HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08b - Appeal of New Two-Story Home at 1225 Oaklawn Rd.
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Lisa Flores, Deputy Development Services Director
Prepared By: Fiona Graham, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7477 APPROVING APPEAL NO. 22-06,
OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A NEW,
A NEW TWO-STORY, CAPE COD STYLE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT
1225 OAKLAWN ROAD
CEQA: Exempt
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
The Appellant, Alex Hou (Agent for the Property Owner – 800 Hampton, LLC), is
appealing the Planning Commission’s denial of a new 6,138 square foot, two-story,
Cape Cod style residence with an attached four-car garage, and several covered
porches totaling 1,075 square feet, at 1225 Oaklawn Road. The project was originally
approved by the Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review Board (“ARB”). The Planning
Commission voted 3-2 to approve Appeal No. HOA 22-05, overturning the ARB
approval of the proposed new home. The Planning Commission determined that the
project was inconsistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines.
The Appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on December 22,
2022.
It is recommended that the City Council find that the proposal adheres to the City’s
Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and adopt Resolution No. 7477 approving
the appeal, thus overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 21,243 square foot interior lot that is located in the Santa Anita
Oaks Homeowner’s Association area. The property is zoned R-0, Very Low Density
Residential, and the General Plan land use designation is Residential. Surrounding
properties are zoned R-0 and consist of one and two-story homes on this street. The
property currently has an existing 2,595 square foot, one-story house built in 1951.
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 2 of 14
Architectural Review Board (“ARB”)
The development of a new home in a Homeowners’ Association area is subject to
review by the ARB at a noticed public hearing. On January 10, 2022, the Applicant’s
Architect, Philip Chan, filed a regular review application with the ARB for a new, two-
story, Cape Cod style home on behalf of the property owner. The project is described in
the next section.
Prior to the ARB public hearings, the Applicant revised the plans in response to several
requests from the ARB Chair. These revisions included changing the architectural style
from Tudor to Cape Cod, reducing the second-floor area by 50% and increasing side
setbacks, reducing the size of the south facing, second story windows, and shifting the
second story mass more toward the rear of the home.
The ARB discussed the item at two meetings on July 21, 2022, and September 13,
2022 (Refer to Attachment No. 4 of Exhibit No. 4 for the ARB Findings and Meeting
Minutes). Multiple residents attended both meetings and expressed concerns about
having a two-story residence in their neighborhood, that the proposed architectural style
was still too massive, that the home is out of scale with the other homes in the
neighborhood, and that there may be potential privacy issues for the house located next
door to the south at 1215 Oaklawn Road.
After several rounds of comments and two public hearings, the ARB conditionally
approved the new residence with a 3-2 vote at their September 13, 2022, hearing. A
total of six conditions of approval were placed on the project by the ARB, and they were:
1. Reduce size of pilasters in the front yard and remove the lights.
2. Provide detail on the landscape plan of the proposed plantings.
3. Remove the spillway to the pool.
4. Replace demolished fence with a vinyl fence at the easement line, located at rear
of property.
5. Remove the rear deck.
6. Remove the balcony for privacy reasons.
The most recent version of the plans, which can be seen in Exhibit No. 5, reflect all the
changes per the ARB’s conditions of approval.
ARB Findings
The ARB Findings and Action Report stated that several of the findings could not be
made, despite the ARB approving the Project. The findings were written by the ARB
Chair and reflected the position of the dissenting Board Members and not the findings of
the majority, who voted in favor of the Project. While this is unusual, the record clearly
shows that a majority of the ARB – three members – voted to approve the Project and,
therefore, could make all the necessary findings. Notwithstanding the ARB’s decision or
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 3 of 14
findings, the Planning Commission heard the item de novo, making any inconsistency
between the ARB’s written findings and decision moot.
Planning Commission
On September 26, 2022, within the 10-day appeal period, the Appellants filed an appeal
of the ARB’s approval of the new house. Refer to Attachment No. 3 of Exhibit No. 4
(The Planning Commission Staff Report packet) for the original Appellants Appeal letter.
The Appellants consisted of seven nearby property owners.
On November 22, 2022, the appeal was heard by the Planning Commission. Four of the
seven Appellants and a civil engineer hired by Shirley Chi, an Appellant, spoke at the
public hearing against the project. The Appellants stated that the proposed home was
too massive and was inconsistent with the streetscape, that it would tower over the
adjacent properties, and that the second story was not sufficiently small or pushed back
from the front of the home. The project applicant and a representative for the property
owner spoke in favor of the project, stating that the design had been substantially
changed in response to multiple requests from the ARB, including reducing the size of
the second story, increasing side setbacks, removing or reducing windows, and
changing the architectural style from Tudor to Cape Cod.
Following consideration of all the facts, details, and public comments, the Planning
Commission found the project incompatible with the neighborhood and inconsistent with
the City’s Residential Design Guidelines (refer to the Planning Commission Minutes –
Exhibit No. 3; For the Planning Commission Staff Report and all the relevant
attachments, please see Exhibit No. 4). The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve
the appeal and thereby deny approval of the new home at 1225 Oaklawn Road with
Vice Chair Tsoi and Commissioner Hui dissenting.
The Planning Division had recommended that the Planning Commission deny the
appeal and approve the new home at 1225 Oaklawn Road. As such, this
recommendation was reflected in draft Resolution No. 2106, which was attached to the
November 22, 2022, Staff Report. In addition to approving the appeal, the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare a new resolution incorporating the Commission’s
findings and decision. In response to this direction, staff prepared Resolution No. 2111,
which was approved by the Planning Commission with a vote of 5-0 at the December
13, 2022, meeting. Refer to Attachment No. 1 of Exhibit No. 4 for Resolution No. 2111
and the findings made to deny the appeal.
On December 22, 2022, within the 10-day appeal period, the Appellant, Alex Hou, filed
an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the new two-story home (refer
to Exhibit No. 2). The Appellant objects to the Planning Commission’s decision and
states that the findings made were incorrect. The Appellant states that the project is
consistent with the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines including form, mass,
architectural style, height, articulation, and façade details. The Appellant also states that
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 4 of 14
the home is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as there are larger homes
along the street, a newly approved home at 1311 Oaklawn Road with a similar Floor
Area Ratio (“FAR”), and 10 other two-story homes in the vicinity. Furthermore, the
Appellant has stated that the home has been designed to minimize the appearance of it
being a two-story house, hiding the visibility of the mass from the street.
DISCUSSION
The Project considered by the Planning Commission consists of a two-story, 6,138
square foot, Cape Cod style single family residence. The residence will have five
bedrooms, five-and-one-half bathrooms, and a 926 square foot attached four-car
garage. See Figure 1 below for an architectural rendering of the proposed house. Refer
to Exhibit No. 5 for the architectural plans.
Figure 1: Architectural rendering of the proposed house as seen from Oaklawn Road
The first floor will be approximately 4,047 square feet (excluding the garage) and
consists of a foyer, library, great room, kitchen with a pantry and wok kitchen, family
room with a wet bar and wine cellar, elevator shaft and staircase providing access to the
second story, a guest powder room, two bedrooms each with a closet and bathroom,
home theater, and a laundry room. The second story will be 2,091 square feet and
consists of two bedrooms that each contain a closet and bathroom, a master suite with
walk-in-closet and bathroom, an open den/loft, elevator, and high-ceiling areas open to
the first story below. Overall, the proposal does not exceed the maximum allowable
Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 6,798 square feet or the maximum lot coverage.
The proposed front yard landscaping will include a new circular driveway and a paved
pedestrian path. Three existing mature oak trees will remain, while the new turf, mulch,
and plants will be installed underneath and around the driplines of the oak trees. New
plantings are proposed along both sides and the rear property boundary. None of the
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 5 of 14
protected trees will be removed and a Protected Tree Encroachment Permit will be
required for the three oak trees in the front yard.
In his appeal letter, the Appellant states that the Planning Commission findings are not
accurate and contradict the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines.
Below is a listing of the Appellant’s comments, shown in italics, along with an analysis of
each issue raised.
1. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable standards of the Single-
Family Residential Design Guidelines. The design is based on some of the key
elements written in the Design Guidelines such as site planning principles and
neighborhood context, form and mass, architectural style, height, bulk, and scale,
rooflines, entries, articulation, and façade details.
The proposed home is consistent with the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines.
The project is located in a neighborhood with homes of varying architectural styles and
sizes even though the neighborhood does contain a majority of older, single-story
ranch-style homes. Newer homes in the neighborhood are typically two-stories, not
ranch-style, and are larger than the original ranch houses.
In terms of architectural style, the two-story Cape Cod-style home is generally
architecturally consistent within the neighborhood context. Similar design features are
shared with neighboring homes and include horizontal siding, tall windows,
wainscotting, and use of faux-wood shake shingles. These features help the home
blend in with the existing streetscape. The most significant difference is the visible roof
slope which is 10:12. Ranch house roofs typically have a shallow pitch with a 3:12 or
4:12 slope, which emphasize the low-horizontal nature of that style of architecture.
However, use of a steeper roof pitch allows for the second story to be incorporated into
the roof, visually reducing the dominance of the second floor.
With respect to the massing of the proposed house, the second story has been
adequately stepped back from the front and sides of the proposed first story and is not
visually dominant. The visual massing of the home is minimized by setting the second
floor back 8’-3” from the first floor and by placing the second story within the roof along
the front of the home, while the majority of the second story is setback at least 76 feet
from the front property line and is “hidden” behind the front roof. The home also
contains significant articulation, particularly on the second story, which reduces the
massing of the home and preserves the privacy of neighboring properties.
Regarding building height, the proposed home will be 26’-6” high, which is less than the
maximum allowed 30’. Adjacent properties are single-story Ranch houses, which have
heights of approximately 14’. Oaklawn Road slopes from north-to-south, creating a
change in grade between properties of around four feet. This change in grade
emphasizes the height difference between the proposed two-story home and the
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 6 of 14
existing one-story homes, particularly to the south; however, the visibility of the height
difference is lessened by the significant second story setbacks. The home’s height is
consistent with other two-story houses along the street.
2. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood properties
and developments. The largest homes on the block are over 10,000 square feet
in living area, and a recent approved project on 1311 Oaklawn Road is 6,742
square feet of Floor Area Ratio. Furthermore, there are 10 properties with two-
story homes on the block of Oaklawn Road. The proposed design is a one and a
half story structure, which provides visual harmony to nearby properties. The
stepped back 2nd floor in the proposed design also minimizes the appearance of
a two-story home. Some of these examples are also illustrated on page 15 of the
design guidelines. The mass of the 2nd floor is hidden inside the roof of the
design, hiding the visibility of the mass from the street.
The proposed Project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Although the
immediately adjacent homes are single-story ranch-style houses, there are several two-
story homes of varying architectural styles, within close proximity to the subject property
(see photos shown in Exhibit 4, Attachment 2) including:
• 1300 Oaklawn Road is a newer (2015), two-story home with a French
architectural Style.
• 1230 Oaklawn Road is an older, two-story ranch-style home (1951).
• 1328 Oaklawn Road is an older (1954), two-story, single-family residence which
does not have a distinct architectural style, but which contains some Tudor-style
elements including steeper roof pitches. It was substantially remodeled in 1987 to
include a second story.
Figure 2: Location of two-story homes on Oaklawn Road. The subject property is highlighted in red.
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 7 of 14
A new, two-story home was approved by the ARB at 1311 Oaklawn Road on October
20, 2021. The proposed size of that new home is 6,340 square feet, which is 302
square feet less than the maximum allowable of 6,742 square feet for that property, and
its height is 27’-6”. The street contains 10, two-story homes (29% of homes) – existing
and approved – of varying ages, sizes and architectural styles.
The proposed home includes a second story that has been stepped back from the front
of the home and which is hidden within the roof form along the front of the building. The
use of a steeply pitched roof to “hide” the second story helps to de-emphasize the two-
story appearance of the home. In addition, most of the second story mass is setback at
least 20’ from the front of the ground floor, further reducing the second story’s visibility
from the street. The second story setbacks significantly exceed the minimum required,
specifically on the southern side of the home, which faces the downslope property. The
minimum allowed second story setback is 20’-7”. The minimum second story setbacks
provided are 22’-1” on the northern side and 26’-6” on the south side; however, the
majority of second story setbacks exceed 28’. The large setbacks not only provide
articulation and reduce massing but also help maintain the privacy of neighboring
properties. Figure 3 below shows the footprints of the levels of the home.
Figure 3: Footprint of the proposed house shown with reference to the location of adjacent properties.
First floor shown in blue. Second story outlined in red.
To further reduce the visibility of the home from neighboring properties, at least an 8
foot hedge is to be planted along the northern and southern property lines (refer to
Condition of Approval No. 4). Three large, existing oak trees in the front yard will be
retained and protected to reduce the visibility of the home from the street.
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 8 of 14
Figure 4: View from the street. The existing large oak trees will help screen the new house.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
On November 22, 2022, the Planning Commission considered Appeal No. HOA 22-05
of the Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review Board’s approval of a new two-story home
at 1225 Oaklawn Road. The Planning Commission carefully considered all the facts,
points of appeal, the neighborhood characteristics, the public comments, and the
Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, and ultimately found, on a divided vote,
the Project to be inconsistent with the objectives of the Design Guidelines and
incompatible with the neighborhood. They determined that the overall mass and scale
was inappropriate for the neighborhood.
Specifically, Chair Thompson felt that, although some of the findings could be made, the
home was not harmonious with the neighborhood. He felt that the mass and scale of the
house were inconsistent with the neighborhood, the home was much larger than the
average home along the street, and that the second story was not sufficiently pushed
back, per the Single-Family Design Guidelines. Commissioner Tallerico and
Commissioner Wilander agreed with the comments made by Chair Thompson. In
addition, Commissioner Wilander said that that although there were two-story homes,
most were single-story, and that six out of ten adjacent neighbors expressed their
opposition to the Project, which should be taken into consideration by the Planning
Commission.
Vice Chair Tsoi said that the home has successfully concealed much of the mass within
the design, and that the home did not appear out of scale from view of the street. In
addition, the change in grade along the street makes it difficult to have a consistent
building height, but that the designer had made many changes to reduce its mass.
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 9 of 14
Commissioner Hui concurred with Vice Chair Tsoi and also stated that the
neighborhood contains various, existing two-story homes where the second story is not
set back substantially.
Chair Thompson made a motion to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB approval
of a new, two-story, Cape Cod-style house at 1225 Oaklawn Road. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Tallerico. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve
the appeal, with Vice Chair Tsoi and Commissioner Hui dissenting – refer to Exhibit No.
3 and 4 for the Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report for the November 22,
2022, Planning Commission Meeting.
The original Staff Report to the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
project and concurrence with the ARB decision. The Staff Recommendation remains the
same: to approve the project subject to the conditions of approval listed below and
based on the findings provided in the subsequent section. For the findings made by the
Planning Commission to support their recommendation to deny the project, please see
Attachment No. 1 of Exhibit No. 4.
1. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with the Santa Anita Oaks ARB
conditions of approval that were listed in their ARB Findings and Actions Report,
dated September 13, 2022.
2. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Property Owner/Applicant
in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally
approved by the ARB for a new, two-story single-family residence at 1225
Oaklawn Road, subject to the satisfaction of the Deputy Development Services
Director or designee.
3. The project shall comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance
(“WELO”). The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit landscaping plans and all
WELO documentation with the building plans for plan check in Building Services.
4. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Property Owner/Applicant
shall plant tall, mature hedges along the perimeter of the property along the north
and south side yard areas. The species and box size shall be indicated on the
landscape plan submitted for building plan check and shall be to the satisfaction
of the Deputy Development Services Director or designee. The hedges shall be
at least 8 feet tall prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. The Property Owner/Applicant shall file a Protected Tree Permit application with
the City within 45 days of this approval and the Property Owner/Applicant shall
comply with all the recommended measures and conditions of approval imposed
by the Certified Arborist that prepared the report and the City to ensure no
portion of the proposed development will harm the healthy protected trees. If any
of the protected trees do not survive as a result of this development, the City has
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 10 of 14
the ability to require a large mature oak tree or trees to replace any failed existing
tree prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The size and location shall
be determined by the Deputy Development Services Director, or designee, and
the City’s Certified Arborist.
6. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Applicant must defend, indemnify,
and hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or
commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as
City officials, agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”)
harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for
damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage,
and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged
to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with the
new Cape Cod house (“Project”) on the Project site, and which may arise from
the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s
contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on
Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the
project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or
proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City
prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for
the project.
In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or
interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document
relating to the project, the City will promptly notify the Applicant of the claim,
action, or proceedings and will fully cooperate in the defense of the matter. Once
notified, the Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses
incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in
relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action,
Applicant shall provide to City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and
expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an
initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. The City may
draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5
business days of each and every notice from the City that the deposit has fallen
below the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every
time in order for the City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. The City
shall only refund to the Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within
30 days of: (i) a final, non-appealable decision by a court of competent
jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal
action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice that the
Applicant reasonably approves. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in
defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party
challenge(s) or take any position adverse to the Applicant in connection with
such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the project, this
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 11 of 14
condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this project is
rescinded or revoked whether at the request of the Applicant, or not. Approval of
the house shall not be of effect unless the Property Owner/Applicant has
executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar
days after the Planning Commission has denied the appeal. The Acceptance
Form is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Section 9107.19.050 of the Development Code requires that the Review Authority may
approve a Site Plan and Design Review application, only if it first makes all the following
findings:
1. The proposed development will be in compliance with all applicable
development standards and regulations in the Development Code.
Facts to Support This Finding: The subject site is zoned R-0, Very-Low
Density Residential Zone, which allows for the development of a single-family
residence. The new two-story house will not change the use or density allowed in
this zone and meets all of the development standards and regulations required,
including but not limited to setbacks, height, and floor area ratio. Therefore, the
new development will be in compliance with all the applicable standards and
regulations in the Development Code.
2. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives and
standards of the applicable Design Guidelines.
Facts to Support This Finding: The Santa Anita Oaks ARB and the City’s
Planning Division determined that the new two-story house as well as the overall
mass and scale of the home, are consistent with the City’s Single-Family
Residential Design Guidelines. The new house will be compatible with the other
homes on the street, as the street is comprised of one and two-story homes and
reflects a variety of architectural styles and forms. The architectural style on this
house, Cape Cod, was chosen and approved by the ARB since the style hides a
large portion of the second story at the front of the home, and the large side
setbacks and extensive articulation serve to further reduce the visual mass of the
home. The existing three very large mature oak trees in the front yard will help
further mitigate the mass and scale from the street. Therefore, the proposed
development will be consistent with the objectives and standards of the Single-
Family Design Guidelines.
3. The proposed development will be compatible in terms of scale and
aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments.
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 12 of 14
Facts to Support This Finding: The new two-story home would be compatible
with the character of the neighborhood in terms of the architectural design since
the subject site is in a residential neighborhood that is comprised of ranch and
various other architectural styles including French, Traditional/Colonial, and
Tudor. The Cape Cod-style house is consistent with the City’s design guidelines
in terms of form, roof, articulations, and design features and details. The
architectural design, overall articulation, extensive front yard landscaping
including retention of three large, existing oak trees, and large second story
setbacks help minimize the scale, soften the appearance of the home, and allow
for consistency with the neighborhood. The Santa Anita Oaks ARB and the City's
Planning Division found that the Cape Cod architectural style is appropriate for
the neighborhood; that the home had sufficient articulation; and that the façade
detailing, windows, doors, colors and materials are suitable for the home.
4. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout
in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping.
Facts to Support This Finding: The circular driveway will provide efficient
access to the four-car garage at the northern side of the home. Parking is easily
accessible from the new driveway and will allow for easy vehicular ingress and
egress to the site. The proposed landscaping will complement the architectural
design, provide screening along the side and rear property lines, and is
consistent with landscaping in the neighborhood.
5. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable
criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5 for a Site Plan and
Design Review application.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed project would be in compliance
with all the applicable criteria set forth in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5,
including all other applicable sections of the Development Code. The project is in
compliance with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines as the
proposed home will have an appropriate mass, scale, and design that fits in with
the other homes in the immediate vicinity. The site layout and design are
harmonious with the neighborhood as the proposed home meets or exceeds all
required setbacks. The visual mass of the home is softened by “hiding” the
second story within the roof at the front of the house. Large second story
setbacks on the southern façade and use of clerestory windows will limit any
overlooking or privacy issues with the adjacent property to the south. Extensive
new landscaping throughout will complement the home and provide additional
screening along both side and rear property lines. The driveway for the site is
designed to provide efficient and safe access to the residents and neighbors. No
major impacts on- or off-site are expected from this project. Therefore, the
proposed home will be consistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential
Design Guidelines and General Plan.
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 13 of 14
For the reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the City Council approve
the project and thereby overturn the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the
proposed two-story home at 1225 Oaklawn Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption per the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the
CEQA Guidelines for the construction of a new single-family home. Refer to Exhibit No.
7 for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment.
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for this item were mailed on February 9, 2023, to the property
owners 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 February 9,
2023. As of February 16, 2023, staff has received one comment from the public (Refer
to Exhibit No. 6).
FISCAL IMPACT
Any decision on the appeal would have no significant fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council make the required findings and adopt
Resolution No. 7477 approving Appeal No. 22-06, overturning the Planning
Commission’s denial of a proposed two-story, Cape Cod-style single-family home with a
Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) at 1225
Oaklawn Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed above.
Exhibit No. 1 Resolution No. 7477
Exhibit No. 2 Appeal Application and Letter, dated December 22, 2022
Exhibit No. 3 Planning Commission Minutes for the November 22, 2022, Meeting
Exhibit No. 4 Staff Report for the November 22, 2022, Planning Commission
Meeting, including the following attachments:
Resolution No. 7477 – Appeal No. 22-06
February 21, 2023
Page 14 of 14
No. 1 Resolution No. 2111 (Approved December 13, 2022)
No. 2 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject
Property and Vicinity
No. 3 Appeal Letter from Appellants, dated September 19, 2022
No. 4 ARB Findings and Action Report and ARB Meeting
Minutes for July 21, 2022, and September 13, 2022
No. 6 Preliminary Arborist’s report
No. 7 Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Exhibit No. 5 Architectural Plans approved by the Santa Anita Oaks Architectural
Review Board
Exhibit No. 6 Public comment
Exhibit No. 7 Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Exhibit No. 1
Exhibit No. 1
Resolution No. 7477
Exhibit No. 2
Exhibit No. 2
Appeal Application and Letter, dated
December 22, 2022
Exhibit No. 3
Exhibit No. 3
Planning Commission Minutes for the
November 22, 2022, Meeting
Exhibit No. 4
Exhibit No. 4
Staff Report for the November 22, 2022,
Planning Commission Meeting, including
Attachment Nos. 1 – 4, & 6 – 7.
DATE: November 22, 2022
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
By: Fiona Graham, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2106 – APPEAL NO. HOA 22-05 APPEALING THE
SANTA ANITA OAKS HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION’S DECISION OF A
NEW TWO-STORY, CAPE COD STYLE HOME WITH AN ATTACHED
FOUR-CAR GARAGE AT 1225 OAKLAWN ROAD
Recommendation: Adopt and Deny the Appeal
CEQA: Categorically Exempt
SUMMARY
The Appellants, Shirly Chi (owner of 1215 Oaklawn Road), Jill and Steve Hisey (owners
of 515 Arbolada Drive), Feizhi Chen and Angela P. Lin (owner of 521 Arbolada Drive),
Dr. Gary and Karen Jacobsen (owners of 1201 Oaklawn Road), Maurice and Beverly
Stewart (owners of 1212 Oaklawn Road), Drs. Hymavathi and Narandranath Reddy
(owners of 1220 Oaklawn Road), and Dr. David and Keppie Sullivan (owners of 1320
Oaklawn Road), are appealing the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowner’s Association
Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval for a new 6,138 square foot, two-story, Cape
Cod style residence with an attached four-car garage, and several covered porches
totaling 1,075 square feet at 1225 Oaklawn Road. It is recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt Resolution No. 2106, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the
Santa Anita Oaks ARB’s decision.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 21,243 square foot interior lot that is located in the Santa Anita
Oaks Homeowner’s Association area. The property is zoned R-0, Very Low Density
Residential, and the General Plan land use designation is Residential. Surrounding
properties are zoned R-0 and consist of one and two-story homes on this street. The
property currently has an existing 2,595 square foot, one-story house built in 1951 - refer
to Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject
Property and Surrounding Properties.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 2 of 15
A Certificate of Demolition was approved in May 2016 as part of a previous proposal on
the property. The evaluation by an Architectural Historian found that the existing
residence has no historical significance because it is common in type and style.
On January 10, 2022, the Applicant’s Architect Philip Chan filed a regular review
application with the ARB for a new home on behalf of the property owners, Yaping Zhu,
Dawen Gao, and Yan Zhao.
According to the meeting minutes that were provided by the ARB (refer to Attachment No.
4), a total of four (4) residents attended the first ARB hearing on July 21, 2022, and six
(6) residents attended the second hearing on September 13, 2022. Some of their main
concerns had to do with the fact the residents did not want a two-story residence in their
neighborhood, the proposed architectural style is still too massive and out of scale with
the other homes in the neighborhood, and potential privacy issues for the house located
next door, to the south, at 1215 Oaklawn Road.
The minutes also mentioned the changes that the Architect made to the house to address
the neighbors and ARB concerns, and those changes were:
1.Changed the architectural style of the two-story house from Tudor to Cape Cod
to help screen the second floor.
2.Reduced the second-floor area from 75% of the first-floor area to 52%, as shown
on the current plans.
3.Provided greater second story setbacks to reduce the overall mass of the house.
4.Reduced the size of the second story windows on the south façade.
5.Shifted the second floor toward the back half of the house.
6.Reduced and simplified the front yard hardscape.
After several rounds of comments and two public hearings, the ARB conditionally
approved the new residence with a 3-2 vote at their September 13, 2022, hearing – refer
to Attachment No. 4 – ARB Findings and Action Report. A total of six (6) conditions of
approval were placed on the project by the ARB, and they were:
1. Reduce size of pilasters in the front yard and remove the lights
2.Provide detail on the landscape plan of the proposed plantings
3.Remove the spillway to the pool
4.Replace demolished fence with a vinyl fence at the easement line that is located
at rear of property
5.Remove the rear deck
6.Remove the balcony for privacy reasons
The most recent version of the plans, which can be seen in Attachment No. 5, reflects all
the changes per the conditions of approval.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 3 of 15
On September 26, 2022, and within the 10-day appeal period, the Appellants, Shirley Chi
(owner of 1215 Oaklawn Road), Jill and Steve Hisey (owners of 515 Arbolada Drive),
Feizhi Chen and Angela P. Lin (owner of 521 Arbolada Drive), Dr. Gary and Karen
Jacobsen (owners of 1201 Oaklawn Road), Maurice and Beverly Stewart (owners of 1212
Oaklawn Road), Drs. Hymavathi and Narandranath Reddy (owners of 1220 Oaklawn
Road), and Dr. David and Keppie Sullivan (owners of 1320 Oaklawn Road), filed an
appeal of the ARB’s approval of the new house.
The appeal states that the Appellants disagree with the ARB’s decision since many of the
findings could not be made, and that the home is inconsistent with the neighborhood with
regard to mass, scale, and architectural style. Additionally, the property owner at 1215
Oaklawn Road has expressed concerns about the potential loss of privacy and views –
refer to Attachment No. 3 – Appeal letter.
SANTA ANITA OAKS ARB’S APPROVAL
The ARB approved a two-story, 6,138 square foot, two-story Cape Cod style single family
residence. The residence will have five bedrooms, five-and-a-half bathrooms, and a 926
square foot attached four-car garage. See Figure 1, below, for an architectural rendering
of the proposed house.
Figure 1: Architectural rendering of the proposed house as seen from Oaklawn Road
The first floor will be approximately 4,047 square feet (excluding the garage) and consists
of: a foyer, library, great room, kitchen with a pantry and wok kitchen, family room with a
wet bar and wine cellar, elevator shaft and staircase providing access to the second story,
a guest powder room, two bedrooms each with a closet and bathroom, home theater, and
a laundry room.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 4 of 15
The second story will be 2,091 square feet and consists of two bedrooms each with a
closet and bathroom, a master suite with walk-in-closet and bathroom, an open den/loft,
elevator, and high-ceiling areas open to the first story below.
Overall, the proposal does not exceed the maximum allow able Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
of 6,798 square feet or the maximum lot coverage, as shown in the table below.
The table below outlines the project specifications.
Development
Standards Approved
Floor Area Ratio: 6,798 square feet
maximum (32%)
6,470 square feet
Lot Coverage: 7,435 square feet
(35%)
6,078 square feet
Setbacks:
Front
Side
Rear
50’ minimum (average of
adjacent lots)
10’-4” (1st floor)
20’-7” (2nd floor)
35’ (1st floor)
35’ (2nd floor)
55’-5”
11’ (north)
10’-4” (south)
22’-1” (north)
26’-6” (south)
59’-7”
63’-8”
Height: 30’ maximum 26’-6”
The proposed front yard landscaping would include a new circular driveway and a paved
pedestrian path. Three (3) existing mature oak trees will remain, while the new turf, mulch
and plants will be installed underneath and around the driplines of the oak trees. New
planting is proposed along both side and the rear property boundary. None of the
protected trees will be removed. A Protected Tree Encroachment Permit will be required
for the three (3) oak trees in the front yard. A preliminary arborist’s report (refer to
Attachment No. 6) states that the construction of a new home will have minimal impact
on one of the oak trees that’s not in the best health (tree no. 3), but it is expected to
survive in its existing health if the protection measures are followed. Since the report did
not include any measures, a complete Arborist report will be required, and the Applicant
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 5 of 15
has to comply with all the measures and replace the oak tree if it does not survive – refer
to condition no. 3.
DESIGN REVIEW AUTHORITY
City Council Resolution No. 7272 clearly establishes Homeowners Association (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 Division 7 and 8 of the Development Code.
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:
•Policy LU-3.1: Protect the character of single-family residential neighborhoods
through the preservation and improvement of their character-defining features.
Such features include but are not limited to tree-lined streets, building
orientation, sidewalks, and architectural scale and quality.
•Policy LU-3.5: Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill
developments be sensitive to neighborhood context, building forms, scale, and
colors.
•Policy LU-3.7: Ensure that the design and scale of new and remodeled single-
family residential buildings are appropriate to their context.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 6 of 15
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 the
development of new homes, including:
•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.
•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.
•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.
•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.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 7 of 15
Santa Anita Oaks ARB Findings
In their approval, a majority of the ARB members were in favor of the project and found
the new house to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of mass,
scale and architectural style, has sufficient articulation, and has appropriate landscaping,
while the dissenting board members found the project to be inconsistent with the Single
Family Design Guidelines due to massing, height, and scale and that the proposed two-
story home would not complement the neighborhood and would tower 15 feet over the
adjacent home – refer to Attachment No. 4 - Findings and Action Report, dated
September 13, 2022.
The ARB did not have any concerns regarding the garage, driveway, and consistency of
the windows, doors, roofline and façade details with the chosen architectural style.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants have stated that the new house should be denied for the following
reasons: 1) The overall mass, scale, and Cape Cod architectural style of the house are
not consistent with the immediate streetscape; 2) The ARB did not adhere to the findings
in the Development Code that requires the ARB to make all the necessary findings; 3)
The development is inconsistent with the City’s adopted design guidelines; and 4) The
proposed residence will cause a loss of privacy and view to the neighbors, particularly to
the property directly south of the subject site.
The adjacent properties to the north and south – 1231 and 1215 Oaklawn Road,
respectively – are both single story Ranch houses. Opposite the subject site are various
houses consisting of one-story Ranch houses and two-story homes that have been
remodeled or, in the case of 1300 Oaklawn Road, were newly constructed, and 1311
Oaklawn Road which was recently approved. More broadly, Oaklawn Road contains a
total of 34 homes, most of which were built between 1950 and 1952, and predominately
consists of single-story Ranch houses. Some original homes have been remodeled to
include a second story, either retaining the original Ranch architectural style, or
incorporating a new architectural style. The street also contains newer houses of varying
architectural styles. Although Oaklawn Road has a strong predominance of single-story
Ranch houses, the newer two-story homes are found throughout the street and reflect a
variety of architectural styles and massing such that the proposed house would not be
inconsistent with the streetscape. The proposed house would be the first Cape Cod style
home on Oaklawn Road. See Figure 2, below, for a map identifying two-story houses in
the street.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 8 of 15
Figure 2: Location of two-story homes on Oaklawn Road. The subject property is highlighted in red.
With respect to the massing of the proposed house, the second story has been
adequately stepped back from the front and sides of the proposed first story and is not
visually dominant. The visual massing of the home is minimized by setting the second
floor back 8’-3” from the first floor and by placing the second story within the roof along
the front of the home, while the majority of the second story is setback at least 76 feet
front the front property line and is “hidden” behind the front roof. Furthermore, the existing
large mature oak trees that will remain substantially screens the home from the street, as
shown below in Figure 3.
Figure 3: View from the street. The existing large oak trees will help screen the new house.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 9 of 15
When viewed from the street, the project would not look significantly taller in height and
bulky compared to the adjacent homes due to the greater side setbacks on both first and
second floor, the natural incline of the street, and existing oak trees in the front yard area.
In fact, this new house will be a foot lower in height than the new Prairie style house that
was recently approved by the ARB at 1311 Oaklawn Road (26’-6” at 1225 Oaklawn vs.
27’-6” at 1311 Oaklawn Road). Therefore, the overall mass and scale is within the same
range as the other new two-story homes that were approved recently by the ARB.
In terms of architectural style, the two-story Cape Cod style home is generally
architecturally consistent within the neighborhood context. Similar design features are
shared with neighboring homes and include horizontal siding, tall windows, wainscotting,
and use of faux-wood shake shingles. These features help the home blend in with the
existing streetscape. The most significant difference is the visible roof slope which is
10:12. Ranch house roofs are typically shallow with a 3:12 or 4:12 slope, which
emphasizes the low-horizontal nature of that style of architecture. However, use of a
steeper roof pitch allows for the second story to be incorporated into the roof, visually
reduces the dominance of the second floor. Although the Appellant’s appeal states the
project is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, Oaklawn Road currently has
two-story homes with diverse architectural elements meaning the proposed home will not
be significantly different to other nearby homes. It is why the ARB found the style to be
appropriate. See Figure 4 for architectural elevations.
Figure 4: Front (west) and southern elevations
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 10 of 15
One of the Appellants, at 1215 Oaklawn Road expressed concerns over a loss of privacy
since that property is at a slightly lower elevation than the subject property. To ensure
there was no privacy issues, the house was designed to have a greater second story
setback of 26’-6” on the southern façade next to 1215 Oaklawn Road, thereby exceeding
the minimum required setback by 5’-11”. Also, the property at 1215 Oaklawn Road has a
driveway on the side of the property, thereby resulting in a 35-foot setback between the
home and second story of the new house, refer to Figure 5, below. Furthermore, the
second story contains only small, clerestory windows on the southern façade (which were
changed as a result of community comments after the first ARB hearing).
Figure 5: Footprint of the proposed house shown with reference to the location of adjacent properties.
First floor shown in blue. Second story outlined in red.
These changes from the ARB did help mitigate the privacy issues between both
properties. However, Staff is recommending that the hedges along the perimeter of the
property within the north and side yard areas shall be maintained at a minimum height of
12 feet. A condition of approval to this effect has been proposed – refer to condition of
approval no. 2.
One of the Appellants also raised concerns about the loss of views to the north from the
property at 1215 Oaklawn Road. Although staff recognize that views from properties to
scenic elements, such as the mountains, are valued in the community, the City does not
have a view protection ordinance.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 11 of 15
FINDINGS
Section 9107.19.050 of the Development Code requires that the Review Authority may
approve a Site Plan and Design Review application, only if it first makes all the following
findings:
1.The proposed development will be in compliance with all applicable
development standards and regulations in the Development Code.
Facts to Support This Finding: The subject site is zoned R-0, Very-Low Density
Residential Zone, which allows for the development of a single-family residence.
The new two-story house will not change the use or density allowed in this zone
and meets all of the development standards and regulations required, including
but not limited to setbacks, height, and floor area ratio. Therefore, the new
development will be in compliance with all the applicable standards and regulations
in the Development Code, and the City’s Single-Family Design Guidelines.
2.The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives and
standards of the applicable Design Guidelines.
Facts to Support This Finding: The Santa Anita Oaks ARB and the City’s
Planning Division determined that the new two-story house, as well as the overall
mass and scale of the home are consistent with the City’s Single-Family
Residential Design Guidelines. The new house will be compatible with the other
homes on the street, as it is comprised of one and two-story homes, and reflects
a variety of architectural styles and forms. The architectural style on this house,
Cape Cod, was chosen and approved by the ARB since the style hides a large
portion of the second story at the front of the home, and the large side setbacks
and extensive articulation serve to further reduce the visual mass of the home. The
existing three very large mature oak trees in the front yard will help further mitigate
the mass and scale from the street. Therefore, the proposed development will be
consistent with the objectives and standards of the Single-Family Design
Guidelines.
3.The proposed development will be compatible in terms of scale and
aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments.
Facts to Support This Finding: The new two-story home would be compatible
with the character of the neighborhood in terms of the architectural design since
the subject site is in a residential neighborhood that is comprised primarily of
Ranch and a variety of other architectural styles including French,
Traditional/Colonial, and Tudor. The Cape Cod style house is consistent with the
City’s design guidelines in terms of form, roof, articulations, and design features
and details. The architectural design, overall articulation, extensive front yard
landscaping including retention of three large, existing oak trees, and large second
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 12 of 15
story setbacks help minimize the scale, soften the appearance of the home, and
allow for consistency with the neighborhood. The Santa Anita Oaks ARB and the
City's Planning Division found that the Cape Cod architectural style are appropriate
for the neighborhood, that the home had sufficient articulation, and that the façade
detailing, windows and doors, and colors and materials are suitable for the home.
4.The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout in
terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping.
Facts to Support This Finding: The circular driveway will provide efficient access
to the four-car garage at the northern side of the home. Parking is easily accessible
from the new driveway and will allow for easy vehicular ingress and egress to the
site. The proposed landscaping will complement the architectural design, provide
screening along the side and rear property lines, and is consistent with landscaping
in the neighborhood.
5.The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable
criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5 for a Site Plan and Design
Review application.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed project would be in compliance
with all the applicable criteria set forth in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5, including
all other applicable sections of the Development Code. The project is in
compliance with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines as the
proposed home will have an appropriate mass, scale, and design that fits in with
the other homes in the immediate vicinity. The site layout and design are
harmonious with the neighborhood as the proposed home meets or exceeds all
required setbacks. The visual mass of the home is softened by “hiding” the second
story within the roof at the front of the house. Large second-story setbacks on the
southern façade and use of clerestory windows will limit any overlooking or privacy
issues with the adjacent property to the south. Extensive new landscaping
throughout will complement the home and provide additional screening along both
side and the rear property lines. The driveway for the site is designed to provide
efficient and safe access to the residents and neighbors. No major impacts on or
off-site are expected from this project. Therefore, the proposed home will be
consistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and
General Plan.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 13 of 15
For the reasons stated in this report and the that the new house meets all the required
findings, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Appeal No. HOA 22-05
and uphold the decision of the Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review Board.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption per the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the
CEQA Guidelines for the construction of a new single-family home. 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
November 10, 2022. As of November 17, 2022, staff has not received any comments
from the public.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2106, find that
the project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and deny the Appeal and uphold the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners’
Association Architectural Review Board’s approval of the new two-story home at 1225
Oaklawn Road, subject to the additional conditions of approval.
1.The Owner/Applicant shall comply with the Santa Anita Oaks ARB conditions of
approval that were listed in their ARB Findings and Actions Report, dated
September 13, 2022.
2.Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Owner/Applicant shall plant tall
mature hedges along the perimeter of the property along the north and side yard
areas. The hedges shall be at least 8-10 feet tall at the time they are planted, and
they shall be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet.
3.The Owner/Applicant shall file a Protected Tree Permit application with the City
within 45-days of this approval, and the Owner/Applicant shall comply with all the
recommended measures and conditions of approval imposed by the Certified
Arborist that prepared the report and the City to ensure no portion of the proposed
development will harm the healthy protected trees. If any of the protected trees do
not survive as a result of this development, the City has the ability to require a large
mature oak tree(s) to replace the existing tree(s) prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy. The size and location shall be determined by the Planning &
Community Development Administrator, or designee and the City’s Certified
Arborist.
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 14 of 15
4.To the maximum extent permitted by law, Applicant/Property Owner must defend,
indemnify, and hold City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or
commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as
City officials, agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”)
harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for
damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage,
and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged
to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with the
new Cape Cod house (“Project”) on the Project site, and which may arise from the
direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors,
agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf,
which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity
provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages,
as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or
approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project.
In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or
interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document
relating to the Project, the City will promptly notify the Applicant of the claim, action,
or proceedings and will fully cooperate in the defense of the matter. Once notified,
the Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and
each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or
awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action.
Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, Applicant shall provide to
City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in
connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably
determined by the City Attorney. City may draw funds from the deposit for such
fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from
City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish
the deposit each and every time in order for City’s legal team to continue working
on the matter. City shall only refund to Developer any unexpended funds from the
deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non-appealable decision by a court of
competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement
of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice
that the Applicant reasonably approves. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in
defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party
challenge(s) or take any position adverse to the Applicant in connection with such
third-party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition
shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or
revoked, whether or not at the request of the Applicant. Approval of the house shall
not be of effect unless the Property Owner/Applicant has executed and filed the
Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning
Appeal No. HOA 22-05
1225 Oaklawn Road
November 22, 2022 – Page 15 of 15
Commission has denied the appeal. The Acceptance Form is to indicate
awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Denial of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB approval of
the new two-story residence, the Commission should pass a motion to deny Appeal No.
HOA 22-05, stating that the proposed project is exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines, and/or
City Council Resolution 7272, and adopt Resolution No. 2106.
Approval of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB approval
of the two-story residence, the Commission should pass a motion to approve Appeal No.
HOA 22-05, stating that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City’s Design
Guidelines, and/or City Council Resolution No. 7272.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the November 22, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting,
please contact Fiona Graham, Planning Services Manager by calling (626) 574-5442, or
by email to fgraham@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2106
Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property
and Vicinity
Attachment No. 3: Appeal Letter from Appellants, dated September 19, 2022
Attachment No. 4: ARB Findings and Action Report and ARB Meeting Minutes for July
21, 2022, and September 13, 2022
Attachment No. 5: Architectural Drawings
Attachment No. 6: Preliminary Arborist’s report
Attachment No. 7: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Planning Commission Attachment No. 1
Planning Commission
Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 2111
Approved December 13, 2022
Planning Commission Attachment No. 2
Planning Commission
Attachment No. 2
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and
Photos of the Subject Property and Vicinity
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
N/A
Property Owner(s):
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
R-O (22,000)
Number of Units:
VLDR
Property Characteristics
1951
2,595
1
Property Owner
Site Address:1225 OAKLAWN RD
Parcel Number: 5769-020-006
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 14-Nov-2022
Page 1 of 1
1225 Oaklawn as seen from the driveway entrance to the property
1220 Oaklawn Road
1230 Oaklawn Road
1300 Oaklawn Road
View looking south on Oaklawn Road toward the subject property
Looking north from the front of 1215 Oaklawn Road toward the existing house on the subject property
View toward 1225 Oaklawn Road (subject property) from the rear yard of 1215 Oaklawn Road.
The existing house as viewed from the driveway of 1215 Oaklawn Road
The existing house on the subject property viewed from the front property line.
Looking toward the existing house on the subject property across the driveway at 1231 Oaklawn Road
1231 Oaklawn Road
1301 Oaklawn Road
Planning Commission Attachment No. 3
Planning Commission
Attachment No. 3
Appeal Letter from the Appellants, dated
September 19, 2022
Planning Commission Attachment No. 4
Planning Commission
Attachment No. 4
ARB Findings and Action Report and ARB
Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2022, and
September 13, 2022
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
Date: September 13, 2022 File No.
Project Address: 1225 Oaklawn Rd, Arcadia, CA 91006
Association Name: Santa Anita Oaks HOA
Applicant Name:
Property Owner(s) Name: 800 Hampton LLC / Susan and Alex Hou
Project Description: NEW 2-STORY 5-BED 6-BATH 6,494 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE
FAMILY HOME W/ATTACHED 4-CAR GARAGE
FINDINGS
Only check those that are apply and provide a written explanation for each
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Site Planning Principles
and Neighborhood Context Guidelines.
Explanation: While the project is within the limits of the FAR, the overall massiveness
of the home is difficult to justify in the context of this specific streetscape. The home
will tower 15’ above the adjacent homes. The ARB had numerous communications
with the designer (attached) to try to address the issue of scale and mass, including
citing sections of the design guidelines, versus the nearby homes. Little progress was
made during those preparatory meetings. The massiveness of the home was still a
concern at the public hearing with some board members and several neighbors.
Although the quorum voted 3-2 to approve, the chairman, and several neighbors, still
feel that this home is not compatible with the streetscape.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Forms and Mass Guidelines.
Explanation: While the project is within the limits of the FAR, the overall massiveness
of the home is difficult to justify in the context of this specific streetscape. The home
will tower 15’ above the adjacent homes. The ARB had numerous communications
with the designer (attached) to try to address the issue of scale and mass, including
citing sections of the design guidelines, versus the nearby homes. Little progress was
made during those preparatory meetings. The massiveness of the home was still a
concern at the public hearing with some board members and several neighbors.
Although the quorum voted 3-2 to approve, the chairman and several neighbors, still
feel that this home is not compatible with the streetscape.
___________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Frontage Conditions
Guidelines.
Explanation: The hardscape design is more elaborate than the surrounding
neighborhood and is not considered compatible by the chairman. Landscaping is
copious and appropriate. _____________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Garages and Driveways
Guidelines.
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
Explanation: The circular driveway and associated hardscape elements are
considered more elaborate than necessary by the chairman. ___________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Architectural Styles
Guidelines.
Explanation: The home is a single and consistent design form. It was noted by several
board members and neighbors to be a beautiful design but simply not compatible with
this particular streetscape.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Height, Bulk, and Scale
Guidelines.
Explanation: While the project is within the limits of the FAR, the overall massiveness
of the home is difficult to justify in the context of this specific streetscape. The home
will tower 15’ above the adjacent homes. The ARB had numerous communications
with the designer (attached) to try to address the issue of scale and mass, including
citing sections of the design guidelines, versus the nearby homes. Little progress was
made during those preparatory meetings. The massiveness of the home was still a
concern at the public hearing with some board members and several neighbors.
Although the quorum voted 3-2 to approve, the chairman, and several neighbors, still
feel that this home is not compatible with the streetscape.
_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Roofline Guidelines.
Explanation: Rooflines are of consistent pitch and materials
_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Entries Guidelines.
Explanation: Entry is a single-story structure _______________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Windows and Doors
Guidelines.
Explanation: Windows and doors are consistent and appropriate for the design of the
home _______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Articulation Guidelines.
Explanation: The design uses adequate articulation
_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Facade Details Guidelines.
Explanation: Façade treatments are consistent with the architectural style
_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Colors and Materials
Guidelines.
Explanation: Appropriate materials are used.
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Accessory Lighting
Guidelines.
Explanation: Lighting is appropriate for the project. ___________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Additions, Alterations, and
Accessory Buildings/Structures Guidelines.
Explanation:NA_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Hillside Properties
Guidelines.
Explanation:NA_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Fences, Walls, Gates, and
Hedges Guidelines.
Explanation: Wall that was removed in back yard must be replaced along easement
for safety reasons. _____
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Impervious Coverage and
Landscape Areas Guidelines.
Explanation: Impervious coverage in the front yard setback is just adequate within the
landscape design. ________________
ACTION
Pursuant to City’s Development Code Section 9107.20.050, a Site Plan and Design Review in the
Homeowners Association Areas may be approved only if it is found that the proposed development
is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.
APPROVED CONDITIONALLY APPROVED DENIED
Date of ARB Meeting: SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
ARB Members Rendering the Above Decision:
Tom Walker (chair, ARB)
Matt Rimmer (ARB)
Vince Vargas (ARB)
Gilbert Perez (ARB)
Jessica Louie (ARB)
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
Abstain: 0
ABSENT: 0
Conditions of Approval:
1. Reduce size of pilasters in front yard and remove the lights
2. Provide detail on the plantings
3. Remove the spillway to the pool
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
4.Replace demolished fence with a vinyl fence on the easement line at rear
of property
5. Remove the rear deck
6. Remove the balcony for privacy reasons
There is a ten (10) day appeal period for this application. To file an appeal, a completed
Appeal Application form must be submitted to the City’s Planning Division along with a
$600.00 appeal fee by _5:00PM_ p.m. on September 23, 2022. You will be notified if an
appeal is filed.
Approved designs shall expire in one year (September 14, 2023) from the effective date
unless plans are submitted to Building Services for plan-check, a building permit is issued
and the construction is diligently pursued, a certificate of occupancy has been issued, or
the approval is renewed. The final plans must be consistent with the approved design
concept plans and any conditions of approval. Any inconsistency from the approved
design concept plans may preclude the issuance of a building permit.
An extension may be granted by the ARB or designee, or the Review Authority that
approved the project for a maximum period of one (1) year from the initial expiration date.
An extension can only be granted if the required findings can be made. Please note that
acceptance of an extension request does not indicate approval of an extension.
You may visit the City’s website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov/noticesanddecisions to view this
document. If you have any questions regarding the above decision, please contact the
ARB Chairperson at saohoaarb@gmail.com. Thank you.
c: City of Arcadia, Planning Division
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
Philip,
I have studied your proposed design in detail, including the new renderings and streetscape
drawing that you provided. I have decided to try to describe the concerns the ARB has with this
particular design in writing as we didn’t do a good job of communicating them in the in-person pre-
meeting. I am very happy to also schedule a meeting to discuss once you have a chance to
review this document.
Oaklawn consists mostly of single-story ranch homes, especially on the south end of the street.
There are one or two large homes that, frankly, were mistakes made by previous ARBs as their
architectural style bears no relationship to the character of that street. The ARB strives to
determine the appropriate site planning, massing, scale, setbacks, architectural design, and
exterior appearance of a proposed project; determine whether the exterior appearance of the
proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood; and mitigate potential impacts
a proposed project may have on adjacent properties but sometimes we fail.
That is not to say that the design should be one-story or ranch style, but we need to find a design
that makes the resulting design and massing more compatible with the streetscape. One thing that
has been successful with recent projects is to push the second story mass back away from the
street (pages 12, 14, 15 of the design guidelines noted below) resulting in a design that appears
much less massive and more compatible with the streetscape. The house is quite attractive, and
would be a great addition to the right street, but we have concerns that will not be harmonious with
the character of Oaklawn.
During the first meeting we asked that the second floor to first floor ratio be made smaller for this
reason – you did accommodate that request by moving the ratio from 75% to 55%. However, the
resulting design as presented in the 3D perspective views does not show a significant change (for
me, unnoticeable) and doesn’t achieve the goal of hiding the mass.
Before:
After:
Date: 1/24/2022
Issues:
1.How can you configure this design, or possibly an alternative design, so that it is more
compatible with the existing homes and hides the fact that the house is still pushing the
limits of the FAR by making it appear less massive? Our suggestion of pushing the second
story mass back to the rear of the house to make the front of the house appear more
compatible with the adjacent homes is just one idea. But the current design has significant
mass in the front which makes it incompatible with the mass and scale of the homes within
the streetscape, as shown in your drawing below.
2.There was no landscape plan presented in the first meeting so thank you for providing this
detail now. There are no dimensions on the drawing for the hardscape so we cannot tell
how wide the driveway is or the dimensions of the entry. Reviewing a PDF does not allow
us to use a scale to extract the dimensions so we will require the landscape drawing to be
dimensioned in a complete submission.
However, this design appears too massive and elaborate in comparison to the streetscape.
The nearby properties do not have such excessive hardscape so the proposed design does
not appear to fit into the context of the street. There also appear to be pilasters but these
are not clearly identified. Some portions of the driveway (shown below) are too large and
unnecessary to allow safe vehicular access (page 13 of the design guidelines). We will
want to see this made less elaborate with reduced hardscape.
I hope that I sufficiently described our concerns and what we would like to see modified. We are
happy to schedule another meeting to discuss and answer questions.
Best regards,
Tom
References from the Arcadia SFR Design Guidelines.
Page 12:
Homes should not have significantly greater height and bulk at the front of a property than that of adjacent
homes.
Page 13:
Driveways should be no wider than necessary to provide for safe and efficient vehicular access to the
property in order to minimize the need for excessive paving.
Page 14:
Consistency and/or complementary architectural styles should be maintained within an existing
neighborhood context.
Page 15:
Second floor massing should be stepped back to minimize impacts on adjacent neighbors and the
streetscape.
A structure’s size and bulk should complement the predominant massing types of the neighborhood.
Page 17:
Combining two different roof pitches is discouraged. Traditional roof forms such as gables, hips, and
dormers are encouraged. More severe roof forms such as domes, steep chalet gables, and flat roofs are
generally discouraged.
Date: 4/21/2022
Hi Philip,
I reviewed your PPT and saw the homes you are comparing. I appreciate the effort put into this
but, the immediate neighborhood and streetscape that we are focused on is Oaklawn, not these
other streets. I understand the examples shown are meant to point out the range of designs that
have been designated as compatible on those streets. All I can say is that each street has its own
character and each design is considered on a case by case basis. And, sometimes we approve
things that after being built do not look compatible in retrospect. It would be more helpful and
appropriate to consider examples of the homes surrounding the proposed project on Oak Lawn.
Like I stated in my earlier communication, this is a beautiful house and would likely be an
appropriate design on Hacienda or Rodeo where larger homes exist. It is an immediately
recognizable design style and maintains that style consistently. However, Oak Lawn is primarily
single story ranch style homes and so finding a design that is compatible with (not necessarily a
ranch style) or contains design cues from the streetscape is what we are looking for. We are
trying harder to maintain the character of the individual streets in the Oaks and in doing so we
are asking designers to work with us to find more compatible designs while achieving the living
area they are targeting.
We have had other designers take on this challenge on Oak Lawn and create designs that mimic
a low profile design in front and push the second floor mass much further back with success.
Sticking with this particular English Tudor design on this street will result in a house that we are
concerned will not blend in but will stick out. We recognize the changes that have been made but
even with the changes there is nothing in this design that is taking cues from the Oak Lawn
streetscape.
Here are some of the key concepts taken directly from the Arcadia SFR design guidelines that
have us concerned:
•Objective 2: Create a streetscape presence that is visually pleasing through site planning
and building form and orientation while also maintaining neighborhood character.
•Objective 3: Ensure new homes and home additions are consistent in architectural style,
scale, massing, features, and quality as the surrounding neighborhood.
•In neighborhoods with an established architectural style or pattern(s), new homes or
remodels should enhance the neighborhood character. The stronger the existing
neighborhood pattern, the more important it is for an applicant to reinforce and respect
those existing patterns.
•In neighborhoods with existing, smaller homes, new homes should be designed with a
greater first floor area with additional setbacks at the second story of the new structure.
•Where a new second-story home or addition is proposed within a predominately 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.
•Proposed height and bulk should respect existing structures on neighboring properties
and not overwhelm them with disproportionate size and scale.
Date: 5/10/2022
Philip,
Let me say first that I very much appreciate your willingness to make these changes from the Tudor
design to the Traditional design. You have made progress towards the requests made and we are
getting closer. While both home designs are very handsome, we still feel that they are less
appropriate for the location of the project on Oaklawn, while potentially being perfect for some
other street in the Oaks.
The responsibility of the ARB is to 1) determine the appropriate site planning, massing, scale,
setbacks, architectural design, and exterior appearance of a proposed project; 2) determine whether
the exterior appearance of the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood; and 3)
mitigate potential impacts a proposed project may have on adjacent properties. These things are
inherently subjective and cannot be captured with simple parameters such as FAR, height, etc as you
described. That’s what makes this task so difficult to navigate for both the ARB and the designer but
hopefully by working through it together we end up with a better result.
We are providing the feedback below in the spirit of working together to find a design that better
fits in the proposed location. I hope you will take the feedback in a positive way and help us to find a
path forward. You may decide to hold a public hearing with what you have provided, as you
described in your email submission but I will leave that to you.
As far as the process for submitting the drawings and holding the public meeting, we are still not
comfortable meeting with a large group in the closed city meeting room. We prefer to continue with
the ZOOM meeting format and, as such, we can take the completed drawing package in PDF format
emailed to SAOHOAARB@gmail.com where they would be stamped, if approved, and sent back to
you, the city planning department, and the city clerk as we have done in the past.
The stamped envelopes and mailing labels can be dropped on the porch of 271 Arbolada Dr, Arcadia,
CA 91006.
Best regards,
Tom
1.Relocating mass of second story back toward the rear of the house
The second story mass has been reduced and partly hidden behind the steep roof, which is good
progress. But the drawings still show that about 75% of the second story remains at the front of
the house rather than being moved back toward the rear of the house in the current design
form. The second floor starts only about 4 feet back from the front of the house per the
drawings. The reason this is being suggested is to explore whether there is a design form that
better fits with the low one-story homes adjacent to this project.
Reference:
In neighborhoods with existing, smaller homes, new homes should be designed with a
greater first floor area with additional setbacks at the second story of the new structure.
Where a new second-story home or addition is proposed within a predominately 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.
Proposed height and bulk should respect existing structures on neighboring properties
and not overwhelm them with disproportionate size and scale.
Homes should not have significantly greater height and bulk at the front of a property
than that of adjacent homes.
Consistency and/or complementary architectural styles should be maintained within an
existing neighborhood context.
Second floor massing should be stepped back to minimize impacts on adjacent
neighbors and the streetscape.
2.Reinforcing existing neighborhood design patterns
Oak Lawn is predominantly low and wide ranch homes. There are some larger homes as your
materials show but these are mostly at the far opposite end in the cul-de-sac. There are a couple
of homes further down that are also quite large but these I refer to as the mistakes that the ARB
75% of the second-floor mass remains at
the front of the house
can make in envisioning the results when given imperfect renderings missing streetscape
depictions. I interpret the resolution referring to the neighborhood as the surrounding homes.
The character of the Oaks is vastly different on the west side versus the east side, so we need to
look more locally.
The homes near this project have certain characteristics including low and wide aspect ratio and
the use of horizontal design forms. It seems a larger home can be designed that includes these
design cues while pushing the second floor further back to minimize the difference in mass and
scale.
Date: 6/1/2022
Hi Philip,
I apologize for the length of time it took to get a meeting with the planning department, there
was some mix up about who would participate. Let me try my best to describe my view and what
I heard from people from the city. I will use your response to guide my comments:
If we revise the plan to address the remaining four items below, will there be another 4
new items? Below are our responses to your Comments. For the responses to the comments
we don't necessarily agree on, we are simply expressing our views, please don't take anything
as offensive. I will loop the comments back to the owner to see whether he would like to revise
the plan again or submit one of the versions presented. Again, thanks for your time.
1.Relocating the mass of the second story back toward the rear of the house
•We have already decreased the mass of the 2nd story and kept it at around 50% ratio as
suggested in the first meeting.
•We have already pushed the 2nd floor and hidden the mass inside the roofing structure.
•The width of the lot is OVER 100', and yet the 2nd floor is minuscule from the curb
appeal. Please take a look at A0 and A4.
•We don't see how setting the 2nd floor will improve the overall design since most of the
mass is hidden inside the roof. Please take a another look at A0 and A4.
•Our proposed 2nd floor exceeds the minimum setback requirement, scaling back from
adjacent homes.
•Again, we can step the 2nd story back towards the rear as suggested, but we have a
feeling the next Commet will be "the 2nd floor is too large" or "we don't support a 2-
story home."
I believe my comments have been consistent throughout and that there are no "new items"
therefore I don't expect anything new if we address them. Let me reiterate what I feel I've been
trying to say since I may not be describing it in a way that resonates. The prevailing
architectural style on Oak Lawn, especially in the vicinity of this project, are low, wide, and
mostly horizontally themed homes. This project proposes a very tall, highly angular design
which, I believe, will stick out in an inharmonious fashion. I've been saying it is a nicely
designed house that might fit beautifully on another street in another part of the oaks. But I
don't view this design as harmonious or compatible in the location it is proposed. In my
discussion with the city there was agreement that this style of house is not taking major design
cues from the streetscape and that the tall and angular design is making it very difficult to move
the second floor mass significantly back from the front of the house (it is currently only 4 feet
back from the first floor). I have tried to be consistent in my comments that this style of home is
likely preventing us from achieving this setback which would then allow something more
consistent with the horizontal design style of the nearby homes.
2.Reinforcing existing neighborhood design patterns
We can study each and every house within the context of the neighborhood and relate our design to the
neighborhood design pattern. We can also do a neighborhood outreach to obtain their comments.
Did they get a chance to review our latest plan? Please provide us the name of the planner that
provide the comments.
They have now seen the newest version. Fiona Graham and Lisa Flores have been involved, and perhaps
others.
3.City Planning Department Feedback
Feedback on the previous iteration was requested from the planning department. As such, some of the
comments are less cogent but overall, I feel that their feedback is valuable.
The style could be "softened" to a more traditional rather than Tudor style. Also, the brick could be
broken up with areas of stucco to provide greater contrast and reduce visible bulk.
The roof line of the second story could be brought down in height to reduce its bulk and make it
less prominent. The second story roof style could be changed (for example hips rather than gables) to
make it less visible/prominent from the street.
The second story layout could be pushed back to move a larger portion to the rear of the proposed
house rather than the front where it is now. I know this is something you've already requested, but
we feel as though this could help reduce the visibility from the street.
Did they get a chance to review our latest plan? Can you provide us the name of the planner that
provide the comments so that we can present the project to them directly?
The comments they made after seeing the new design were essentially the same as the above.
They did mention that if you were to insist on keeping this style of house, that reducing the
height of the ridge that runs parallel to the front of the house so that it is no higher than the
gable at the front of the house might make it appear less massive. They also commented that
the second floor north elevation lacks articulation and needs improvement, which I had not
focused on but agree with. They also noted that the very angular design makes being
harmonious with the horizontal design elements found on the streetscape very difficult.
4.Requesting Improved Streetscape Rendering
We have provided the streetscape rendering on page 0. We are happy to make that rendering
larger and on a separate sheet. We can also try to take a live photo of the neighboring homes
and incorporate that into the rendering. If you have any example of the streetscape rendering
submitted in the past, please provide.
I think that a larger rendering on a separate sheet and incorporating photos of the neighboring
homes would be very helpful for us to make a more informed decision. Thank you for that idea.
Summarizing:
I still feel that it is the angular design and height of the house that is making it difficult to be
harmonious and compatible with the mostly horizontal design elements of the street and is
preventing us from pushing the second floor significantly back from the first floor. While it is
"hidden" within the roof, that roof is a massive flat structure facing the street. If you plan to
keep this basic design of the home we would ask that you
1.Lower the ridgeline that is perpendicular to the front gable to meet the gable height
(not raise the gable to make them meet) to try to make the house appear less massive
2.Greatly improve the articulation of the north elevation on the second floor
3.Provide a larger streetscape drawing with photos of adjacent homes
I'm not confident this will eliminate my concerns like a design that incorporates more horizontal
elements and that allows the second floor to be pushed back would, but we would be at a point
with the design that we would hold a public hearing.
Since we will continue to hold these public meetings via ZOOM, we will work with the PDF files
directly sent to this address. Mailing labels and stamped envelopes can be left at 271 Arbolada
Dr.
Best regards,
Tom
Reference:
Objective 2: Create a streetscape presence that is visually pleasing through site planning
and building form and orientation while also maintaining neighborhood character.
Objective 3: Ensure new homes and home additions are consistent in architectural style,
scale, massing, features, and quality as the surrounding neighborhood.
In neighborhoods with an established architectural style or pattern(s), new homes or
remodels should enhance the neighborhood character. The stronger the existing
neighborhood pattern, the more important it is for an applicant to reinforce and respect
those existing patterns.
In neighborhoods with existing, smaller homes, new homes should be designed with a
greater first floor area with additional setbacks at the second story of the new structure.
Where a new second-story home or addition is proposed within a predominately 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.
3.City Planning Department Feedback
Feedback on the previous iteration was requested from the planning department. As such, some
of the comments are less cogent but overall, I feel that their feedback is valuable.
a.The style could be "softened" to a more traditional rather than Tudor style. Also, the
brick could be broken up with areas of stucco to provide greater contrast and reduce
visible bulk.
b.The roof line of the second story could be brought down in height to reduce its bulk and
make it less prominent. The second story roof style could be changed (for example hips
rather than gables) to make it less visible/prominent from the street.
c.The second story layout could be pushed back to move a larger portion to the rear of
the proposed house rather than the front where it is now. I know this is something
you've already requested, but we feel as though this could help reduce the visibility
from the street.
4.Requesting Improved Streetscape Rendering
The current rendering that allows the board and citizens to evaluate the design in the context of
the homes on the street (the streetscape) needs to be improved and made larger. This is a
critical piece of the package and information all present need to make an informed decision. The
city planning department made a similar comment, “provide better renderings, including in the
streetscape, of the current or updated design to better and more effectively illustrate how the
proposed house would look once completed.” Whether you decide to take any of this feedback
and make changes to the design, or you decide to move forward with this current design in a
public hearing, we are requesting that this key rendering be updated and included.
•Homes should not have significantly greater height and bulk at the front of a property
than that of adjacent homes.
•Consistency and/or complementary architectural styles should be maintained within an
existing neighborhood context.
•Second floor massing should be stepped back to minimize impacts on adjacent neighbors
and the streetscape.
•A structure’s size and bulk should complement the predominant massing types of the
neighborhood.
We can set up a time to discuss perhaps next week. Let me know what dates and times work for
you and I will try to get it set up.
Best regards,
Tom
Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, July 21, 2022
CALL TO ORDER - Chair Tom Walker called the remote meeting to order at 5:00 PM
PURPOSE – Review plans for new home at 1225 Oaklawn Road., Arcadia
ATTENDEES -
Tom Walker (chair, ARB)
Matt Rimmer (ARB)
Lorne Brodhead (ARB)
Vince Vargas (ARB)
Jessica Louie (ARB)
Alex Hou (owner)
Philip Chan (architect)
Jill Hisey (neighbor behind)
Shirley Chi (neighbor south)
Colleen (neighbor across street)
Angela Lin (neighbor next to Jill)
Jack (?)
BACKGROUND –
Several previous meetings had been held with the designer regarding the design and size of the
house resulting in changes to the house style which is now more traditional. Various sections of
the Arcadia single family development standards were referenced in numerous communications
with the designer in those meetings. Some progress was made in the design to be more
sensitive to the prevailing style of the surrounding properties, but issues remained.
PUBLIC COMMENTS –
The south neighbor noted that the large size of the upper floor would block her view of the mountains.
Discussions ensued but nothing was resolved. She also was concerned about large windows overlooking
her yard. The architect agreed to change these windows.
The neighbor behind noted that there is a utility easement that extends approximately 10 feet into the
backyard of the subject property and needs to be maintained. The architect agreed to maintain the
easement and replace the demolished fence. The neighbor also indicated that they believed some of the
proposed construction was on their property. The architect agreed to investigate.
Several neighbors stated that they have been unable to get the plans for the proposed house and that
the plans on the Arcadia web site are too hard to read. Tom Walker agreed to provide plans to anyone
requesting them.
Several neighbors commented on the massiveness of the house since its parameters were very close to
the maximum allowed in many cases and it seemed too large for the lot and the streetscape. The
neighbors commented that the second floor should be moved back further from the street. These
comments were in line with the previous communications between the ARB chair and the designer
leading to the public hearing.
It was also noted that the landscape plan was incomplete and needed more information. No plantings
are identified. Also, it was noted that the driveway and entry hardscape was excessive and is not
harmonious with the streetscape.
Because of these pending issues, Vince Vargas made a motion that the ARB hold a continuance of this
meeting. The architect agreed. Lorne Brodhead seconded the motion. The chair called for a vote which
was approved unanimously as follows:
Tom Walker (chair ARB) – Yes
Matt Rimmer (ARB) - Yes
Lorne Brodhead (ARB) - Yes
Vince Vargas (ARB) - Yes
Jessica Louie (ARB) - Yes
Meeting was closed at 6:15 PM.
Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, September 13, 2022
CALL TO ORDER - Chair Tom Walker called the remote meeting to order at 5:00 PM
PURPOSE – Continuation of 7/21/22 meeting for new home at 1225 Oaklawn Road., Arcadia
ATTENDEES -
Tom Walker (chair, ARB)
Matt Rimmer (ARB)
Vince Vargas (ARB)
Jessica Louie (ARB)
Gilbert Perez (ARB)
Philip Chan (architect)
Jill Hisey (neighbor behind)
Shirley Chi (neighbor south)
Colleen (neighbor across street)
Angela Lin (neighbor next to Jill)
Caliland Engineering, Inc.
Choi
David Sullivan (neighbor)
Jack (owner’s representative)
Steve Pelletier (neighbor)
Mark Gennaro (landscape designer)
BACKGROUND –
Several previous meetings had been held with the designer regarding the design and size of the
house resulting in changes to the house style which is now more traditional. Various sections of
the Arcadia single family development standards were referenced in numerous communications
with the designer in those meetings. Some progress was made in the design to be more
sensitive to the prevailing style of the surrounding properties, but issues remained. There was a
significant concern regarding mass and scale of the project in relation to the adjacent homes on
Oak Lawn which the ARB chairman has communicated in writing to the designer. These
communications are attached to the Finding and Actions form submitted to the city.
PUBLIC COMMENTS –
Most of the discussion was a continuation of previous discussions regarding the mass and scale of the
house and its lack of compatibility with the streetscape. There were strong objections to the house
from many of the neighbors at the meeting due to these concerns. The neighbors noted that the project
would tower 15’ over the homes on the street and they requested that the designer come up with a
one-story option. These comments were in line with the communications the ARB chair had with the
designer. Similar objections were voiced from two of the ARB members.
Several minor changes were also discussed and agreed to by the architect and owner, as follows
1.Reduce size of pilasters adjacent to the driveway in front yard setback and remove the lights
2.Provide detail on the plantings (no planting references were provided with the landscape
plan)
3.Remove the spillway to the pool
4.Install a vinyl fence on the easement line to place the fence that was removed
5.Remove the rear deck
6.Remove the balcony for privacy reasons
The chair then called for a vote from the ARB on the project including the above changes. The motion
was approved by a vote of 3 to 2 as follows
Tom Walker (chair ARB) – No
Matt Rimmer (ARB) - Yes
Gil Perez (ARB) - Yes
Vince Vargas (ARB) - No
Jessica Louie (ARB) - Yes
Meeting was closed at 6:33 PM.
Planning Commission Attachment No. 6
Planning Commission
Attachment No. 6
Preliminary Arborist’s Report
1225 Oaklawn Rd Arcadia, CA 91006
Prepared for:
Philip Chan c/o PDS Studio
711 First Ave Arcadia, CA 91006
Arcadia, CA 91006
October 12, 2021
Prepared by:
Javier Cabral Consulting Arborist
International Society of Arborists # WE- 8116A
1390 El Sereno Ave
Pasadena, California 91103
(626)818-8704
jctcabral@sbcglobal.net
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 1
Table of contents
Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------ pg. 3
Background and assignment Summary ------------------------------- pg. 3
Google Earth Image & Site Conditions ------------------------------- pg. 4
List Inventory ------------------------------------------------------------- pg. 5
Site Plan With Trees ----------------------------------------------------- pg. 6 & 7
Tree Pictures -------------------------------------------------------------- pg. 8 thru 20
Protection Guidelines ---------------------------------------------------- pg. 21 thru 26
Certificate of performance & Disclosure Statement ----------------- pg. 28
Arborist Signature Page ------------------------------------------------- Pg. 29
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 2
Summary
Mr. Chan,
You have retained my consulting arborist services to provide a tree inventory and protection plan for the
property described as 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006. You are in the planning and permitting process of
demolishing the existing single-family home and redeveloping the property with a new two-story single-family
home.
The proposed demolition and construction is expected to have minimal impact to the protected trees that will
remain due to the distance of excavations, trenches, and footings to the tree trunks. A complete tree protection
plan will be included to protect above and below ground tree parts from physical damage, soil compaction, and
chemical damage.
Background and assignment
Mr. Chan has requested that I provide the following arboricultural services.
1)Identify all significant trees and protected trees on the property and label them on the
architectural drawings as provided to the arborist by Mr. Philip Chan.
2)Evaluate the current health of the trees and possible impacts of the proposed construction based
on the provided site plan and make recommendations.
3)Provide a tree protection plan that will help ensure the short and long term health of the protected
trees that will remain during and after construction activities are completed.
The following report is based on my site visit on February 23, 2020 and my analysis of the trees, site
plan, and surrounding landscape. For the purpose of this report I will address these trees as Trees # 1
thru 12.
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 3
Site conditions
A one-story single-family home currently exists on this property located 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006.
1)There are 12 total trees on the subject property of which 5 trees are protected by the City of Arcadia Tree
Protection Ordinance due to their location and species.
2)There are no protected trees proposed to be removed.
Google Earth Image
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 4
General Tree Condition Rating Guidelines (one or more of the below mentioned defects may not be present but
one or more may be so extensive that it may downgrade a tree that would otherwise qualify for example, a (C)
grade to a (D) grade due to the severity of the defect. As the consulting arborist I will make any annotation when
the aforementioned conditions are the case so that the grade is better understood. Each tree will be rated as an
individual tree with its structure, canopy, and root system.
List Inventory pg. 1
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 5
A)- Healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
B)- A tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.
C)- A tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning crown, poor leaf color, moderate
structural defects that might be mitigated.
D)– A tree in decline, epicormics growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural
defects that cannot be abated.
F)– A tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and or trunk, mostly epicormics growth, extensive
structural defects that cannot be abated.
Site Plan With Trees (Full scale)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 6
Site Plan With Trees (cropped)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 7
Trees # 1 thru 3 (facing southwest)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 8
Tree # 3 (facing south)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 9
# 3 Coast live oak
Dbh = 16+55 in.
Sparse canopy
Tree # 3 (facing east)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 10
# 3 Coast live oak
Dbh = 16+55 in.
Large fungal conk
was removed here
Fungal conk here
Fungal conk here
Dead cracking bark
throughout the lower trunk
Tree # 3 (facing east)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 11
# 3 Coast live oak
Dbh = 16+55 in.
Dead discolored wood
underneath the dead bark
Tree # 4 (facing west)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 12
# 4 Coast live oak
Dbh 20+24 in.
Tree # 5 (facing southwest)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 13
#5 Carolina cherry
Dbh = 8 in.
Above ground
decaying root
Above ground
decaying root
Tree # 6 (facing west)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 14
# 6 Lemon
Dbh = 1+1+1+1+2+2+3 in.
Tree # 7 (facing north)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 15
# 7 Orange
Dbh 1+1+1+2+2+2+3+3+3 in.
Tree # 8 (facing west)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 16
# 8 Shamel ash
Dbh = 4+10 in.
Tree 9 (facing south)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 17
# 9 Coast live oak
Dbh = 29 in.
Tree # 10 (facing southwest)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 18
# 10 Pecan
Dbh = 13 in.
Tree # 11 (facing east)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 19
# 11 Crape myrtle
Dbh = 2+2+3+4+5+5+6+7 in.
Tree 12 (facing east)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 20
General Tree Protection Plan
1)Avoid damaging the roots, stem, and branches with mechanical and manual equipment. No roots shall
be severed within the Tree Protection Zone “TPZ” which is the same as the area within the Tree
Protection Fencing “TPF.” Roots greater than two inches in diameter outside of the TPZ shall be cleanly
severed with a sharp tool such as a hand saw or manual pruners.
2)Avoid soil compaction by prohibiting the use of heavy equipment such as backhoes and bobcats under
the tree drip line. If access within the TPZ is required during the construction process, the route shall be
covered in a 6 inch layer of mulch in the TPZ and the area shall be aerated and fertilized at the conclusion
of construction.
3)Do not store or park tools, equipment, vehicles, or chemicals under the tree drip line. No equipment or
debris of any kind shall be placed within the TPZ. No fuel, paint, solvent oil, thinner, asphalt, cement,
grout, or any other construction chemical shall be stored or allowed in any manner to enter within the
TPZ.
4)Avoid washing of equipment and tools such as wheel barrels, shovels, and mechanical motors under the
tree drip line.
5)Prevent flooding and pooling of service water under the drip line. Grade changes that will flood the TPZ
are prohibited unless a drainage plan is implemented. No grade changes within the TPZ shall be allowed.
6)Avoid cutting tree roots whenever possible. This can sometimes be accomplished by bridging roots,
tunneling, or radial trenching. If roots must be cut use a sharp tool that will make a clean flush cut and not
tear the roots. If possible all digging under the tree drip line should be done manually to avoid tearing out
of roots. Roots outside of the TPZ may be cleanly severed vertically with a sharp garden tool.
7)Do not raise or lower the grade within the tree protection zone of any protected trees unless approved
by the project arborist. Roots greater than 1 inch in diameter that are exposed or damaged shall be cut
with a sharp tool such as a hand saw, pruners, or loppers and covered with soil in conformance to industry
standards as soon as possible. If any work is required within the TPZ the Arborist shall be consulted
previous to beginning. The Arborist shall be contacted as soon as possible to arrange for a timely
inspection and prevent delays.
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 21
8) Protection fencing shall be 5 to 6 ft. high chain link freestanding panels or secured to posts driven into the
ground. There shall be no entry gates into the protected zones. The protection fencing shall be in place
before demolition begins and shall only be removed or reduced when all heavy equipment such as
back-hoes, bobcats, loaders, and other heavy equipment with tires and tracks will not be required.
Fencing can be adjusted or sections reduced or removed as the project advances into the landscaping
phases of the project. The consulting arborist shall be contacted if there are doubts about the placement or
removal of fencing.
9) Landscape preparation & excavation within the TPZ shall be limited to the use of hand tools and
small hand-held power tools and shall not be of a depth that could cause root damage. No attachments or
wires other than those of a protective or non-damaging method shall be attached to a protected tree.
10) Construction personnel should be briefed on the importance of the guidelines before construction
begins and reminded of it during tailgate meetings and as necessary. A printed copy should be posted
where employees can be reminded of it.
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 22
Site Plan With Protection Fencing (cropped)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 23
Site Plan With Manual Excavations (Cropped)
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 24
Tree # 1 Holly oak Protection Details
a)Structural excavation and over-excavation: Tree # 1 is a very long distance from structural excavations
and no work is proposed anywhere near the drip line. Impact is expected to be be zero.
b)New driveway: The new section of driveway adjacent to this tree is proposed in the footprint of the
existing driveway and the impact to this Oak tree from the new driveway is expected to be minimal to
zero.
c)New Landscaping: The removal of the existing plants and ground cover under the drip line of this tree
shall be done manually with manual tools only to prevent severe root disturbance and damage.
d)New Sprinklers: No broadcast trenching for sprinklers shall be performed within 12 ft. of the edge of the
tree trunk on all sides of this tree. The sprinkler water shall not wet the trunk of this tree to prevent
fungal infection from persistent trunk moisture.
e)Canopy pruning: No pruning of this tree will be required to complete the proposed construction
project.
f)Root pruning: Roots within 12 ft. from the trunk that are encountered for the proposed driveway and
sprinkler excavations shall be cleanly severed in a vertical position.
g)Protection Fencing: shall consist of 6 ft. high chain link free standing panels and shall be in place before
any works begins including demolition. All protection fencing may be removed or reduced when all
heavy equipment and major construction is completed and landscaping is ready to be installed.
h)Maintenance: During the hot summer months this tree shall be watered as needed until the sprinkler
system is installed and working.
i)Encroachment impacts: This project is expected to have a minimal to zero impact on the short- or long-
term health of this tree and it is expected to survive in good health if the protection recommendations
are followed and adhered to. minimal impact means that no roots greater than two inches are expected
to be impacted and no interruption to water uptake or nutrient production, transportation, or storage.
Tree stability and anchorage, trunk, branch, and leaves are not expected to be impacted.
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 25
Trees # 2 thru 4 Coast live oak trees Protection Details
a)Structural excavation and over-excavation: Structural excavations do not encroach into the drip line of
the canopy of Trees # 2 & 3. The structural excavations for the front of the house encroach slightly into
the drip line of Tree # 4 but the impact is expected to be minimal because the foundations are very close
to the existing foundations where roots disturbance is expected to be minimal.
b)New driveway: The new section of driveway adjacent to these trees is at a distance that is acceptable
and the impact to these Oak trees from the new driveway is expected to be minimal to moderate.
c)New Landscaping: The removal of the existing plants and ground cover under the drip line of this tree
shall be done manually with manual tools only to prevent severe root disturbance and damage.
d)New Sprinklers: No broadcast trenching for sprinklers shall be performed within 12 ft. of the edge of the
tree trunk on all sides of these trees. The sprinkler water shall not wet the trunk of this tree to prevent
fungal infection from persistent trunk moisture.
e)Canopy pruning: No pruning of these trees will be required to complete the proposed construction
project.
f)Root pruning: Roots encountered during the excavation for the new circular driveway shall be cleanly
severed with a sharp tool and cut in a vertical position.
g)Protection Fencing: shall consist of 6 ft. high chain-link free-standing panels and shall be in place before
any works begins including demolition. All protection fencing may be removed or reduced when all
heavy equipment and major construction is completed, and landscaping is ready to be installed.
h)Maintenance: During the hot summer months these trees shall be watered as needed until the sprinkler
system is installed and working.
i)Encroachment impacts: This project is expected to have a minimal to moderate impact on the short- or
long-term health of this tree and it expected to survive in their existing health if the protection
recommendations are followed and adhered to. Moderate impact means that roots greater than two
inches are expected to be impacted but no interruption to water uptake or nutrient production,
transportation, or storage. Tree stability and anchorage, trunk, branch, and leaves are not expected to
be impacted.
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 26
Tree # 9 Coast live oak trees Protection Details
a)Structural excavation and over-excavation: The proposed new house encroaches slightly into the drip
line of this Oak tree. Impact is expected to be minimal.
b)New Concrete Patio & Swimming Pool: The edge of the excavation for the proposed concrete patio and
proposed swimming pool on the side of the tree trunk shall be manually excavated as described on pg. #
25.
c)New Landscaping: The removal of the existing plants and ground cover under the drip line of this tree
shall be done manually with manual tools only to prevent severe root disturbance and damage.
d)New Sprinklers: No broadcast trenching for sprinklers shall be performed within 12 ft. of the edge of the
tree trunk on all sides of these trees. The sprinkler water shall not wet the trunk of this tree to prevent
fungal infection from persistent trunk moisture.
e)Canopy pruning: No pruning of this tree beyond the removal of dead wood will be required to complete
the proposed construction project.
f)Root pruning: Roots encountered during the excavation for the new concrete patio and swimming pool
shal be exposed and cleanly severed with a sharp vertical cut.
g)Protection Fencing: shall consist of 6 ft. high chain-link free-standing panels and shall be in place before
any works begins including demolition. All protection fencing may be removed or reduced when all
heavy equipment and major construction is completed, and landscaping is ready to be installed.
h)Maintenance: During the hot summer months this tree shall be watered as needed until the sprinkler
system is installed and working.
i)Encroachment impacts: This project is expected to have a minimal impact on the short- or long-term
health of this tree and it expected to survive in good health if the protection recommendations are
followed and adhered to. minimal impact means that no roots greater than two inches are expected to
be impacted and no interruption to water uptake or nutrient production, transportation, or storage.
Tree stability and anchorage, trunk, branch, and leaves are not expected to be impacted.
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 27
Certificate of Performance & Limiting Conditions
I Javier Cabral certify the following:
•No warranty is made, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees or the property will not
occur in the future, from any cause. The Arborist shall not be responsible for damages or injuries caused by any
tree defects, and assume no responsibility for the correction of defects or tree related problems.
•The owner and client of the trees may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the Arborist or
seek additional advice if the owner decides not to accept the Arborists findi ngs or recommendations.
•The Arborist has no past, present or future interest in the removal or preservation of any tree. The opinions
contained in the Arborist report are independent and objective judgements of the Arborist.
•The findings, opinions, and recommendations of the Arborist are based on based on the physical inspection of
said property. The opinions are based on knowledge, experience, and education.
•The Arborist shall not be required to provide testimony, provide site monitoring, provide further documentation
for changes beyond the control of the Arborist, be deposed, or to attend any meeting without contractual
arrangements for additional fees to the Arborist.
•The Arborist assumes no responsibility for verification of ownership or location of property lines, or for any
recommendations based on inaccurate information.
•This Arborist report may not be reproduced without the expressed written permission or the Arborist and the
client to whom the report was provided to. Any changes o r alteration of this report invalidates the entire report.
•Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine
trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, make recommendations to prevent or
minimize damage to trees during and after construction projects, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near
trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek
additional advice.
•Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees
are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within
trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all
circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot
be guaranteed.
•Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the ar borist’s
services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and
other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate
information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the
completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
•Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk.
The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 28
Philip Chan “PDS Studio” 1225 Oaklawn Rd. Arcadia, CA 91006 October 12, 2021
Javier Cabral / Consulting Arborist Pg. # 29
Planning Commission Attachment No. 7
Planning Commission
Attachment No. 7
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
Date: November 9, 2022 Staff: Fiona Graham, Planning Services Manager
1.Name or description of project:A new 6,138 square foot, two-story, Cape Cod style residence
with an attached four-car garage, and several covered porches
totaling 1,075 square feet at 1225 Oaklawn Road
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):
1225 Oaklawn Road, Arcadia, CA 91006
3.Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B.Other (Private)
(1)Name Yaping Zhu, Dawen Gao, Yan Zhao
(2)Address 310 Cambridge 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: 15303(a) – Construction of a new home
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:
Exhibit No. 5
Exhibit No. 5
Architectural Drawings approved by the
Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review
Board
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$VLQGLFDWHG
$0
&KHFNHU
&29(56+((7
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
352-(&7$''5(66
/276,=( /276,=(
$31
=21,1*
180%(52)6725<
'(02/,7,21 '(02/,7,21
2&&83$1&<*5283
&216758&7,217<3(
+2$$5($
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
5
$//(;,67,1*6758&785($//(;,67,1*6758&785(
58
9%
6$17$$1,7$2$.6
6)
6)
/276,=(
0$;)$5
6&23(2):25.
&216758&71(:6725<6,1*/()$0,/<+20(&216758&71(:6725<6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
:$77$&+('&$5*$5$*(:$77$&+('&$5*$5$*(
352-(&7'$7$
/27&29(5$*(
$5($6,=( 6)
VW)/5/,9,1*$5($6)
&+,01(< 6)
%$<:,1'2:6)
5($5325&+6)
&$5*$5$*( 6)
&29(5('325&+6)
)5217325&+6)
6,'(325&+6)
6,'(325&+6)
5($5325&+6)
727$//27&29(5$*($5($ 6)
727$//,9,1*$5($
$5($6,=( 6)
VW)/5/,9,1*$5($6)
QG)/5/,9,1*$5($ 6)
727$//,9,1*$5($ 6)
)$5&$/&8/$7,21
$5($1$0($5($ 6)
VW)/5/,9,1*$5($6)
QG)/5/,9,1*$5($ 6)
*$5$*(:6)(;&(037('6)
+,*+&/*$5($ 6)
+,*+&/*$5($6)
727$/)$5$5($ 6)
0$;$//2:$%/(/27&29(5$*( 6)
$//1(:&216758&7,215(48,5(65(6,'(17,$/
),5(635,1./(56),5(635,1./(5'(6,*1$1'
,167$//$7,216+$//%($&&25',1*/<727+(
67$1'$5'6$33529('%<7+(),5('(3$570(17
3/$166+$//%(68%0,77('',5(&7/<727+(),5(
'(3$570(17)255(9,(:$1')257+(5(48,5('
3(50,7635,2572&216758&7,2125,163(&7,216
$//&21&5(7(%/2&.:$//)(1&(6+$//%(
68%0,77('81'(56(3$5$7(3(50,7
3('(675,$166+$//%(3527(&7(''85,1*
&216758&7,215(02'(/,1*$1''(02/,7,21
$&7,9,7,(66,*16+$//%(3529,'('72',5(&7
3('(675,$175$)),&%$55,(566+$//%(
&216758&7(')25&%&&29(5('
:$/.:$<66+$//&203/<:,7+&%&
75((3527(&7,21127(6 75((3527(&7,21127(6 )25(;,67,1*75((672
5(0$,1216,7(12'$0$*($//2:('72&$123<
2552276<67(063527(&7,9()(1&,1*$6
1(&(66$5<$1'75((6$5(72%('((3:$7(5('
7,0(63(50217+25$63(55(48,5('72
.((37+(0+($/7+<817,/,55,*$7,21,6
,167$//('
/$1'6&$3,1*5(48,5('/$1'6&$3,1*5(48,5(' /$1'6&$3,1*0867%(
3529,'('$1'0$,17$,1('7+528*+287
5(48,5('6(7%$&.6,181,03529('&,7<5,*+7
2):$<$'-$&(17727+(3523(57<$1'27+(5
$5($69,6,%/()520$38%/,&5,*+72):$<
:+(5(12786(')25$&&(66/$1'6&$3,1*0867
&216,672)$1())(&7,9(&20%,1$7,212)75((6
*5281'&29(5$1'6+58%%(5<$///$1'6&$3('
$5($60867+$9($3(50$1(17$8720$7('
81'(5*5281')8//&29(5$*(,55,*$7,21
6<67(0
1,&6(3$5$7(3(50,7,65(48,5(')25),5(
635,1./(5*5$',1* '5$,1$*($1'
/$1'6&$3(:,//%(216(3$5$7(3(50,76
&85%6$1'*877(566+$//%(5(3/$&('3(5&85%6$1'*877(566+$//%(5(3/$&('3(5
&,7<67$1'$5'6&,7<67$1'$5'6
2$.75((635(6(17216,7(5()(572$5%25,672$.75((635(6(17216,7(5()(572$5%25,67
5(3257)253527(&7,21127(6$1'0(7+2'65(3257)253527(&7,21127(6$1'0(7+2'6
*(1(5$/127(6
0$;)$5$//2:(' 6)
$5($&$/&8/$7,21
6+((7,1'(;
//
&&
&29(56+((7&29(56+((7
6,7(3/$16,7(3/$1
7232*5$3+,&6859(<7232*5$3+,&6859(<
6,7($1$/<6,66,7($1$/<6,6
67)/2253/$167)/2253/$1
1')/2253/$11')/2253/$1
522)3/$1522)3/$1
(/(9$7,216(/(9$7,216
(/(9$7,216(/(9$7,216
'(7$,/6'(7$,/6
/$1'6&$3(3/$1/$1'6&$3(3/$1
&21&(378$/*5$',1*3/$1&21&(378$/*5$',1*3/$1
1(:6,1*/()$0,/<+20(_2$./$:152$'$5&$',$
5$7,22)QG)/572VW)/5
/ 7
/
6
/ 7
$92&$'2
&,7586
%86+
+('*(
2$
.
/
$
:
1
5
'
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)/
)/
)
/
/,
3
/,
3
/,
3
/,
3
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
1((1'2)
:22')(1&(217232)%/2&.:$//
6
6
:
6
:
6
(
1
:
/
'
5
(;
+&+$,1/,1.)(1&(
(;
+&+$,1/,1.)(1&(
72%(5(029('
(;2$.75((
72%(35(6(59('$1'
3527(&7('
75((
75((
'523,1/(7
/
'
5
&,7586
(;2$.75((
72%(35(6(59('$1'3527(&7('
75((
(;2$.75((
72%(35(6(59('$1'3527(&7('
(;2$.75((
72%(35(6(59('$1'3527(&7('
3(33(5675((775((72%(5(029('
:0
*$6
(;675((7/,*+7
(;38//%2;
1(:6725<
6,1*/()$0,/<
+20(
)52176%
1(
:
6
:
,
0
0
,
1
*
3
2
2
/
81
'
(
5
6
(
3
$
5
$
7
(
3
(
5
0
,
7
&21&3$7,2
5($5&29(5('325&+
&$5*$5$*(
V
W
)
/
5
6
,
'
(
6
%
(;6725<
+20(
(;6725<
*$5$*(
(;6725<
*$5$*(
(;6725<
+20(
/$:1$5($
1 322/(48,30(17
81'(56(3$5$7(68%0,77$/
QG)/5/,1(
QG)/5/,1(
QG)/5/,1(
QG)/5/,1(
/$:1$5($
/$:1$5($
%$<:,1'2:352-(&7,21
12)227,1*
&+,01(<%8,/',1*
352-(&7,21
$&81,76
$&81,7 5(
4
'
6
%
)5217
325&+
)5
2
1
7
32
5
&
+
(/(&75,&$/
5220
&29(5('325&+
5(
4
'
V
W
)
/
5
6
%
5(
4
'
Q
G
)
/
5
6
%
5(4
'V
W
Q
G
5
(
$
5
6
%
V
W
)
/
5
6
%
5(
4
'
Q
G
)
/
5
6
%
5(
4
'
V
W
)
/
5
6
%
5(
4
'
Q
G
)
/
5
6
%
Q
G
)
/
5
6
%
$&81,7
V
W
)
/
5
5
(
$
5
6
%
63$
($6(0(
1
7
32
2
/
(4
8
,
3
0
(
1
7
Q
G
)
/
5
5
(
$
5
6
%
QG)/5/,1(
1(:
+9,1</)(1&(
&2/25 :+,7(
1(:
+9,1</)(1&(
&2/25 :+,7(
6)
)5217<$5'
6+$'('
/$1'6&$3($5($
6)
727$/)5217<$5'$5($
6)
+$5'6&$3($5($
6)
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$VLQGLFDWHG
$0
&KHFNHU
6,7(3/$1
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
6&$/(
6,7(3/$1
/$1'6$&3(&$/&8/$7,21
$
%
&
'
(
)
$//1(:&216758&7,215(48,5(65(6,'(17,$/),5(
635,1./(56),5(635,1./(5'(6,*1$1'
,167$//$7,216+$//%($&&25',1*/<727+(
67$1'$5'6$33529('%<7+(),5('(3$570(17
3/$166+$//%(68%0,77('',5(&7/<727+(),5(
'(3$570(17)255(9,(:$1')257+(5(48,5('
3(50,7635,2572&216758&7,2125,163(&7,216
$//&21&5(7(%/2&.:$//)(1&(6+$//%(
68%0,77('81'(56(3$5$7(3(50,7
3('(675,$166+$//%(3527(&7(''85,1*
&216758&7,215(02'(/,1*$1''(02/,7,21
$&7,9,7,(66,*16+$//%(3529,'('72',5(&7
3('(675,$175$)),&%$55,(566+$//%(
&216758&7(')25&%&&29(5(':$/.:$<6
6+$//&203/<:,7+&%&
75((3527(&7,21127(6 75((3527(&7,21127(6 )25(;,67,1*75((672
5(0$,1216,7(12'$0$*($//2:('72&$123<25
52276<67(063527(&7,9()(1&,1*$61(&(66$5<
$1'75((6$5(72%('((3:$7(5('7,0(63(5
0217+25$63(55(48,5('72.((37+(0+($/7+<
817,/,55,*$7,21,6,167$//('
/$1'6&$3,1*5(48,5('/$1'6&$3,1*5(48,5(' /$1'6&$3,1*0867%(
3529,'('$1'0$,17$,1('7+528*+2875(48,5('
6(7%$&.6,181,03529('&,7<5,*+72):$<
$'-$&(17727+(3523(57<$1'27+(5$5($6
9,6,%/()520$38%/,&5,*+72):$<:+(5(127
86(')25$&&(66/$1'6&$3,1*0867&216,672)
$1())(&7,9(&20%,1$7,212)75((6*5281'&29(5
$1'6+58%%(5<$///$1'6&$3('$5($60867+$9(
$3(50$1(17$8720$7('81'(5*5281')8//
&29(5$*(,55,*$7,216<67(0
6,'(:$/.&85%$1'*877(56+$//%(5(3/$&('
3(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
127(6
&216758&71(:'5,9(:$<$3352$&+3(5&,7<67$1'$5'
6&25('&21&5(7('5,9(:$<:%25'(58&57$1)520&2/25)8//
/$1'6&$3($5($
/$:1$5($
&21&5(7(:$/.:$<
1(:
[
+:,*$7(
[+73,/$67(5678&&2('7$1720$7&+%/'*
[+73,/$67(5
*5$9(/3(%%/(:$/.:$<
:[
+'5,9(:$<*$7(:,
/2:*$5'(1:$//
6721(3$9(53$':,7+:,'(6<17+(7,&675,36
6721(3$9(53$'6
9,1</:$//
6,7(3/$1.(<127(
1
6(7%$&.&$/&8/$7,21
5(48,5(')5217<$5'6(7%$&.
$9(5$*(2)7:2$'-+20(6
5(48,5('VW)/56,'(<$5'6(7%$&.
2)/27:,'7+ $7)52173/ [
5(48,5('QG)/56,'(<$5'6(7%$&.
2)/27:,'7+ $7)52173/ [
5(48,5('VWQG5($5<$5'6(7%$&.
/27'(37+
+286(217+(1257+
5,'*(
))
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
)/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)/
)/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)
/
)/
/,
3
/,
3
/,
3
/,
3
/,
3
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
:
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
7
&
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$0
&KHFNHU
7232*5$3+,&
6859(<
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
6&$/(
7232*5$3+,&6859(<1
2$./$:1
2$./$:1+286(217+(5,*+7
5,'*(
))+286(217+(/()7
5,'*(
))
522)5,'*(
522)5,'*(
522)5,'*(
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$VLQGLFDWHG
$0
&KHFNHU
6,7($1$/<6,6
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
6&$/(
1(,*+%25&203$5,621
6&$/(
$(5,$/9,(:
:,1(
&(//$5
%5($.)$67122.
23(172$%29(
:2.
*5($75220
3$175<
)$0,/<5220
.,7&+(1
)2<(5
32:'(5
(/(9$725
5($5325&+
)5
2
1
7
3
2
5
&
+
:(7
%$5
/,%5$5<
&$5*$5$*(
[
&6#
$))
[
&6#
$))
[
);#
$))
[
;
&
6
Z
)
;
#
$
)
)
7*
[
'%/&6#
$))
[
'%/&6
#
$))
[
#
$
)
)
7*
[
'%/&6
#
$))
%('5220
%('5220
&+,01(<%8,/',1*352-(&7,21
+,*+&(,/,1*
[
#
$
)
)
7*
+,*+&(,/,1*
0$;
/$
8
1
'
5
<
0
8
'
5
2
2
0
+20(7+($7(5
%$
7
+
5
2
2
0
:,&
&/
2
6
(
7
(/(&75,&$/5220
%$7+
[
;
&
6
Z
)
;
#
$
)
)
[
6
/
#
$
)
)
[
&6#
$))
[
P '%/&6#
$))7*
6,',1*
%$<:,1'2:352-(&7,21
12)227,1*
[
;&6);#
$))7*
(4
(4
[
;
&
6
Z
)
;
#
$
)
)
7*
[
P '%/&6:);75#
$))
7*
[
;
&
6
Z
)
;
#
$
)
)
7*
&29(5('
325&+
5($5325&+
$
$
$
$
$
$
+,*+&(,/,1*
0$;
+,*+&(,/,1*
0$;
+,*+&(,/,1*
0$;
325&+
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$0
&KHFNHU
VW)/2253/$1
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
6&$/(
VW)/53/$11
72
6
7
)
/
5
'1
/,1(1&/26(7
%('5220
%('5220
0$67(5&/26(7
0$
6
7
(
5
%
$
7
+
%$7+%$
7
+
&/26(7
0$67(5%('5220
(/(9$725
6+$)7
[
P
'
%
/
&
6
#
$
)
)
[
P
'
%
/
&
6
#
$
)
)
/2)7'(1
[
$:#
$))
[
&6
#
$))
[
&
6
#
$
)
)
[
&
6
#
$
)
)
[
$:#
$))
[
$:#
$))
[
#
$))
[
#
$
)
)
23(172%(/2:
23
(
1
7
2
%
(
/
2
:
&/26(7
[
;
&
6
Z
)
;
#
$
)
)
[
7
5
3
/
&
6
#
$
)
)
[
$:#
$))
[
$:#
$))
[
$:#
$))
[
$:#
$))
[
$:#
$))
[
$:#
$))
[
$:#
$))
[
);#
$))
$
$
$
$
$
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$0
&KHFNHU
QG)/2253/$1
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
1
6&$/(
QG)/53/$1
'DWH'DWH
62
/
$
5
3
$
1
(
/
6
81
'
(
5
6
(
3
$
5
$
7
(
6
8
%
0
,
7
7
$
/
6&$/(
522)3/$1
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$0
&KHFNHU
522)3/$1
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
1
VW))
723
QG))
723
725
VW))
723
$9(5$*(*5$'(
QG))
723
725
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$0
&KHFNHU
(/(9$7,216
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
(/(9$7,21 )5217
%25$/522)7,/(_0$'(5$ _9,17$*(:22'
)$6&,$_'811(':$5'6_%/$&.
:,1'2:6_-(/':(1_6,7(/,1((;:22'&/$'_
%/$&._:,'(0817,1*5,'
:22'75,0_'811(':$5'6_3$,17('_:+,7(
0(5/(;678&&2_60227+),1,6+_2$70($/
6,',1*_-$0(6+$5',(6,',1*_/$36,',1*_
3$,17(':+,7(
6,',1*$7*$%/(_-$0(6+$5',(6,',1*_
67$**(5('3$1(/6_3$,17(''( '811
(':$5'6 &$/,&252&.
6721(9(1((5_&28*$56721(_02&+$18(5$
&52:1028/',1*_;:22'_3$,17(':+,7(
(/(9$7,21),1,6+6&+('8/(
(/(9$7,21 6,'(
:22':25._:22':25.%<27+(56_
3$,17(':+,7(
'(&25$7,9(9(17:'(17,/6_
:22':25.%<27+(56_3$,17(':+,7(
(;7(5,25/,*+7,1*_482,=(/
/,*+7,1*_78'25&2//(&7,21_0<67,&
%/$&.
*$5$*('225_&$55,$*(67</(*$5$*(
'225_:+,7(
&+,01(<6+528'_&2/25&2$7('
$/80,180_:+,7(
:528*+7,521_,521:25.%<27+(56
_:+,7(&2/25
VW))
723
$9(5$*(*5$'(
QG))
723
725
VW))
723
QG))
723
725
VW))
723
$9(5$*(*5$'(
QG))
VW))
723
$9(5$*(*5$'(
QG))
723
725
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$0
&KHFNHU
(/(9$7,216
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
(/(9$7,21 5($5
%25$/522)7,/(_0$'(5$ _9,17$*(:22'
)$6&,$_'811(':$5'6_%/$&.
:,1'2:6_-(/':(1_6,7(/,1((;:22'&/$'_
%/$&._:,'(0817,1*5,'
:22'75,0_'811(':$5'6_3$,17('_:+,7(
0(5/(;678&&2_60227+),1,6+_2$70($/
6,',1*_-$0(6+$5',(6,',1*_/$36,',1*_
3$,17(':+,7(
6,',1*$7*$%/(_-$0(6+$5',(6,',1*_
67$**(5('3$1(/6_3$,17(''( '811
(':$5'6 &$/,&252&.
6721(9(1((5_&28*$56721(_02&+$18(5$
&52:1028/',1*_;:22'_3$,17(':+,7(
(/(9$7,21),1,6+6&+('8/(
(/(9$7,21 6,'(
(/(9$7,21
(/(9$7,21
:22':25._:22':25.%<27+(56_
3$,17(':+,7(
'(&25$7,9(9(17:'(17,/6_
:22':25.%<27+(56_3$,17(':+,7(
(;7(5,25/,*+7,1*_482,=(/
/,*+7,1*_78'25&2//(&7,21_0<67,&
%/$&.
*$5$*('225_&$55,$*(67</(*$5$*(
'225_:+,7(
&+,01(<6+528'_&2/25&2$7('
$/80,180_:+,7(
:528*+7,521_,521:25.%<27+(56
_:+,7(&2/25
9+0&19
41
«
/
+
0
«
.
#
2
9+0&19
41
6,//
/,17(/
$
%
&
5''«016'
$'.19
,167$//:,1'2:-$0%1$,/,1*
)/$1*(629(5$&217,18286%($'
2)6($/$17217+(02,676723 25
(48$/ ,167$//7+(:,1'2:+($'
02,676723 25(48$/ 21$
&217,18286%($'2)6($/$17
$33/,('727+(:,1'2:+($'
1$,/,1*)/$1*(
0267&20021/<86('7<3(2)0(7$/)5$0(
685)$&(02817(' )2527+(57<3(62))5$0(6
63(&,$/$77(17,210867%(3$,'727+(0$18)$&785(5
65(&200(1'$7,216
127( /,1(:,5(:+(186('$6%$&.,1*726833257%8,/',1*3$3(5%(1($7+:,5(/$7+
1(77,1* )253257/$1'&(0(173/$67(5 678&&2 6+$//%(,167$//('$6)2//2:6
$:,5(*$8*(63$&,1*$1'$77$&+0(176+$//%(,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+5(48,5(0(1762)
%8,/',1*1(:6,7(06
%3(5,3+(5$/)/$6+,1*$7$//('*(62):$//23(1,1*60867&29(57+(:,5(%$&.,1*
&12$77$&+0(17'(9,&(61257+(:,5(%$&.,1*6+$//&29(5253(1(75$7(7+(
)/$6+,1*0$7(5,$/
:,1'2:)/$6+,1*
6(&7,212)7+(&2'(67$7(67+$7(;7(5,2523(1,1*6(;326('727+(:($7+(5
6+$//%()/$6+(',168&+$0$11(5$6720$.(7+(0:$7(53522)
$77$&+6,//675,3:,7+723('*(
/(9(/:,7+528*+6,//(;7(1'%(<21'
('*(2)528*+23(1,1*$7/($67
6(&85($//02,676723 25(48$/ :,7+
*$/9$1,=('1$,/62532:(567$3/(6
&200(1&,1*$77+(%27720 62/(
3/$7( 2)7+(:$///$<%8,/',1*3$3(5
81'(56,//675,3
127( &87$1<(;&(66%8,/',1*3$3(5
7+$70$<(;7(1'$%29(7+(6,//)/$1*(
/,1(21($&+6,'('21276/,&(%8,/',1*
3$3(5+25,=217$//<627+$77+(3$3(5
:,///$329(57+(-$0%675,36,167$//
68&&(66,9(/,1(62)%8,/',1*3$3(5 %&'
(7& 29(5-$0%$1'+($')/$1*(6
/$33,1*($&+&2856(
$77$&+-$0%675,3:,7+6,'(('*(
(9(1:,7+528*+-$0%)5$0,1*67$57
675,3%(/2:/2:(5('*(2)6,//
675,3$1'(;7(1'$%29(/2:(5('*(
2)/,17(/
7+($%29(0(7+2'$33/,(621/<72
0,1
3529,'(1$,/,1*%$77(16$1':,1'&/,363(50)5,167$//$7,215(&200(1'$7,216
6(&85(9$//(<)/$6+,1*$70$;2&:&/,36)$%5,&$7('2)6,0,/$525&203$7,%/(0$7(5,$/'21271$,/)(/7%$77(16257,/(7+528*+9$//(<)/$6+,1*:($9('81'(5/$<0(17 OE$670)(/70,1
OE6:($76+((781'(5)/$6+,1* 0,1:,'(
)/$7&21&5(7(7,/(
*$*,9$//(<)/$6+,1*
522)6+($7+,1*
+($'(5
6(()5$0,1*3/$1
3/<:22'6+($5
6(()5$0,1*3/$1
'225)5$0(
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5
:,'(
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5/$<(56
(;7(5,253/$67(5
2:,5(0(6+
*$*,)/$6+,1*
;75,0 6(((/(9$7,21
6(/)6($/,1*6(/)$'+(5,1*
%,780,12860(0%5$1($33/,('
29(562/,'%$&.,1*
6/,',1*'225)5$0(
:&2176($/$17
%(+,1')/$1*(
02,6723
)/$6+,1*
3$3(5 :,'(
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5/$<(56
(;7(5,253/$67(5
2:,5(0(6+
;75,0
6(((/(9$7,21
121+$5'(1,1*
6($/$17
127(
:((36&5(('72%(
,167$//('3(5&%&
),1,6+*5$'(
(;7(5,253/$67(5
*$&25526,215(6,67$17:((36&5(('
35(6685(75($7(''28*/$6),56,//3/$7(
/$<(560,187(
*5$'(
'
3$3(5
&217523(&$8/.,1*
2:,5(0(6+
&21&5(7(6/$%:+(5(2&&856
0
,
1
0
,
1
0
,
1
0
,
1
0
,
1
%5,&. )8//6,=(' ,167$//3(50)5
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5/$<(56
),1,6+*5$'(
*$*,:((36&5(('
:,1'2:)5$0(:&2176($/$17%(+,1')/$1*(
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5/$<(56
;75,0 6(((/(9$7,21
121+$5'(1,1*6($/$17
*$*,)/$6+,1*
+($'(5
6(()5$0,1*3/$1
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5 :,'(
6(/)6($/,1*6(/)$'+(5,1*%,780,12860(0%5$1($33/,('29(562/,'%$&.,1*
678&&23/$67(5
6(((/(9$7,21)25
,1)250$7,21
:,1'2:)5$0(:&2176($/$17%(+,1')/$1*(
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5
;75,0 6(((/(9$7,21
121+$5'(1,1*6($/$17
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5 :,'(
(;7(5,253/$67(52:,5(0(6+
:,1'2:)5$0(:&2176($/$17%(+,1')/$1*(
;75,06/23(723 6(((/(9$7,21
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5/$<(56
121+$5'(1,1*6($/$17
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5 :,'(
6(/)6($/,1*6(/)$'+(5,1*%,780,12860(0%5$1($33/,('29(562/,'%$&.,1*
+$5',(%2$5'6,',1*
6(((/(9$7,21
%5,&.9(1((5
%5,&. )8//6,=('
;)5$0,1* 6(()5$0,1*3/$1
3/<:22'6+($5:$//
6(()5$0,1*3/$1
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5/$<(56
;)855,1*
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5 :,'(
6((3/$1
121+$5'(1,1*
6($/$17
;%$&.,1*
)8//6,=(%5,&.
3529,'('28%/(81'(5/$<0(17
:+(5(522)6/23(
,6%(7:((1 $1'
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5/$<(56
($9(5,6(5
*$*,'5,3
81'(5/$<0(17 OE
$670)(/70,1
522)6+($7+,1*
'(6,*1(':22'522)6<67(0
;)$6&,$
;%/2&.,1*:+2/(6
;)5$0,1*
6((522)127(6
)25',0(16,21
3529,'(1$,/,1*%$77(16$1':,1'&/,363(50)5,167$//$7,215(&200(1'$7,216
5()(5726758&7':*6)256+($55(48,5(0(176
:0(7$/675,39(17
9(5,)<216,7(
3529,'(6,2)9(17,/$7,21
&52:1
;%2$5'
(;7(5,25),1,6+
3(5(/(9$7,21
5$,1*877(5
*5287
%5,&.9(1((5 )8//6,=('
+($'(5 6(()5$0,1*3/$1
3/<:22'6+($5:$// 6(()5$0,1*3/$1
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5
;)855,1*
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5 :,'(
6((3/$1
$'+(6,9(0257$5
*$*,)/$6+,1*
%5,&.9(1((5&251(53&
*$*,'5,3
&21&522)7,/(
81'(5/$<0(17 OE$670)(/70,1
;5$)7(56
522)6+($7+,1*
;)$6&,$%2$5'
;)5$0,1*
3529,'(1$,/,1*%$77(16$1':,1'&/,363(50)5,167$//$7,215(&200(1'$7,216
5()(5726758&7':*6)256+($55(48,5(0(176
0,187(*5$'(
'
3$3(5/$<(56
+$5',(%2$5'67$57(5%2$5'6
(;7(5,253/$67(52:,5(0(6+
;)5$0,1*
;:22'75,0
'(&25$7,9(&25%(/
3529,'('28%/(
81'(5/$<0(17
:+(5(522)6/23(
,6%(7:((1 $1'
;-2,676((
675
/':*
;678'#2&
:5,168/$7,21
;5$)7(5
6((675
/
':*
%21'(5,=('
0(7$/)/$6+,1*
3(57+(&2'(
522)7,/(21
)(/7
81'(5/$<0(17
29(53/<:'
522)6+($7+,1*
&/$66
$
%8,/783
522)
6/23(
%21'(5,=('
0(7$/)/$6+,1*
3(57+(&2'(
678&&23/$67(5
29(57<9(.:5$3
%$&.('0(7/$7+
$7&(,/,1*2)
*$5$*(/$81'5<$1'
(1&/26('$&&(66,%/(
63$&(81'(567$,56
$7,17(5,25:$//
*$5$*(
/$81'5<
6,'(
+$%,7$%/(
5220
6,'(
,17(5,256+($7+,1*
,168/$7,21:+(5(2&&8565$7
:$//5$7)/225-2,67
;678':$//3(5678':$//
0,17+.*<3%'7<3(
;
;)/225-2,67&(,/,1*-2,67
%$
3/<:22'68%)/225:+(5(2&&856
*$5$*(
/$81'5<
6,'(
$7(;7(5,25:$//
(;7(5,25 ,17(5,25
&
(;7(5,25),1,6+3(5(/(9$7,212
/$<(562)*5$'('3$3(5
3/<:22'6+($7+,1*3(56758&7':*
7<3,&$/(;7(5,25:$//7<3,&$/,17(5,25:$//
$%
(;7(5,25),1,6+3(5
(/(9$7,212/$<(562)
*5$'('3$3(5
*<3%'$7+5),5(5$7('
:$//66(()/2253/$1.(<127(
6((6758&785$/3/$1:$//
6&+('8/(
;678':$//
5,168/$7,21
3(5(1(5*<5(3257
3/<:22'6+($7+,1*
3(56758&7
(;
7
(
5
,
2
5
,1
7
(
5
,
2
5
*$*,'5,3
&21&522)7,/(
81'(5/$<0(17 OE$670)(/70,1
;5$)7(56
522)6+($7+,1*
&52:1028/',1*2;)$6&,$%2$5'
;)5$0,1*
3529,'(1$,/,1*%$77(16$1':,1'&/,363(50)5,167$//$7,215(&200(1'$7,216
5()(5726758&7':*6)256+($55(48,5(0(176
7:2/$<(560,187(
*5$'(
'
3$3(5
(;7(5,253/$67(52:,5(0(6+
'%/81'(5/$<0(17
5(48,5(')25522)
6((522)3/$1
,168/$7,21$7$77,&
3529,'(0,1*$3%(7:((1
,168/$7,21$1'%277202)
522)6+($7+,1*
+$5',(%2$5'67$57(5%2$5'6
$33/<&217%($'2)522)0$67,&2126((1'62)($&+5,'*(7,/(
3529,'(1$,/,1*%$77(16$1':,1'&/,363(50)5,167$//$7,21
5(&200(1'$7,21681'(5/$<0(17 0,1OE
&$55,('29(5
522)6+($7+,1*
81'(5;1$,/(5
$670)(/7
522)7,/(29(5$'',7,21$//$<(5
2)%3/<6+,1*/()$6+,21
3(56758&785$/$1'522)3/$1
0
$
;
0
,
1
&21&5(7(67223
:($7+(5675,33,1*
7+5(6+2/'3529,'(%,780,1286&2$7,1*21
7+5(6+2/')256(3$5$7,212)$/80,180
&21&5(7(2527+(5$33529('0($685(72
,62/$7(3527(&7
6($/$17
&21&5(7(6/$%
7+5(6+2/'$76:,1*287'225 7+5(6+2/'$76:,1*,1'225$%
7+5(6+2/'$76/,',1*'225&
0
$
;
0
,
1
5(':22'6/((3(5:+(5(2&&856
&+(&.('%<
6&$/(
352-(&7
3/27'$7(
352-(&712
5(9,6,21 '$7(
127(6
6),567$9(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
:::3'6678',2&20
$5&+,7(&76($/
6+((712
6+((71$0(
$VLQGLFDWHG
$0
&KHFNHU
$5&+,7(&785$/
'(7$,/6
6,1*/()$0,/<+20(
2$./$:15'
$5&$',$&$
1769$325%$55,(5
1769$//(<)/$6+,1*
176'225+($'::22'75,0
176 '225-$0%::22'75,0
176:((36&5(('$7&21&6/$%
176%5,&. )8//6,=(' $33/,&$7,21
176:,1'2:+($'::22'75,0
176:,1'2:-$0%::22'75,0
176:,1'2:6,//::22'75,0
176%5,&.6,//#%5,&.9(1((5
176($9(#3/$67(5::22'75,0
176%5,&.:,1'2:+($'
1765$.(:)855287
176)/$7522)'(7$,/
176+5),5(5(6,67,9(:$//&/*
1767<3,&$/:$//
1765$.( 7<3
1765,'*(&$3
176 7+5(6+2/'$7(;7(5,25'2256
Exhibit No. 6
Exhibit No. 6
Public Comment
Page 1 of 1
Expert Declaration of Kevin Yoon Lai in Opposition of Developer’s Application
for Two Story Dwelling
EXPERT DECLARATION OF KEVIN YOON LAI
I, Kevin Yoon Lai, declare as follows:
1. I am licensed in California as a Registered Civil Engineer (RCE) (RCE License #60565)
and as Professional Land Surveyor (PLS) (PLS License #8886).
2. I am the Chief Operating Officer of CaliLand Engineering, Inc., a civil engineering and
land surveying consulting firm based in the County of Los Angeles.
3. I have been retained by Dr. Shirley Chi (hereinafter, “Neighbor”) in this matter to
investigate a building height and perform a field survey related to neighboring properties
located at 1225 Oaklawn Road, Arcadia, CA 91006 (Lot 10 of Tract No. 14656) and
1215 Oaklawn Road (Lot 9 of Tract No. 14656) Arcadia, CA 91006, (collectively,
“properties”).
4. I submit this declaration in support of Neighbor's application to bar 1225 Oaklawn Road,
Arcadia, CA 91006 (Lot 10 of Tract No. 14656) owner from building a massive two
story dwelling.
5. I have performed a thorough investigation into this matter, which included but was not
limited to, reviewing and analyzing recorded tract maps, survey field notes pertaining to
the properties, reviewing and analyzing plans submitted by owner of 1225 Oaklawn
Road, and performed field surveys.
6. I have formed the below expert opinions in this matter:
MASSIVENESS OF PPROPOSED BUILDING
7. Upon my physical surveys along said neighbors, it is my expert opinion that the
proposed two story dwelling on 1225 Oaklawn Road is massive compared to the
neighbors’ dwelling as demonstrated on my attached Survey Map/Roof Ridge Profile.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on November 22, 2022 in Los Angeles County, California,
Kevin Yoon Lai
Exhibit No. 7
Exhibit No. 7
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
Date: November 9, 2022 Staff: Fiona Graham, Planning Services Manager
1. Name or description of project: A new 6,138 square foot, two-story, Cape Cod style residence
with an attached four-car garage, and several covered porches
totaling 1,075 square feet at 1225 Oaklawn Road
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):
1225 Oaklawn Road, Arcadia, CA 91006
3. Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name 800 Hampton LLC
(2) Address 1165 Altura Terrace, Arcadia, CA 91007
4. Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment
because:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. The project is an Emergency Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15303(a) – Construction of a new home
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: