By: Roger Hiles, Library Services Manager SUBJECT: PURCHASE ORDER WITH OVERDRIVE, INC. FOR ELECTRONIC MATERIALS IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY It is recommended that the City Council approve a purchase order for electronic books, electronic magazines, digital audiobooks, and digital videos from OverDrive, Inc. in the amount of $60,000. Sufficient funds are available in the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 Operating Budget. BACKGROUND Since 2011, the Library has utilized the services of OverDrive, Inc. to provide library patrons with access to electronic books, digital audiobooks, and digital videos. OverDrive, Inc. is the leading distributer of these materials to libraries. Titles purchased through them are available to library patrons either through the OverDrive app or on the Amazon Kindle platform on computers, tablets, eReaders, or smartphones. This year, the app has added support for Chinese and Spanish languages. DISCUSSION The Arcadia Public Library accesses OverDrive through membership in the company’s group of local customer libraries, the Southern California Digital Library Consortium, which combines the digital collections of 25 member libraries to provide added selection for our patrons. The annual fee for membership in the consortium is $6,000. The Library also adds to its collection in the Consortium by purchasing individual electronic books, digital audiobooks, and digital videos from OverDrive, Inc. These titles include current best-sellers, older titles, and titles for adults, teens, and children. The Library’s spending for these items has been increasing with the growing popularity of the 324 Purchase Order with OverDrive, Inc. for Electronic Materials August 4, 2020 Page 2 of 2 format, and spending for these added items is projected to reach $39,000 for Fiscal Year 2020-21. This year, OverDrive, Inc. has acquired rbDigital, the City’s supplier of electronic magazine content, and the regular electronic magazine subscription costs of $15,000 have been added to this purchase order. Including both the $6,000 Consortium membership and an anticipated $39,000 for additional titles, as well as $15,000 for electronic magazine subscriptions, spending for OverDrive, Inc. will be $60,000 for the Fiscal Year 2020-21, and the Purchase Order will require City Council approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and it can be seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment. Thus, this matter is exempt under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds for the proposed purchases have been approved in the Library’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 Operating Budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council determine that this action does not constitute a project and is therefore, exempt under, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and approve a purchase order with OverDrive, Inc. for Electronic Materials in the amount of $60,000. 325 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Kenneth Fields, Building Official Amy Hsieh, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ENERGOV PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM TO ADD CITIZEN SELF-SERVICE AND MOBILE INSPECTIONS TECHNOLOGY IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,301 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY The Development Services and Public Works Services Departments currently utilize EnerGov, a proprietary permit tracking and community development software system developed and solely supported by Tyler Technologies (“Tyler”). EnerGov is highly specialized, with the City’s workflows configured into the software to increase productivity from desk to field. The next phase in the City’s EnerGov implementation is the expansion of the software to incorporate Citizen Self-Service (“CSS”) and Tyler’s mobile inspection technology applications, iG Workforce, for the Building and Code Services Divisions of the Development Services Department. It is recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the Service Agreement with Tyler Technologies for improvements to the EnerGov permit tracking system by adding the Citizen Self-Service and iG Workforce extensions in the amount of $18,301 for the first year, and $12,381 annually for the following years. BACKGROUND In 2015, the City Council approved the purchase of Tyler Technologies’ EnerGov, an asset management, permit tracking, and community development software system. In August 2019, the City Council approved a Service Agreement to transition EnerGov to Tyler’s cloud hosting service. Also incorporated in this agreement are Disaster Recovery Services, Technical Support Services, Client Services Account Management, and the option to purchase future enhancements of the product. 326 Amend Service Agreement with Tyler Technologies August 4, 2020 Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION As part of an ongoing effort to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system, the next phase in the City’s EnerGov implementation involves two additional extensions: • Citizen Self-Service: Currently, applications for permits are submitted to the Building Division over the counter, or electronically via email and entered into EnerGov by Building Division staff. To schedule inspections or check the status of their applications, residents and contractors need to call in, email, or speak to a staff member over the counter. The Citizen Self-Service extension will allow the public to interface directly with EnerGov by providing access to online permit application submissions, inspection requests, payments, and application status updates. This feature will be a great convenience to the general public and enable staff to manage and process applications more efficiently. This will be particularly useful in a COVID environment, where applicants are encouraged to conduct as much business virtually as possible. • iG Workforce, Mobile Inspection applications: The iG Workforce extension will allow Building Inspectors and Code Services Officers to conduct mobile inspections in the field. Instead of updating cases and preparing notices in the office, this feature will give inspectors and officers the ability to provide electronic correction notices, take photos, update documentation, and manage cases from their tablets at the job site. Both of these proposed improvements will further increase staff productivity, enhance overall operational efficiency, and provide residents and contractors with the tools to conduct business virtually. The implementation of both of these extensions to the EnerGov service has been part of the plan for customer service and business friendliness since the original purchase in 2015. The Development Services Department has held off on implementation until such time as these services could be added and be fully integrated and utilized within the new system. Implementation of this phase of the EnerGov system will provide enhanced customer service and will modernize and streamline operations. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and it can be seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment. Thus, this matter is exempt under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT The initial cost to deploy, configure, and implement the CSS and iG Workforce extensions to the EnerGov software system is $5,920. The annual user license fee for the two extensions is $12,381. Sufficient funds for the proposed initial configuration, 327 Amend Service Agreement with Tyler Technologies August 4, 2020 Page 3 of 3 support, and maintenance costs totaling $18,301 are budgeted in each division’s FY 2020-21 Operating Budget. The recurring annual user license fee of $12,381 will be budgeted in subsequent operating budgets for both the Building and Code Services Divisions and was anticipated in the contract approval with Tyler. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council determine that this action does not constitute a project and is therefore, exempt under, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and approve an amendment to the Service Agreement with Tyler Technologies for improvements to the EnerGov Permit Tracking System to add the Citizen Self-Service and Mobile Inspections Technology in the amount of $18,301 for the first year; and $12,381 annually for the following years. Attachments: Exiting Tyler Technologies Service Agreement Proposed Agreement for EnerGov Extensions 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 4XRWHG%\$QGUHZ0H\HU 'DWH 4XRWH([SLUDWLRQ 4XRWH1DPH&LW\RI$UFDGLD(QHUJRY&66 L*:RUNIRUFH 4XRWH1XPEHU 4XRWH'HVFULSWLRQ &66 L*:RUNIRUFH 6DOHV4XRWDWLRQ)RU &LW\RI$UFDGLD :+XQWLQJWRQ'U $UFDGLD&$ 3KRQH EnerGov SaaS - Silver Description Monthly Fee Users/Units Annual Fee Extensions: EnerGov Citizen Self Service - Community Development $725.00 Site License $8,700.00 EnerGov IG Workforce Apps $49.00 7 $4,116.00 EnerGov My GovPay $0.00 1 $0.00 Sub-Total:$12,816.00 Less Discount:$435.00 TOTAL:$12,381.00 EnerGov Professional Services Description Hours/Units Unit Price Extended Price Year One Maintenance Professional Implementation Services 28 $185.00 $5,180.00 $0.00 Project Management Services 4 $185.00 $740.00 $0.00 TOTAL:$5,920.00 $0.00 2020-110844 - CSS & iG Workforce CONFIDENTIAL 1 of 3 359 Summary One Time Fees Recurring Fees Total Tyler Software $0.00$0.00 Total SaaS $0.00 $12,381.00 Total Tyler Services $5,920.00 $0.00 Total 3rd Party Hardware, Software and Services $0.00 $0.00 Summary Total $5,920.00 $12,381.00 Year One Contract Total$18,301.00 Contract Total $18,301.00 Unless otherwise indicated in the contract or amendment thereto, pricing for optional items will be held for six (6) months from the Quote date or the Effective Date of the contract, whichever is later. Customer Approval: Date: Print Name: P.O. #: All primary values quoted in US Dollars 2020-110844 - CSS & iG Workforce CONFIDENTIAL 2 of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±&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQWSRUWDOIRUJHQHUDOLQTXLULHVSD\PHQWVLQVSHFWLRQUHTXHVWV RQOLQHDSSOLFDWLRQV 3URIHVVLRQDOVHUYLFHVZLOOFRQILJXUHEDVHOLQH&66FRQILJXUDWLRQ(QHUJRY$VVLVWZLOOFRQILJXUHDGGLWLRQDO&66IHDWXUHVEDVHGRQ$UFDGLDQHHGVQRDGGLWLRQDOFRVWDIWHUEDVHOLQH FRQILJXUDWLRQ L*:RUNIRUFHXVHUVSURSRVHG6HUYLFHVLQFOXGHEULHILQLWLDOVHWXSZ&6$0(QHUJRY$VVLVWDQG9LUWXDO/DEVFRYHULQJWKHUHPDLQLQJFRPSRQHQWV 2020-110844 - CSS & iG Workforce CONFIDENTIAL 3 of 3 361 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Philip A. Wray, Deputy Director of Development Services/City Engineer By: Kevin Merrill, Principal Civil Engineer SUBJECT: CONTRACT WITH HARDY & HARPER, INC. FOR THE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION OF HUNTINGTON DRIVE BETWEEN SANTA CLARA STREET AND FIFTH AVENUE, AND 2019 MISCELLANEOUS ARTERIAL REHABILITATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,796,000 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY As part of the City’s ongoing Pavement Management Program, the City annually appropriates Proposition C funding for arterial repaving projects. For the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”), the City Council appropriated funding for the rehabilitation of Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street and Fifth Avenue, as well as traffic signal improvements and other repairs and amenities. The traffic signal work was bid separately last year to get it completed before the pavement rehabilitation takes place. That work is now complete. For the Fiscal Year 2018-19 CIP, the City Council appropriated funding for the Miscellaneous Arterial Rehabilitation Project. This project is intended to include short segments of arterial streets that for various reasons require pavement rehabilitation. Because of the similar nature of this project and the Huntington Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project, it was decided to combine them into one project for potentially better bid results and for ease of administration. The combined Pavement Rehabilitation Project was advertised for bidding in June 2020, and bids were opened on June 30, 2020. Six (6) bids were received, and Hardy & Harper, Inc. submitted the successful low bid in the amount of $1,796,000. It is recommended that the City Council find the project categorically exempt pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a contract with Hardy & Harper, Inc., for the Pavement Rehabilitation of Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street and Fifth Avenue, and the 2019 362 Huntington Drive Rehab and Miscellaneous Arterial Street Improvements August 4, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Miscellaneous Arterial Rehabilitation in the amount of $1,796,000, with a 10% contingency. BACKGROUND The City annually appropriates Proposition C funding for arterial street pavement projects. The City’s Pavement Management Program, which analyzes the existing condition of street pavement, has identified Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street and Fifth Avenue as the highest priority arterial street for repair. This segment of Huntington Drive has an average Pavement Condition Index (“PCI”) rating of 57, with 100 being best, and zero being worst. For the Fiscal Year 2017-18 CIP, the City Council appropriated funding for the Arterial Pavement Rehabilitation of Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street and Fifth Avenue. The rehabilitation will include removing and replacing isolated sections of pavement and grinding and resurfacing the entire street with 1-1/2 inches of new asphalt. The project includes other elements such as traffic signal improvements, sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter repairs, drainage improvements, additional electrical service conduit installation for street center median decorations, and the removal of the decorative crosswalk at Morlan Place. The traffic signal improvements include the two new pedestrian traffic signals at the mid- block crosswalks between Santa Anita Avenue and Second Avenue, and miscellaneous signal improvements at other Huntington Drive signalized intersections. The project was divided into two phases because of the need to get the traffic signal work completed before any street work takes place. That work was awarded by the City Council on February 5, 2019, to Elecnor Belco Group in the amount of $658,472, and is now complete. For the Fiscal Year 2018-19 CIP, the City Council appropriated funding for the Miscellaneous Arterial Rehabilitation Project. This project is intended to include three streets isolated segments that need pavement rehabilitation as follows: • Duarte Road between Santa Anita Avenue and First Avenue – This segment was left out of a previous Duarte Road repaving project because of the adjacent private development under construction at the time. • Santa Anita Avenue between Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive – This segment needs repair because of the many utility cuts that have been made. • Santa Clara Street between Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive – This segment needs repair because of the many utility cuts that have been made and the need to modify the existing striping. 363 Huntington Drive Rehab and Miscellaneous Arterial Street Improvements August 4, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Because of the similar nature of the two rehabilitation projects, it was decided to combine them into one project for potentially better bid results and for ease of administration. On September 4, 2018, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Kreuzer Consulting Group for project design services. The City’s Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association participated in the design process for the electrical services to the center medians. They will take responsibility for completing the electrical services to the medians on Huntington Drive between Santa Anita Avenue and Second Avenue. The City will be responsible for the electrical services to the medians between Santa Clara Street and Santa Anita Avenue. The final design was completed in December 2019. DISCUSSION The project was advertised for bids in June 2020, and bids were opened on June 30, 2020. Bids were received from six (6) prospective contractors with the following results: NAME AMOUNT Hardy & Harper $1,796,000.00 Gentry Brothers Inc. $1,828,580.26 All American Asphalt $1,909,057.12 Sully Miller Contracting $1,996,000.00 Palp Inc., dba Excel Paving $2,082,078.77 Onyx Paving Co., Inc. $2,524,000.00 After reviewing the bid documents, Hardy & Harper, Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsible bidder. Hardy & Harper has been in existence for many years and is a very competent contractor. They have performed work for the City in the past with favorable results. Based on these results, it is determined that Hardy & Harper can satisfactorily perform the required work. It should be noted that Council Member Verlato owns property at 33 E. Huntington Drive, which is in the proposed project limits of Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street and Fifth Avenue. As a result, the City Attorney recommends that Council Member Verlato recuse herself from this action. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT This project is categorically exempt per Section 15301(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), as repair and maintenance of an existing highway or street. FISCAL IMPACT The funding breakdown for the overall project is as follows: 364 Huntington Drive Rehab and Miscellaneous Arterial Street Improvements August 4, 2020 Page 4 of 4 PROJECT BUDGET FY FUND Arterial Rehab Program - Huntington Dr $500,000 2017-18 Capital Outlay Arterial Rehab Program - Huntington Dr $800,000 2017-18 Prop. C Arterial Rehab Program - Huntington Dr $450,000 2018-19 Prop. C Arterial Rehab Program - Huntington Dr (Traffic Signal Improvements including 2 new mid-block traffic signals) $700,000 2017-18 Transportation Impact Fees Miscellaneous Arterial Rehabilitation $400,000 2018-19 Prop C Total Funds Available $2,850,000 Design costs for the entire project were approximately $200,000 and the traffic signal work was $658,472, bringing the total of current expenditures to approximately $860,000. There are sufficient funds in the budget to cover the pavement rehabilitation of Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street and Fifth Avenue, and the 2019 Miscellaneous Arterial Rehabilitation projects in the amount of $1,796,000, including a 10% contingency. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council find the project categorically exempt pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a contract with Hardy & Harper, Inc. for the Pavement Rehabilitation of Huntington Drive between Santa Clara Street and Fifth Avenue, and the 2019 Miscellaneous Arterial Rehabilitation in the amount of $1,796,000, including a 10% contingency. Attachment: Proposed Contract 365 CITY OF ARCADIA HUNTINGTON DRIVE REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS FROM SANTA CLARA STREET TO FIFTH AVE NUE PROJECT NO. 41854319 & 2019 MISCELLANEOUS ARTERIAL REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 41854919 BETWEEN CITY OF ARCADIA AND HARDY & HARPER, INC. CONTRACT 366 Contract - 1 CONTRACT FOR THE CITY OF ARCADIA This CONTRACT, No. ________ is made and entered into this ____ day of _______, ______, by and between City of Arcadia, sometimes hereinafter called “City,” and Hardy & Harper, Inc., sometimes hereinafter called “Contractor.” WITNESSETH: That the parties hereto have mutually covenanted and agreed, and by these presents do covenant and agree with each other as follows: A. SCOPE OF WORK. The Contractor shall perform all Work within the time stipulated in the Contract, and shall provide all labor, materials, equipment, tools, utility services, and transportation to complete all of the Work required in strict compliance with the Contract Documents as specified in Article 5, below, for the following Project: HUNTINGTON DRIVE REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS FROM SANTA CLARA STREET TO FIFTH AVENUE PROJECT NO. 41854319 & 2019 MISCELLANEOUS ARTERIAL REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 41854919 The Contractor and its surety shall be liable to the City for any damages arising as a result of the Contractor’s failure to comply with this obligation. B. TIME FOR COMPLETION. Time is of the essence in the performance of the Work. The Work shall be commenced on the date stated in the City’s Notice to Proceed. The Contractor shall complete all Work required by the Contract Documents within 60 calendar days from the commencement date stated in the Notice to Proceed. By its signature hereunder, Contractor agrees the time for completion set forth above is adequate and reasonable to complete the Work. C. CONTRACT PRICE. The City shall pay to the Contractor as full compensation for the performance of the Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents, and including all applicable taxes and costs, the sum of one million seven-hundred ninety-six dollars and zero cents ($1,796,000). Payment shall be made as set forth in the General Conditions. D. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. In accordance with Government Code section 53069.85, it is agreed that the Contractor will pay the City the sum set forth in Special Conditions, Article 1.11 for each and every calendar day of delay beyond the time prescribed in the Contract Documents for finishing the Work, as Liquidated Damages and not as a penalty or forfeiture. In the event this is not paid, the Contractor agrees the City may deduct that amount from any money due or that may become due the Contractor under the Contract. This Article does not exclude recovery of other damages specified in the Contract Documents. E. COMPONENT PARTS OF THE CONTRACT. The “Contract Documents” include the following: Notice Inviting Bids Instructions to Bidders Bid Form Bid Bond Designation of Subcontractors 367 Contract - 2 Information Required of Bidders Non-Collusion Declaration Form Iran Contracting Act Certification Public Works Contractor Registration Certification Performance Bond Payment (Labor and Materials) Bond General Conditions Special Conditions Technical Specifications Addenda Plans and Drawings Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction “Greenbook”, latest edition, Except Sections 1-9 Applicable Local Agency Standards and Specifications, as last revised Approved and fully executed change orders Any other documents contained in or incorporated into the Contract The Contractor shall complete the Work in strict accordance with all of the Contract Documents. All of the Contract Documents are intended to be complementary. Work required by one of the Contract Documents and not by others shall be done as if required by all. This Contract shall supersede any prior agreement of the parties. F. PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY LAW AND CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE. Each and every provision of law required to be included in these Contract Documents shall be deemed to be included in these Contract Documents. The Contractor shall comply with all requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, the provisions of the California Labor Code and California Public Contract Code which are applicable to this Work. G. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall provide indemnification and defense as set forth in the General Conditions. H. PREVAILING WAGES. Contractor shall be required to pay the prevailing rate of wages in accordance with the Labor Code which such rates shall be made available at the City’s Administrative Office or may be obtained online at dir.ca.gov and which must be posted at the job site. [REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 368 Contract - 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Contract has been duly executed by the above-named parties, on the day and year above written. CITY OF ARCADIA By: Dominic Lazzaretto City Manager HARDY & HARPER, INC. By: Signature Print Name and Title Attest: By: City Clerk By: Signature Print Name and Title Approved as to Form: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 369 DATE: August 4, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Tait, Public Works Services Director By: Eddie Chan, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPT ALL WORK PERFORMED BY PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION FOR THE LIVE OAK WELL TCE TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AS COMPLETE Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY On April 2, 2019, the City Council approved a contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation in the amount of $836,800 for the Live Oak Well TCE Treatment Construction Project. The terms and conditions of this project have been complied with and the work has been performed to the satisfaction of the Project Manager for a total project cost of $887,602.72. This amount reflects the original contract amount of $836,800 plus quantity changes totaling $50,802.72, or 6.07% more than the original contract amount. It is recommended that the City Council accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the Live Oak Well TCE Treatment Construction Project as complete; and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to the retention of $44,380.14. BACKGROUND The Public Works Services Department (“PWSD”) is responsible for the daily operation of City wells and the water that is distributed to the community. Water quality samples are taken regularly to ensure that the City’s water supply meets state and federal drinking water standards. Water quality samples taken at Live Oak Well indicated that levels of Trichloroethylene (“TCE”), a volatile organic compound were increasing. TCE is a federal and state regulated contaminant with a Maximum Contaminant Level (“MCL”) of 5 parts per billion. In October 2018, TCE concentrations at Live Oak Well exceeded the allowable MCL. Consequently, the Live Oak Well was taken out of service. The Fiscal Year 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program allocated funding for 370 Accept Live Oak Well TCE Treatment August 4, 2020 Page 2 of 3 the construction of a water treatment system to treat TCE at the Live Oak Well. This project was separated into two phases to help reduce project costs and cut down on the construction time period. On June 19, 2018, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with ES Engineering Services, LLC for engineering services to design a treatment system at the Live Oak Well. ES Engineering Services, LLC determined that a Granular Activated Carbon (“GAC”) adsorption system would be the best method to remove TCE from the City’s water supply. To keep costs to a minimum and to deal with the anticipated long lead-time in getting a GAC adsorption system, the PWSD purchased eight GAC treatment vessels separately and supplied them to Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for installation. Each GAC treatment vessel is 20 feet high and weighs approximately 52 tons when full of water (shown on Exhibit “A”). DISCUSSION On April 2, 2019, the City Council approved a contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the Live Oak Well TCE Treatment Construction Project. The work performed included the demolition of an existing block wall, construction of a concrete foundation pad to support the GAC vessels, construction and installation of underground and aboveground piping, fittings, and valves, and installation of the eight treatment vessels. During the course of work, it was determined by the structural engineer that due to changes in the building code, it was necessary to install additional anchor bolts and larger steel plates at each leg support of the GAC vessels. Four leg supports for each vessel were installed for a total of 32 leg supports. This resulted in a change order. Below is a description of the contract change order. Description Amount 1. Install additional anchor bolts and larger steel plates at each leg support of the GAC vessels per Building Code requirement $50,802.72 Total: $50,802.72 The terms and conditions of this contract have been complied with and the work has been performed to the satisfaction of the Project Manager. Pacific Hydrotech Corporation completed the work as defined in the project plans and specifications in an efficient and timely manner. FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $2,000,000 were budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program for this project. In an effort to keep costs to a minimum and deal 371 Accept Live Oak Well TCE Treatment August 4, 2020 Page 3 of 3 with the anticipated long lead-time, a portion of the budgeted funds were used to purchase the eight GAC treatment vessels, leaving $928,720 for the construction phase of the project. The total cost for construction of the Live Oak Well TCE Treatment is $887,602.72. The amount reflects the original contract amount of $836,800 plus quantity changes totaling $50,802.72, or 6.07% more than the original contract amount. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council accept all work performed by Pacific Hydrotech Corporation for the Live Oak Well TCE Treatment Construction Project as complete; and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to the retention of $44,380.14. Attachment: Exhibit “A” – Photographs of GAC Treatment Vessels 372 EXHIBIT “A” Live Oak Well GAC Treatment Vessels 373