HomeMy WebLinkAbout1682
. .
. RESOLUTION NO. 1682
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE SANTA
ANITA OAKS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A ONE-STORY
ADDITION AND REMODEL AT 618 GLORIA ROAD.
.
.
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2002 Mark and Alison Johnson submitted plans and
an application for Architectural Design Review to the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association (HOA) for a proposed one-
story addition and remodel of their residence at 618 Gloria Road; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2002 the ARB Chairman issued an approval of
the proposed addition and remodel subject to a condition that the garage remain in the
rear yard; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2002, Mark and Alison Johnson submitted an
appeal of the ARB's conditional approval; and
WHEREAS, the appeal was based on the architectural aspects of the proposed
addition and remodel, and on allegations that the ARB did not render its decision in
accordance with the procedures stipulated by City Council Resolution No. 5290; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 22, 2002 at which time the
Planning Commission elicited testimony as to the ARB's procedures and all interested
persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the information submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached reports dated October 22, 2002 is true and correct.
SECTION 2. That this Commission finds:
1. That the conditional approval issued by the ARB was not arrived at in
accordance with the procedures outlined in City Council Resolution No. 5290. In
particular, that a quorum was not present at the meeting at which the ARB considered
the proposed addition and remodel as required by Condition 12.e of Section 3 of City
Council Resolution No. 5290.
. 2. That the proposed addition and remodel is deemed approved because the
ARB failed to take action within thirty (30) working days as stipulated by Condition 12.1
of Section 3 of City Council Resolution No. 5290.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves the
appeal submitted by Mark and Alison Johnson.
SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect
the Planning Commission's action of October 22, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Wen and Olson
NOES: Commissioner Lucas
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution
and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Resolution No. 1682 was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission on November 12, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Wen and Olson
NOES: None
. ABSENT: Commissioner Lucas
W k. f:ll2..-
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
mission
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~
.
~p~
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
City of Arcadia
-2-
1682
.
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
October 22, 2002
TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: James M. Kasama, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: 618 Gloria Road - An appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners'
Association's Architectural Review Board's condition of approval
requiring that the garage remain in the rear yard for a proposed
addition and remodel. '
SUMMARY
The property owners, Mark and Alison Johnson, are proposing a one-story addition
and remodel. The existing two-car garage, which is attached to the rear of the
house, would be converted and expanded into a master bedroom and bathroom, and
a new attached three-car garage (with one space to be a tandem space) would be
added to the front of the residence with a 16-foot wide garage door facing the street.
The proposed plans comply with the City's Zoning Regulations.
The Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board has
approved the propose,d plans, subject to a condition that the 'garage remains in the
rear yard. The Johnsons are appealing this condition of approval. The Development
Services Department is recommending approval of the appeal.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPELLANTS: Mark and Alison Johnson
ADDRESS:' 618 Gloria Road
APPEAL: An appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association's
Architectural Review Board's condition of approval requiring that
the garage remain in the rear yard for a proposed addition and
remodel.
LOT AREA:
Approximately 18,510 square feet (0.42 acre)
.
"
FRONTAGE:
95.13 feet along Gloria Road
.
EXISTING LAND USE:
The property is improved with a one-story, four-bedroom', 2,419
square foot residence with a two-car garage attached to the rear of
the residence.
ZONING CLASSIFICATION:
R-0-22,000 & D - First One-Family Zone with a 22,000 square foot
minimum lot size and an ArchitecturalDesign Overlay.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SFR-4 - Single Family Residential with a maximum density of four
(4) dwelling units per acre.
BACKGROUND
On August 12, 2002, Mark and Alison Johnson submitted their proposed addition and
remodel plans, and a Short Review Procedure Application for Homeowner
Association Architectural Design Review to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) 6f
the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association (HOA). On August 16, 2002 the
architect was informed that a Regular Review Procedure was necessary for the ARB .
to consider the proposed addition and remodel. The ARB held a meeting on
September 3, 2002.
On September 4, 2002, the ARB issued a conditional. approval of the proposed
addition and remodel. The condition of.approval is that the garage is to remain to the
rear of the house.
On September 12, 2002, the Johnsons submitted an appeal of the conditional
approval.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
, "
The Johnsons' proposed addition and remodel would convert and expand an existing
two-car garage, which is atta'ched to the rear of the.house, into a master bedroom
and bathroom, and add a new attached three-car garage (with one space as a
tandem space) to the front of the residence. A 16-foot wide garage door would face
the street. The proposed plans comply with the City's Zoning Regulations.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the Sahta Anita Oaks Homeowners'
Association (HOA) has approved the proposed plans, subject to a condition that the
garage remain to the rear of the house. The Johnsons are appealing the conditional
approval. Theirappealletteris included as Attachment 3 with the following exhibits:
.
ARB Appeal- 618 Gloria Rd.
October 22, 2002
Page 2
.
.
.
.
Exhibit 1. Application for Homeowner Association Architectural Design Review
(Short Review Procedure) and proposed plans.
Exhibit 2. Architectural Design Review Board (Committee) Findings and Action
dated September 4, 2002.
Exhibit 3. Declaration of Pamela Blackwood (Current President of the Santa Anita
Oaks Association).
Santa Anita Oaks Reaulations
Section 9272.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code establishes residential areas that are
subject to Design Overlay Zones. City Council Resolution 5290 (Attachment 4) sets
forth conditions, regulations, procedures and standards by which the Santa Anita
Oaks HOA may exercise its plan review authority.
In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within the Santa Anita
Oaks area will be harmonious with each other and to promote full and proper
utilization of those properties, Section 3 of Resolution 5290 imposes Conditions on all
of the properties in the Santa Anita Oaks area that address the following items:
1. Minimum Ground Floor Area
2. Front Yard Setbacks
3. Street Side Yard Setbacks for Detached Garages and Carports on Corner Lots
4. Setbacks From Front Property Lines for Garages and Carports
5. Tree Preservation
6. Compatibility of Exterior Building Materials
7. Compatibility of External Building Appearance
For this case, Conditions 2, 4, 6 and 7 are relevant. For Tract 13345, which includes
all of the lots on Gloria Road, Condition 2 requires a minimum 55-foot front yard
setback. The proposed design provides only a 52'-10" front yard setback for the
garage addition. However, the southerly corner of the existing residence is set back
only 51 '-3" from the front property line.
Condition 4 specifies setbacks from the front property line for detached garages and
carports, and requires that any garage not be closer to the front property line than the
main dwelling. The proposed design complies with this requirement because the
garage is attached and the front property line is at an angle. In actual appearance,
however, the garage will protrude in front of the residence by approximately four feet.
Conditions 6 and 7 require that the materials and appearance of a structure be
compatible with other structures on the same lot as well as with other structures in
the neighborhood.
ARB Appeal- 618 Gloria Rd.
October 22, 2002
Page 3
.
ARB FindinQs
.
The Architectural Design Review Board (Committee) Findings and Action are
included as Exhibit 2 of the appeal. Having the garage at tlw front of th'e house is the
only aspect of the proposed design that the ARB found would have a ,significant
adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, and would be detrimental
to the use and enjoyment and vaiue of adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
The issue of having the garage at the front of the house Is not specifically addressed
by the Conditions in Resolution 5290.
Otherwise, the ARB found that the proposed addition and remodel will be compatible
and consistent with the existing appearance of the residence, and will be in
proportion to the neighborhood (Conditions 6 & 7). Photographs 'of [the subject
property and of the adjacent properties are shown on Attachment 5.
The ARB did not address Condition 2 regarding the proposed 52'-10" front yard
setback as measured at the southerly comer of the proposed garage.
Appeal
The Johnsons discuss the following three reasons for their appeal:
1) That their proposed addition and remodel will be compatible and harmonious .
with the other properties and structures in the neighborhood; .
2) That the ARB's decision was not rendered in accordance with the provisions of
Resolution 5290; and '
3) That their proposed plans should be deemed approved because the ARB did not
act on their application within the ten working days stipulated by Resolution
5290. .
Only one reason is necessary for an appeal of an ARB's decision; and ultimately any
decision on an appeal is to be based on whether, or not, the proposed plans will
provide for architectural compatibility and harmony (Issue t). Therefore, any other
reasons for an appeal need not be considered.
In support of their appeal, the Johnsons cite the following four houses on Gloria Road
that have..garages or carports located at the front of the house. Photographs of these
properties are included as Attachment 6.
. 524 Gloria Road - This property is eight lots to the south -of the subject property
and was built in 1951. Thetwo-cargaragewas added in 1984,.
'.
ARB Appeal- 618 Gloria Rd.
October 22, 2002
Page 4
.
. 548 Gloria Road - This house is five lots to the south of the subject property and
was built in 1991.
. 610 Gloria Road - This property is adjacent to the south of the subject property
. and was built in 1951. The carport appears to be part of the original construction.
. 629 Gloria Road - This hoiJse is across the street and to the north of the subject
property and was built in 1951. The attached two-car garage faces sideways and
appears to be part of the original construction.
Only these four properties of the 35 houses that front on Gloria Road have parking
facilities at the front of the house. Condition 4 of Section 3 of Resolution, 5290
includes distan~es from front property lines for carports or garages not connected to
a dwelling, but the only requirement for attached garages or carports is that they shall
not be closer to the front property line than the main dwelling. Theiproposed garage
will be setback 52'-10" from the front property line. The front yard setback of the
existing house is 51 '"3" at the southeast comer. Therefore, the proposed plans
comply with Condition 4 of Section 3 of Resolution 5290.
.
In addition to citing the four properties with parking faCilities at tne front of the house,
the Johnsons have a Declaration from Ms. Pamela Blackwood, Current President of
the Santa Anita Oaks Association (Exhibit 3 of the Appeal). Ms. Blackwood supports
the Johnscins' proposed addition and remodel, and she has attached the minutes of
the May 19, 2002 HOA meeting to document the current HOA Officers and Directors
and ARB committee members.
Architectural Review Principles
Condition 16 of Section 3 of Resolution 5290 stipulates that the ARB and any body
hearing an appeal of the ARB's decision, shall' be guided by the following four
principles:
a. Control of architectural appearance and usa of materia.ls shall not be so
exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of
external features of any particular strucfure, building; fence,wall or roof,
except to the extent necessaryt6 establish contemporary accepted
standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board or the'
body hearing an appeal in order to'avoid that which is excessive, garish,
and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions
Nos. 6 & 7 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials &
Exterior Building Appearance).
.
b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and
proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of
such principles to adjace'nt structures and other structures in the
ARB Appeal- 618 Gloria Rd.
October 22, 2002
Page 5
neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 6 & 7 of Section 3 of this
Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance).
c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof,
can be detrimental to the use and enjoym~nt and value of aojace.nt
property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 6 & 7 of Section
3 of this ,Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building
Appearance). '
d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of
properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable.
(Pertains to Condition No.2 of Section (3 of this Resolution - Front yards).
.
Based on the above fburprinciples, the ,Planning Commission is to determine
whether, or no~, the proposed plans satisfy the Santa Anita Oaks Regulations as
specified in Resolution 5290 such that the proposed front yard setback, and the
proposed design of the addition and remodel will be compatible and harmonious with
the other properties and structures in the neighborhood.
Plannina,Commission Determinations
The proposed pl~ns are in compliance with Condiiions1, 3, 4. and 5 of Section 3, of
Resolution 5290. The ,proposed plans do not comply wi~h the minimum 55'"0" front .
yard setback required by Condition 2. The setback at the southerly corner of the
proposed garage is 52'-10'\ However, the front yard setback of the existing house is
only 51'"3" at the southerly corner, and the front yard setbacks of the adjacent
houses are 52'-4" foNhe house to the north, and 52'-8" for the southerly house. The
proposed plans comply with the City's front yard setback requirement of 52'-6".
The Planning Commissiol) is to make the following determinations: ,
A. Do the proposed plans provide an appropriate front yard setback pursuant to
Condition 2 of Section 3 of Resolution 5290? In accordance with the ARB's
power under Condition 10.d of Section 3 of Rel;olutlon 5290, tile minimum: 55'-0"
front yard setback requirement may be made less restrictive if the ARB (or
Planning Commission on appeal) determines that such action will foster
development of a 'lot and will not adversely affect the use ~nd enjoyment of the
adja,cent lots and the general neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with
the 'provisions and intEmtof Resolution 5290.
B. Does the proposed design satisfy Conditions 6 and 7 of Section 3 of Resolution
5290? That is, will the proposed design provide Tor architectural compatibility
and harmony?
.
ARB Appeal- 618 Gloria Rd.
October 22, 2002
Page 6
.
.
.
If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed 52'-10" front yard setback is
appropriate, and that the proposed design with a two-car, attached garage facing the
street, will provide for architectural compatibility and harmony, then the Commission
should approve the Johnsons' appeal and overrule the ARB's conditional approval.
CEQA
Arehitectural Review decisions will not have a significant effect on the environment
and are therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of the appeal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval of Appeal
If the Planning Commission is to approve the appeal, the Commission should
make the following findings and move to sustain the appeal and overrule the
Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board's
condition of approval, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution for
adoption at the next meeting.
1. That the proposed 52'.10" front yard setback will foster development of a
lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoym~nt of the adjacent lots
and the general neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the
provisions and intent of Resolution 5290; and
2. That the proposed addition and remodel will be archit.ecturally harmonious
and compatible with the other properties and structures in the area; and
3. That the proposed addition will promote full and proper utilization of the
subject property.
Denial of Aooeal
If the Planning Commission is to deny the appeal, the Commission should make at
least one of the following findings and move to deny the appeal and uphold the Santa
Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board's conditional
approval, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution for adoption at the next
meeting.
ARB Appeal - 618 Gloria Rd.
October 22, 2002
Page 7
1. That the proposed 52'-10" front yard setback would adversely aftect'the use and .
enjoyment of the adjacent iots and the general neighborhood and would' be
inconsistent with the provisions and intentof Resolution 5290; and/or
2. That the proposed addition and remodel will not be architecturally harmonious
nor compatible with the other properties and structures in the area; and/or
3. That the proposed addition and remodel 'will not promote full and proper
utilization of the subject property.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or
comments regarding this appeal prior to the October 22nd hearing, please contact
Jim Kasama at (626) 574-5445.
Approved by:
~~
Donna L. Bptler
Community Development Administrator
'f
.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photo
3. Appeal Letter (2pp.)
E,xl1ibit 1.a -AppliC&tion for HOA Arcl1itectural De~ign Review (5pp.)
Exhibit 1.b - PJi:U1S' (6pp,) .
Exhibit 2 - ARB Findings and. Action (2pp.)
Exhibit 3 - Declaration of Ms. Blackwood (1p_)
Attachment - 'Minutes of 5/19/02 HOA meeting (4pp.)
4. Resolution 5290 (lqpp.) .'
5. Photographs ofslil)j~ct property and ofadjaceht properties (2pp.)
6. Photographs of houses with garages or'carports at the front(4pp.)
.
ARB Appeal- 618 Gloria Rd.
October 22,2002
Page 8
.no
.""
~
':t
~
Q
-./
~,
"""
.'..
I:
'~
~
4l-!
N
100 2DIJ
300 Feet
....
.""
""'
....
"""
....
"'"
....
"""
.".
"21"
.""
.""
"'"
"'.
"'"
:.
I
I
I
....
(N'
ANOKIA LN
IFO"
nn"
....
...,
"'"
"'"
"'"
"'.
....
"'"
"'"
: 1fts
1wopment Sel'iCBS Deparlment
Ii Engineering DMsion
,I
~by:R,S,GQn1aI81, Q;(dxJr. 2OIJ2
618 Gloria Road
ATTACHMENT 1
~
opment SeMcesDep8flment
Engineering Division
~by:R.S,_~0ct0b<r;.2002
rs1~ ~D(Q)trD~ 1R(Q)~dJ
ATTACHMENT 2
"
MARK& ALISON JOHNSON
618 GLORIA ROAD
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
.
September 11, 2002
City of Arcadia
Planning Department
240 West Huntingtpn Drive
Arcadia, California 91006
Re: Proposed Remodel of 618 Gloria Road, Arcadia, California
Dear Planning Department:
Pursuant to Arcadia City Council Resolution No. 5290 Section 15, this letter constitutes
an appeal by Mark and Alison Johnson of the finding or decision issued on September 4,2002 by
the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners Association Architectural.Review Board ("ARB") with
respect to the application submitted by the Johnson's to the ARB on August 12,2002 regarding
the proposed remodel of their residence located .at. 618 Gloria Road in Tract No. 13345 of the
Santa Anita Oaks (the "Remodel"). A copy of the application submitted to the ARB together
with the plans for the Remodel is attached as Exhibit 1. A copy of the findmg or decision issued
by the ARB with respect to this application is attached as Exhibit 2.
.
The decision of the ARB should be overturned for many reasons. First, it should be
overturned because the Remodel complies with all applicable City requirements. Further, as
noted in the ARB's decisiOn, the design for the Remodel provides for the proper setbacks, is in
proportion to the other improvements on the property and adjoining properties, and is consistent
with the existing design of the residence. In additiOn, as further noted in the ARB's decision, the
construction materials proposed for the Remodel are consistent with the existing materials of the
residence.
Further, the ARB's finding or decision that the Remodel will be detrimental to the use,
enjoyment and value of adjacent properties because the gl;1Iage will be located in the front yard is
not supported by the evidence. First, many homes in the vicinity of the residence have garages .
or carports located in the front yard. These homes include the following locations or addresses:
610 Gloria Road (next door to the residence), 629 Gloria Road (across the street from the
residence), 548 Gloria Road, and 524 Gloria Road. In addition, this finding is at odds with the
opinion of Pamela Blackwood, President of the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners Association and
'a real estate agent active in the Santa Anita Oaks area Ms. Blackwood has no objection,to the
Remodel and believes that the Remodel will enhance the use, enjoyment.and value of the
Johnson residence as well as the adjacent properties and neighborhood and will not have a
detrimental effect on the use, enjoyment or value of the Johnson residence or the adjacent
properties or neighborhood. (See, Ms. Blackwood's Declaration attached as Exhibit 3.)
.
In addition, the finding of the ARB should be overturned because it was not rendered in
accordance with the provisions of Resolution No. 5290. Resolution No. 5290 Section 9:g states
that any "decision by the [ARB] shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the
[ARB], and such decision shall be rendered by the [ARB] members who considered the
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Arcadia, Planning Department ...
September 11,2002 --
Page2
.
application." The ARB's decision with respect to the Remodel was notmade by the majority of
the membership of the ARB. The ARB has 7 members. and is comprised of the following
individuals: Chairperson, Jack Lynch; Member; Tom Beck; Member, Nancy Dom; Member,
Steve Perry; Member, Carlton Seaver; Member, Clyde Stauff; and Member, John Woo. (See,
Ms. Blackwood's Declaration attached as Exhibit 3.) The ARB'sdecisioo with respect to the
Remodel states that it was made by Jack Lynch, Tom Beck, Carlton Seaver (absentee), and Jim
Potter. However, Mr. Potter is not a member of the ARB. Therefore, the ARB"s decision'With
respect to the Remodel was not made by a majority of the membership ofthe ARB as required
by Resolution No. 5290 Section 9,g.
Finally, the ARB's decision with respect to the Remodel should be overturned because
the ARB should be deemed to have approved the Remodel pursuant to Resolution No. 5290
Section II. On August 12, 2002, our'architect, JeffreyShifs, personally delivered to Jack Lynch,
Chairperson of the ARB, a completed application for the Remodel. The application included a
consent form signed by all of the adjoining property owners, (See, Exhibit 1.) Therefore, the
application was submitted pursuant to t1).e short review process or procedure outlined in
Resolution No. 5290 Section 11. If the ARB determines that any condition set forth: in an
, application is not appropriate for the Short Review Process, pursuant to Resolution No. 5290
Section II.d, it is required to file in writing with the City Clerk and Director of Planning a list of
the conditions in the application that itbelieves are not appropriate for the Short Review Process.
We do not believe that any stich filing was made with respect to the application for the Remodel.
Therefore, the Short Review Process applies to the application for the Remodel.
Resolution No. 5290 Section 11.c.states that U[t]he Board Chainnan, or another Board
member, designated by the Board Chaiiman to act in,his behalf,. shall render his decision on a
Short Review Process application within ten (10) working days from the date such request is
filed with the ,Board, failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working
day period, be deemed an approval. of the plans." Neither the ARB nor its Chairman rendered
any decision on the application for the Remodel until September-4, 2002. That date is more than
ten working days from the submittal to the ARB on August 12,2002 Of the application for the
Remodel pursuant ,to the Short Review Process. Therefore, pursuant to Resolution No. 5290
Section ltc, theARB.shouldbedeemed to have approved the application for the Remodel.
, Thank you for your considerationofthls appeal. Please do not hesitate to call meat
(626) 836-0875 if you h,ave any questions or would like to discuss this 'matter further.
.
. MDJ/cg
Enclosures
40540795.1
.
.
c.
D.
.
.
FILE NO.
A.
APPLICATION FOR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
(SHORT REVIEW PROCEDURE)
PROJECT ADDRESS (Pl & 6LOp..\A ~OAD
PROPERTY Ow'NER HAfl...!"- ~ A L..l <:;ON .:::t'DH-N SON
ADDRSSS (IF DIFFERENT) S.AHE
DATE FILED
/O~
B.
TELEPHO:iE }l1.!MBER (p:2. (p / tl 3 CO - 0 8 75"
APPLICA~t (IF OTHER THA~ OWNER)
j"E.rff<..E.Y St+lPS \ ,A.-R.C.b\l rEGT
(POD WOODLAND O.R.\VE
S(~ MADp..E l CA "l (02.4
v ZG, I 355- 02'22..
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NurffiER
[...( ROOFING
SPECIFY MATERIALS
[1' EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS (describe
Corvtf' LeT.!:: lte-~. FII'l(at"fA't'OSoEJ)p' o~ f'It
KA"f13'!,lALS S li'Al-t..- !!>E' ?I'~c. fI ED ~y """ ftp., r
I:)lJJ)JE"fl...., .,!"tAIA- c.oMI'L.'r W lTtl f>.oOFIN(;t
$1'.A/-lD;o.!2.DS j...lS.T o....n:_PCP.(O.02,NWSft',A{..V
P->E Alf'fe<-oVED 10'( TtI-€ tfOMEOtu~ t\-SSOCIATIDo
below)
. . \' .-"
[] EXTERIOR WALLS OR FENCES (describe below)
,J... L
[J aI'HER (describe below) .',
, .
. '
. E;<.'[uLlD~ AL.'\~-rtON? 11:> 71tt:E'XI.Sf/N.b f>U1LfYlN.b S'ttJl..U- 1N,(.,l...U9C'I
_....t;pAep~~:r_,af':. A.U... !eXiSt/NUl ["1€T',A.L c;A.S€'M.E/V( WINDOWS W I1H
EI-I6F-OY efAClE.NT WoolD Of!.. WOoD c;v...o CASEM.evr AS5el'-1.6t...lE:S.
eD R..t:;-PLAceM~lv"'T ~F- A-0:-. €,!:'lST I Nh Doo~S jO fC.€'MAlN W In! ~G'(
l:rrt"ICI WooD ASSEM,8t-1E.S.
,--. '3 f'fl-a' 'MW PI'<!NT .I.1..-L. E"lCl$'1:1NG:> <?TV\c. c..o W.M-/- SUI~ACE:S I ~lM
AAD F}6ClA c..c M 1"0 ~ €U1" S .
.@ /o:f'f'l-ICfc-rW/J Of: "f.>OlAatUeT GJ.N'!:oN II '3TONi: V/::N.€l::~ w /TIt C-M
!<-,6.1L- O~ f'o~LLO~S elF nl€ <jTF-€q FI'-Ot-tTAGe (EAST) E.L€VA"tION' (.0'-012-
to MATQ-t E:;:xlsT/s-tb ^T n+E FOOL AND '1PA FAClc..tTT€.$ (<;t:E I'oTrAq.4ED
f'ItOt"06fZ.AFI:+5); PAiT1::!4J "To &e SreC1F1E.D e,'( Pf<.<JPE'P-f"t 19WNf:12...
--
Exhibit 1. a
\.iE, THE UNDERSIGNED (SIGNATURES) OWNERS OF ADJACEN'!' PROPERTY, CERTIFY '
THAT WE HAVE READ THE fOREGOING APPLICATION, AND HAVE SEEN THE PROPOSED
PLANS, AND HEREBY GRANT OUR CONSENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
~
N ON 'L4?
1.
i
I
i
I
i
,
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
,~.~
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE ALL PROPERTIES WHOSE
BOUNDARIES ARE, IN ,;}iDLE OR IN PART, CO-TERMINUS WITH THE SUBJECT ;
PROPER,\Y:
EWIPLE. \, .
..
2 3 ~ .
,
.'\'!"w ~' I
I
, '. :
.. .. ,
1 SUBJECT ,V'
"PROPERTY'
'. .. v.-
..'. .~'.. - '. _'n
(:' <
., ............
~.. .
i'
STREET
-~
I.
L
0)
5
.
.
.'
'..
2
-
. I
!
\
AN APPLICATION FOR THE SHORT REVIEW ,PROCEDURE SHALL ALSO BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE
.LLOWI:-lG:
V' 1. COlllpletedApplication Form
../ 2.
./ "'.
.
.
8
sets of scaled plans which should include the following:
a, Plot plan showing the entire site and the existing and proposed
use.
-
b. Elevations, floor plans, sections, etc. as necessary co fully
illustrate the project.
3.
Depending upon the specifiC size, scale, location of the proposed
project, the Boerd (Committee) may require additional information
including but not limited to color and/or materials sam;:~es.
pt\Cl1"O<:; of ""TONe ~ fW\I ( Pet>
Letter size envelope(s) with proper postage, addressed to the owner and
applicant (if different),'and to the City of Arcadia Planning
Department, 2"'0 west Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA. 91006. These
envelopes are'for the mailing of the Arc.hitectural,Review Board's
(committee's) decision.
,.
-"
3
.
.
WESTlAND AIR COND.
Fax:6263014149
4Ul ~~ ~VV~ ~~.~V
'3 'j ~ -If 3"7 '
.
SANTA ANITA OAKS HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
ROOFING STANDARDS
1 ()'Jun.02
The ArchiteetulBl Ravin Beard he. mabllflhed the following rooflng materials 8$ oompalable end,
hermonlOU&, 8!l4 approved In tlle 81111le Anita Oaks. '
a, NOT APPROVED: COrnpoeltion 8lllngles (~ paper), flIlergalll8 8I1Jn91es, aluminum or
rocx.
b. NOT APPROVEtJ: multi-stacked ridge end,klCks; mUtt maintain hO!izont&I rldgeline.
e. APPROVED: creaa A and Class B (tee following ~hllrte) In earttrtone colors only.
WOOD-CEDAR SHAKES AND STANDARD WEIGHT SHAKES:
COMPANY TYPE COLOR or COLOR NUMBER
WOOD.CEDARS SHAKES ' '
Various Heavy or Medlum
Class A. Or B treated
MONIER LIFEJ..INE SHAKEISR 1430 3016 3166 5225 6746
WESTILE SHAKE JSR Ceder. Creekstone, PalO/l'lillQ, Granite,
Blend San Juan Blend
AUBURN TILE INC. Regular Weight 330,33,125,101,800,300,201,202,204,
SHAKE BRUSHED 807809810,462
PIONEER WEATHERED SHAKE 446 456 548.453 409,616,544,462
EVERWEST SHAKE 661 558 559. 2
EAGLE POOEROSA SHA.KE 6678,5687,6889,6$99,6087,5501.6502,
6504 5511 5629 5552
LIGHTWEiGHT SHAKES:
COMPANY TYPE COl.OR or COLOR NUMBER
CEDARUTE 3783, 3n4, 5872, 5780, sn3, 3830
MONIER UFELlNE Premier DURAUTE 200().$hake 1130,3 , 3934. 5932, 34S3
MONIER20~Vlllnelle Shake 7973 7933 6938, 3934, 0,39500939
FIKEFREE PLUS FMFC RUSTIC SHAKE Liaht Brown Dark Brown COrev
EAGLfLITE PONDERO~ 301,302 303 304,311,367,399
SHAKE BRUSHED No blended eolol't
AUBURN TILE UGHTWeIGKT :101, ClOt, Gel!, 605. soe. 607, &41, s:.u. S4S,
544 527 529 530 631
WEATHERED SHAKE WS-409L, W8-445L
PIONEER UGHlWE/GHT WS-453L WS407L
EVERWEST SHAKE WE8-551L, WES868L, WES544I.,
WES680L WESsalL WES626L
PRO- TEX S PRO Brown PRO G/'&Y
-
.
.
--
11II
....;;,
,.......i'<o-.IK;..
. =-:::;..~Q,;~; ~~';t~l~!>
.
.
l.tn~:!".
..t.~~Ji'EM~.IY"~"""'''''
!!.~~t"U .I....~o/&e:lf,).
"""'"....
..TT~-~~
TO',lr,(.fm$t1HS.:;q<'e.>;t~
:"~l~ U- .FtR ~lfl' ~~~
.Q..5t'
=---....~ 9 OR.: ~lo.
~ .-.NO ~a. POLIGy'
-Ql....::r~P"I!c:."#.~'''''''''f....~I&-~...TI,V.!.T:!<AcP'r..ee~i'l......'SOI'...
~"'IIetcn 00lTl9llP. II'HORf:1HJ1\H~l!}Fne~.1Di!lIOl'i:......u.SCf''''O~~
...;.~ne~t!~...~
T;)l......'-"HBd~~r-~e..."!l~t...~.....u~. '20ll'
fCl.l.l.t.er~T>IOI'e."'~""...c.l'S~'I!D""~-", 6.:1.... QA..",S,
~T::;t."-~I"I<.~ ~
~~itt<llT$. e.~#<.lJ.,1'O~ ::!~~~
~ 1.:>>!I-!I'
t'tI~""1~~
~flm:t't'F"Q~ :I<4iU'
TaT,... ~~!O GC'Jflit.......". ..2:., :; oC<R:::::!l.~
....I..on~I..C'tc.D,~ t!'!I:1OyCft~lt-
~ CoAU:U..A-notEo
~l.::>>e'.
"-oI!<..et.l""_"-l'~lte
....,
~U'l...:n'-oe
fR..ol<T~~,l.(;oT" IOlne r:."",O?~~F$
......,.~~6",.~:z::~~~...'"'"
::'~""Cf'LQ1I~f-T".lI!Of'G..<Ul"GlIll.'"
Yi" _ __
. J Ii
'~=-l- ~h;z. -.~
""'lr--~
---'-'---';-;-1 -/
j-." '-1 . ~: 1---1
~~~a- 0 = J II
I'J 1,[1~jEE1 - ,-' 11
_~IIIm~~t~~ "% I 1$1: .
, I -~ ~f//jl'-\\\\~'-ir--:' ~
..~:~:: ... .. - .. ! r- -r:-' .; ;
, , t
..-.L.----!t- --
.1I!.l ~--""'t I II
I II I
.-f-+~I
~q -~--+- -+------,-'
,,~-----Jl l,
-1._ _J~ ~
il NoR'TH
~..~~:- :~~
: ::--...,
~~~Rl...n.4N
./;.." ~_.;
<.' ..~..::~.
>, ..... ~/ I," .....
, ,/',
.~'
----~~~-
_Uo1'
Idfo'C: iOl'"~IH ....S50:-....nOH. ~"""... pn,o. o..ao.;~ ~I..,"""
" ',J' ,/ ..'
-,,--
'< ..
......
..._~"
"-
1-._ _.__. ~.,.
~....__.w.,!;__
"'-"'--
..""---~.......
.~-
i~
r,
I Ii
[ Q
I '
, [
; !
i
I '"
I . ,-I'
r ~ta::z- ,\ ~,!
i, __-$""--1
,.. +-'::...;"'
_ .,.__.__ __1'-
I -
I
oet_l..",--l
I
I
I
m"",_
~
!
~j
.
I
I
,
,i ~f
" "
1
l hi
i ~
! I
!.L._~='"
I 1,
I
~_ I, il I
'" \) . I :
-'., /' I" I -"1Zj
__ .'O:'_~~..._ ----~!t-- ._L, _____.J
- - - - - "-'--.,--
"'.... I
o!--",:r~~,!. .. _-1..~
':-::' -:. /~ . :.~ " :..~ ~~ ~.'//,
.:Af-~",';.""",,.L'~ ." ~_"';';'.-1'~/"'-
~~~:;~;',~,',~.;~,- f-:, --_t_~.'.;_:_-r~,:,:
..J......../. .~.... ~.....
. ~ ',' ".// .1/
_..A:t'of':_ _
~
i
!
=
I I
: I,t
I II
}- - ~--
/~:'"
... -,,;-
1. .,
1\ .........:1 .....
\ --~,'
" .
\" _ ..:t.
..,~...~
/
1...........-
I~'"'''''
I
(~.-~"'I-
1\ ~--
"
'.....
~
I
t~ ~,.<$-
ii:
............-
SITE PLAN
llto.= 1'-0"
u...
._~~.---
Exhibit 1. b
~4r~""M.f\~"=
RS~ore .
--
arch it
....~,~
1lOw~~
------
...-----.
-..- G
,
~JEG-TTI1
.JOHNSON REStl
REMOP6. 4: At
6(!'~~
J>lU;J.Dl,Jl"G,JI,~
~.-.K);l.L~
tt.2&)~1
"",",m'L
SITE PL
-=...........
""''!Eo ~f....
(IG,O,U!. ~8IiOrI'l
.....,
AI
.
.
-
.~
!...~
-~-'''-'
B
,/
CJ
"""'"
,
'-
___m9
~''--'''~H
1"'.-ItYlOt'V1hoItlHI!!
"".....-~J!!afj
lGili5L-r.. f'::'
Rf:Yl"'"",, oY
-
architex
....--.-..,~
~~~-
...~--=-...:;_:.--
lIIiMA._ e
,
;
~TT111..J!
,~ ......dJ
L.' ...)
JoUr."TPR.....................
IMtl/OtRDt>>ol
~ RESiDENCe
~ . ADDITION
6t&_et.aRlA RO,>D
~v..<G;AqlOQ6
~I>KJ~'-~
162b1~$
""""""'.
EXISTINe
PLAN
Cf7
~,-.~
t>.'ofll!o -....2CICQ
~ ..-
EXISTlNe 6ROl1NO FLOOR PLAN
1/4"= 1'-0.
.
""",,
A2
~.
.
.
-I
~-
'J
...~----t ~.~--.
-__..-4,.
~ I
_-..fI'a.II:t \,_
lbJ,
RP.C__~
c::J
~
I
~~
-,
~
--.otoP.
!
i
i
<MQ
---.,
l-"I~-
l' I r---------:---.
o-.,-r
A__) '-
\~/ .
.....', 1'-,
~"'b
Q-O
rtJ:u (( =-
-,- ~ u ~
pc,
e
BnuEI
'-,
11vtHA----.
PROPOSED FLOOR PtlAN
1/4-" 1'-0-' 4000- J..-
($
"r_~
-----
/
~
t
T)-.....
........
'"-"='=I
~
-
i
---., I
. ,.. 'I-~
~. ;i\at~1.F:.'..:.i~.
IO:Ih'l5lOh'S e"t
architex
""_1__
tw~~-"_
------
-------
--
Q
~..EC.TTTl'Le
~N:SON RESIDENc.e
RE/"'iOOel... . AOOJnOH
616 6l..CIRl,':' ROJlD
AAGAPl.... e.-.1!GI06
I-f,.W,:AtDAt.I~.JOrtteOH
("2bJ"'~&"":
~ nTU!
PROPOSED
PLAN
~r...,_~
_7e.. .--r,XIG:I
~ ,l.!Ii__
.....
A3
~.
.
~-
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..0C00_....
'I Y:l1"'~
, R"_
,
.[",..
.
...........,."..
...."
----."
/r----
,
i QOoo. / >~;:
c__._ ------ ---~-';;;;;;'----------------70---OJ
~ ~,
/,
//
//
':; - -- - --<L~~__ __ __. _ __'
,
'.
"
" -""..--
'''-/~
'(
.,
.....J
-'''-
~........,....,.
e>8'-~
\
'---
~~-
~POSED ROOF PLAN
1/4"= 1'-0"
$-
.
I
I
I
I
I
_____L
- ---------:'~' :
,./ Pi~ ~-::;.:;=-
~ /1 _Ill",
.^ . I
/
, I
I
", I
, 'J
\-~:---_..._-.: '\
i )---+'
,
: I I
: I
'I I
...: I
,
--''-.. I I
__:,J
I
I
I
I
~~..J1ii'
.....- ....
1.-
architex
......~_/~
~~~-
--- --
..-------
,-- Q
i
f'RO..EGT nn.e
..JOHNSON ~~
REMODEL. ADDITION
61~~RO....D
~""''l1OO6
MARI:......, AUeoN~
Ib:26J~'l!I
...., mL<
ROOF PLAN
~TlOcn-c:e.ol
....... ...... -
...... M_
-,
A4
~.
.
.
iI
"I
:Ii
If,
ii,
. r-
U~I
~!~~I
i;
l!~
~.~~-~
Q.1;Ao -....-- ~
D"tI.1_~
-~-
1-
--40~
6<L"-:>~~
::'r:=~,:;...........
sr_o..c.=M
f~~:-.r
r.._..._
_..._tt>
-"'..._-
-
.~!:"-:!...
~~
,--
.
1\o~1"- __. - -
r....-...--.o:U't
---
...._~,-.....
--
___roo__
I S","-.
'-'_.~-"- ~ ':'.~
.. - .----,
~,
..,.2'!!...::!!::'~_
t-~-..t!'
..,.~
............-...... ~--'
--...-
~ . - .. ..
---"'"
/~ ..-.....
--,
-~
~-
--~
t>oL_..._
-
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
1/4.", I'-o~
r...."tI>~-..-
---
_~.....n'"
~...::._.-
""",,,...,---
.."'..-
......
/
[[1].
I-~I
.. =:. ."
- ..
'\
~w~
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
1/4-= 1'-0-
,- .""''?'<' .
.....1~\i1.~JU~~~~
.....
architex
_../~
o..~~"""'"
...::.._...-====~
-"
~.J'!CTTlTL.e
..lOtiH9CH Re:>IDf'fiC.E
~a .. ADDITION
iblbdL.ORlAMNJ
_GA......
~.....,Al..~..Jt::ll-HlOtt
(e2bJ~6J"
......ml-.
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
.-ao.a;T"'~
""'~ _1~;:rr;:o;I
...... ~-
-,
AS
~.
.. ..- .--
. ..--.-
-- .~-~'= -=---
....____ _ n.-.,;::i~-;'-:---~"';:;;"~"~,,",,
__ 'z:-- ~...::~:;.~~~.,;.;;=::""-",,z:-...,,if..:; -;;":. ~~-:,~~..,(:~,.~..,..::-:::'--='_~;':~~-
-_~~~~~:;=-:'~~l~~~~~~~~~~~-:;r~ ~~~~~~~~~-=;--.~:~~r-' f.~ --~~. ~- ~.~ 53'--
-...."
._-
I'.
t!'
iUj ~-
~j!Lf.'~.s~
I __,_
-...-""
---....
-
~-""
~-
$-~--
lilt
!Ii
L :,::::::J-
~'J-"'::-._>>
....--..--
~'=
.
r4....."-....
-- '
/ ~~--=-. ,- """-
~ '"-L--_
,-,....""~
,-
{
,
_ [ID ODD
\, /
PROPOSED HEST ELEVATION
t{4-. \'-0-
('''''-''---
--
....-..-....
___u
--
-
'.........
rIn
[TI[l]
n/"= fin
>-. :::-=: ~
-,.
. - -.-
-~
.m
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION'
1/4-= 1'-0-
.
~
m
........-==:..---"'='
---
./
-~~
--
-
. .
A .
REV'...... BY
aFchitex
~./~
~~~--
...~---=--=.
-- G
;.
f'RO.E.GT TlTU!
.JOt+.ISON RE$!t'ENGE
~. AOOITlON
6U!-_6t..OfUA~1lD
~A, GA "11006
~AHD~~
t62b)~
~.mi...1!
PROPOSED
ELEV A TION~
-,~
-~
~
",""
......,.
-'....~
"'-
Ab
-.
.
.
A.
B.
FILE NO.
DATE q-L/.-O")...
,~ '
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD' (COMMI'ITEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
PROJECT ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER
ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT)
t,ltg r;.. tOt2 Iii piJ
::\()HN<.()N
C. FINDINGS. (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation ,for
each check) ,
1. The proposed construction materials ~ ARE, []'ARE NOT compatible with
the existing materials, because
.
.
2. The proposed materia+s ~ WILL, [] WILL NOT have a significant adverse
impact: on the overall: appearance of the propert:y, because TJIG y PJf1IJ/rXb"
HtP/J/N(;' C-l4fJll?G Ff,JtPl'1 n6Pr? TI) FI1NtJT V/U')' .
. . ,
3. The propos~d project ~IS. [] IS NOT significant:ly visible,from the
adjoining public rights of way, because.
4. The proposed project,H" IS, [] IS NOT significantly visible from
adjoining properties, b~cause
q
5. The elements of the st:ructure's des.ign..f1'" ARE,' [1 ARE NOT consistent
with the existing building's design, ,because
6. 'The proposed project ...n'is, [] IS NOT in proportion t.o other
improvements on the subject: site or to improvements on.other properties
.. in t:he neighborhood, because
..
7.
The location o~ the proposed
to. the use and enjoyment and
neighborhood, because
".. N Zo'
8.
The proposed project's setbacks ~O, [] DO NOT ,provide for adequate
separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties,
because
Exhibit 2
,
!
t
I
,
=.\
"
,C
,.
11
'11
III
9.
OTHER FINpINGS
. .
~
.
D'.
ACTION
[]
k
APPROVAL
APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S)
,
C-4f/tJ?6
TO
,
~EI1 /f IN 'IIJ
,
126412
V,t}"p-tJ
/
[] DENIAL
E. DA~E OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION q -.i-OJ...
F.
BOARD (COMMIrTEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABO,VE DECISION
r:t9 (jL7(Jft.i ~MV.6q[,t)A45N7P6)
TO/'1 /J~rk
J"ltCk "- 'iNdI
TNY Po~
, ...
G.
REPRESENTING THE
J/1C./::' L lJNr:1I
.. .
ASSOCIATION
.
H . APPEALS
App,pals from the Board's (Coounittee' s) 'decision shall' .be made to the Planning
C01lUDission. Anyone desiring to. make such an appeal should contact the
requirements. fees and proceedures. Said appeal must be made in writing and
delivered to the Planning Department, 240 W.. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA
91006, within seven (7) working days of the, Bo.ard'.s (C'?lIlIIlittee's) decision.
:
I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL
If ~for a per-iod of one (1) year from the date of approval; any project for
which plans have been approved by the Board (Commitcee), has been unused,
abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no
effect. .
..
2
1
. 2
3
4
5
6
7
.- 8
9
10
11
12
13
.
.
DECLARATION OF PAMELA BLACKWOOD
I, Pamela Blackwood, declare as follows:
1. The following facts are known by me to be true based on my own personal
knowledge.
2. I am the President of the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners Association
("SAOHOA"). In addition, I am areal estate agent actively involved in the purchase and sale of
homes in the Arcadia lIfel\, including the Santa Anita Oaks area.
3. I have reviewed the plans prepared by Jeffrey Shifs for the remodel of the
residence owned by Mark and Alison Johnson and located at 618 Gloria Road, Arcadia,
California (the "Remodel"). I have no objection to the Remodel. In my opinion, the Remodel
will improve the overall appearance of the Johnson residence. In addition, I believe the Remodel
will enhance the use, enjoyment and value of the Johnson residence as well as the adjacent
14 properties and neighborhood and will not have a detrimental effect on the use, enjoyment or value
15 of the Johnson residence or the adjacent properties or neighborhood.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
The last annual meeting of SAOHOA was held on May 19, 2002. At that meeting
I was elected President of the SAOHOA. In addition, at that meeting, the following persons were
elected to serve on the SAOHOA Architectural Review Board for the year commencing on May
19,2002: Chairperson: Jack "Lynch; Member: Tom Beck; Member: Nancy Darn; Member: Steve
Perry; Member: Carlton Seaver; Member: Clyde Stauff; and Member: John Woo. A true and
correct copy of the minutes of this annual meeting of the SAOHOA is attached.
. I declare under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this (Z) day of September, 2002, in Arcadia, California.
40540487,1
Exhibi t 3
.
.
.
Santa Anita Homeowners' Association
Annual MeetinglParty May 19, 2002
Agenda
Call to order: GOOD AFTERNOON
Welcome to the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association
Annual Business Meeting for the election of Officers
And Directors! Party
On behalf of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association
I would like to thank our gracious hosts Terry and Pamela Blackwood
for opening their beautiful home to us today. Thank You!
Appreciation: On behalf of the Santa Anita Oaks HomeoWI;lers
Association .
I would like to express our-appreciation and thanks
to the following people:
The outgoing Officers and Directors member:
President George Bennett
Vice President Larry Wilson
Treasurer John Snider
Secretary Laura. K wok
Director Bashir Ahmad
Director Ruth Bell
Director Pamela Blackwood
Director Robbin Cohen
Director Janice Corey
Director Suzanne Coulter
Director Gene Detmer
Director Jimmy Jiang
Director Mark Johnson
Director MichaelLin
Director Joan McCann
Director Karen McAlister
Director Carol O'Toole
Director Keppie Sullivan
The outgoing Architectural ReView Board Members:
Attachment to Exhibit 3
.'
Chairperson Jack Lynch
Member Tom Beck
Member Nancy Dom
Member Steve Perry
, Member Carlton Seaver
Member Clyde Stauff
Member John Woo
.
Treasurer's Report. .
President!s Report
Highlights of
Major Activities:
Annual Meeting/Party was the result of the efforts ofLe6i1a Madikians,
Patty Nijjar, Nafissa Rashidi (Shakoor), Karen McAlister, Pamela
Blackwood, Ruth Bell, Joan McCann, and-Janice Corey.
Sound Wall: LanyWilson was Chairman of the Sound waU committee. We
must look out for ourselves. We caught the fact that SAOHA sound wall,
was left out of the Caltrans budget. The States funding blessed us. We need
to stay on top of this issue.
.
Filming Issue: Joan McCann has single handedlycaused thousand of
dollars from the tllin production companies to be donated to SAOHA. City
was not particularly helpful on putting a letter requesting a donation. The
City Attorney has rewriting of the letter to b.e a reluctant notice. I rewrote
the letter suggesting a donation for the film companies of $200 for the first
day of each production and $75 for each day after. Don' Penman, with City,
has worked with us and is helping. Current City policy is'to allow filming at
a home once each three months. The Board supports this restriction.
Neighborhood Watch- Mark and Allison Johnson are Neighborhood Watch.
Co-Chairpersons. Carol O'Toole and Janice Corey are on the committee.
We need your help as a volunteer to be a block captain. Stolen car and
annual Christmas break rampages. I believe that this issue should be our
numbE;r one priority. If you wish to help, see them.
Highland Oaks Homeowner Association Sign- At the 2000 Annual1l1eeting
I announced that, we were looking into joining with the Highlands Oaks .
Homeowners Association and placing.a sign on the median in Santa Anita
.
2
.
Avenue above Foothill Blvd. Laterthat year, having SAORA's name on
the sign lost by one vote at a board meeting. Mark Johnson changed his
vote to a no vote at the last minute. Some people are very upset over the
Highland Oaks sign on Santa Anita Oaks. Currently Bashir Ahmad, Joyce
Getzen and Larry Wilson are on a committee to work with Highland Oaks
Homeowner Association's President Jeff Bowen to see what can be done
about the sign. Possibly to explore ways to renegotiate the placement and
size of the Highland Oaks sign. If you wish to join that committee see them.
Peacock Issues: Carol O'Toole presented a petition asking the Mayor to
initiate a proposal to control the peacocks. Bashir Ahmad volunteered
Mahmuda, his wife, to chair the committee for this issue with Barbie Betz to
join. If you wish to join that committee see them.
We are looking into publishing another newsletter with the help ofKeppie
Sullivan and Carol O'Toole. .
To find our web site:
1. wwW.cLarcadia.ca.us
2. Then click on About Acadia
. 3. Then click on Santa Anita Oaks Association
At Gino Roncelli' s request, I am looking into having just one thrash
collection day rather than the current every day is trash day in some part of
SAORA.
The two homeowners associations near the arboretum had' a party and it was
a big success. Pamela Blackwood is talk to the Upper Rancho Association
and the Highland Oaks Homeowner Association about having a joint party
with our homeowners associations. The other associations are interested in
having a party with us. The arboretum will charge a small fee for the party.
Election: The following Slate of Officers and Directors has been submitted
by the nominating committee:
.
Officers and Directors member:
President Pamela Blackwood
Vice President Larry Wilson
Treasurer John Snider
3
Secretary Carol O'Toole,
Director BashirAhmad
Director Ruth'Bell
Director George Bennett
Director Gene. Detmer.
Director Joyce Getzen
Director Susan Girgius
Director Sheryl Hunter
Director Mark Johnson
Director Laura K wok
Director Leona Madikians
Director Joan McCann
Director Karen McAlister
Director Rosemary PlamondQn
Director NafissaRashidi
Director Keppie Sullivan
Director John Woo
.
Architectural Review Board, a committee of the Homeowners Association
And created by a resolution of the Arcadia City Council.
Chairperson JackLynch'
Member Tom Beck
Member Nancy Dorn
Member Steve Perry
Member Carlton Seaver'
Member Clyde Stauff
MemberJohn Woo
.
Are there any nominations from the floor for an Officer or a Director?
I will entertain a motion from the floor to ratifY the slate of
Officers and Directors of the Homeowners Association and
the Architectural Review Board Chairperson and members.
All those in favor say Aye.
All th.ose opposed say Nay.
Thank you all for coming. Please use the rest of party to meet and greet your
. neighbors.
.
4