Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 1b: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Oak Trees Removal at 276 Hacienda Drive
A 4 1 00044, ti 11 ea 1 111 . � M T Yrr11. 190! •.; 1 i �4-0� ° STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: January 4, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Directora-K By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administratock Prepared by: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Oak Tree Applications TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 for the removal of an Engelmann Oak tree and encroachment upon two Coast Live Oak trees at 276 Hacienda Drive. Recommended Action: Provide Direction SUMMARY This is an appeal by the applicant, Ms. Sharon Kwan, of the Planning Commission's denial of two Oak Tree Permit Applications and the referral of the matter to the City Attorney for penalties and code enforcement action. The Commission denied the requests based on a finding that the non - permitted removal and encroachments should not be allowed or legitimized. The Development Services Department is recommending the following: 1) That the appeal of the denial of Application No. TRH 10 -01 be sustained and that the application be conditionally approved; 2) that the appeal of the denial of Application No. TRE 10 -20 be denied and that the denial of the application be upheld; and 3) that the appeal of the referral of the code violations to the City Attorney for the imposition of appropriate penalties and code enforcement action be denied and that the referral be upheld, or in the alternative, that the City Council make a determination as to the penalties and mitigation measures to be imposed. BACKGROUND Oak trees are protected in the City of Arcadia by the Oak Tree Preservation Regulations under Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9700 et sec. (attached). The applicant is seeking to legalize the non - permitted removal of an Engelmann Oak tree that was in the front yard area and the non - permitted encroachment by a block wall trench upon two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that are located in the rear yard of 280 Hacienda Drive, which is the adjacent property to the west of the subject site. In April 2010, the subject property was purchased by the current owner. Title is listed in Mr. Roland Hwang's name, but the actual purchase was by his mother, Mrs. Jenny Hwang. Mr. Roland Hwang is currently attending college on the east coast. Ms. Sharon Kwan, a friend of Mrs. Hwang is assisting with the two subject oak tree permit applications. Shortly after completing the purchase of the property, the owner removed a large Engelmann Oak tree from the front yard. This action was based on the property inspection report dated March 25, 2010 (attached) that disclosed that the roots of the oak tree in the front yard have caused damage to the main sewer line and also noted that the ground at the front of the property is saturated, possibly due to a leaking sprinkler as well as the damaged sewer line. Prior to removing the oak tree, the applicant obtained the services of Mr. Vance V. Tucker of Tucker's Tree Works, who was listed as a "Local Certified Arborist" on a handout provided by the City's Planning Services office. Mr. Tucker's report, dated April 7, 2010 (attached) recommended, "prompt removal" of the subject 26 "- diameter Engelmann Oak tree. After being informed that an Oak Tree Permit was required for the removal of the Engelmann Oak tree, the property owner, Mrs. Jenny Hwang submitted Application No. TRD 10 -07 to request approval of the removal of the Engelmann Oak tree on the basis that it was diseased. This application was administratively approved on May 3, 2010 based on Mr. Tucker's report. The approval, however, was rescinded in late June when it was learned that Mr. Tucker's certification had lapsed. In late May, the property owner began considering the installation of a new block wall along the side and rear property lines. On June 10, 2010, staff received a report of trenching being done along the westerly side property line. Code Services found that this work was being done without permits or design review approvals and that the excavation had encroached upon and damaged two Coast Live Oak trees on the neighbor's property. The property owner has said that this trenching work was initiated by the contractor and was not authorized. Nevertheless, an Oak Tree Permit for the encroachment was required, and the property owner had a new arborist report prepared by certified arborist, Mr. Craig Crotty of Arbor Culture. Mr. Crotty's report, dated August 3, 2010 (attached) discusses seven (7) oak trees that are either located on or overhanging the subject property, including the removed Engelmann Oak tree. This report is the basis for Oak Tree Permit Application Nos. TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20. Mr. Crotty's report indicates that the very thin crown on the Engelmann Oak tree as it appears in a photograph, most likely supports Mr. Tucker's assertion of disease of the removed oak tree. But, because this was not a definitive statement, an application for removal of a healthy oak tree, TRH 10 -01 was required. A TRH application is subject to consideration at a public hearing by the Modification Committee. In preparation for the hearing, staff consulted with Mr. Crotty and was advised that a 36" -box Engelmann Oak tree would be a fair replacement for the removed tree, based on its likely diseased condition. Oak trees no. 5 and no. 6 in Mr. Crotty's report are the two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that were encroached upon by the non - permitted trenching for a block wall. The report indicates that the roots of tree no. 5 were cut too close to the trunk, and if the tree is to remain, it is recommended that a structural support system be provided for the leaning Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive January 4, 2011 — page 2 tree as the risk of structural failure has been increased by the cutting of the roots. Tree no. 6 was also damaged by the excavation; however, the tree does not appear to be destabilized by the wounds and remains in fair condition. Mr. Crotty recommended replacement of the soil and keeping of the area at the base of the tree dry. The applicant has stated that the block wall will not be built, and the soil has been replaced. Photos of the filled trench are attached. It was the Santa Anita Oaks HOA that informed staff that Mr. Tucker is no longer certified as an arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture. The HOA also provided the attached report that includes information about a Magnolia tree that was removed. Also attached in reference to the Magnolia tree are a letter dated September 20, 2010 from the adjacent neighbor at 280 Hacienda Drive, Mr. Jim Krause, and a photo of the tree stump, which was identified by a consultant from the Arboretum as a Magnolia tree. Removal of a live Magnolia tree with a trunk diameter of over six inches is required to be approved by the HOA by City Council Resolution No. 5290 (attached). Based on the size of the stump, the trunk diameter may have been over six inches at a height of three feet above the adjacent grade, which are the criteria set forth in Resolution No. 5290. Attached is a timeline of the events involving the subject property and the subject trees. At its regular meeting on October 26, 2010, the Modification Committee considered Oak Tree Permit Application Nos. TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20, and denied the applications and referred the matter to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and enforcement action. The denial was based on the finding that the non - permitted removal and encroachment of oak trees should not be allowed or legitimized. On November 1, 2010, Ms. Kwan filed an appeal of the Modification Committee's action. At the Planning Commission's November 23, 2010 regular meeting, the Commission considered the appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of Application Nos. TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 and the referral of the matter to the City Attorney. Attached is the Planning Commission staff report, which has the following attachments: • Aerial Photo and Vicinity Map • Appeal Letter • Modification Committee Findings • Arborist Report by Mr. Tucker dated 4 -7 -10 • Arborist Report by Mr. Crotty dated 8 -3 -10 • Photos of the Subject Property • Letter from Mr. Krause re Magnolia Tree dated 9 -20 -10 • Photo of Magnolia Tree Stump • HOA Report, Recommendations & Photos • Radius Map • Oak Tree Preservation Regulations The Commission voted 5 -0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's action. The Commission felt that the matter should be handled by the City Attorney because the non - permitted work should not be legitimized. Attached is an excerpt from Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive January 4, 2011 — page 3 the Planning Commission minutes of the November 23, 2010 meeting. On December 2, 2010, Ms. Kwan filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. DISCUSSION There are two Oak Tree Permit Applications that are under consideration. Application No. TRH 10 -01 is to address the removal of an Engelmann Oak tree that was in the front yard of the subject property, and Application No. TRE 10 -20 is for the encroachment upon two Coast Live Oak trees that are on the neighboring property, adjacent to the westerly property line of the subject property. There is also the matter of the removal of a Magnolia tree that may have been large enough to have required approval by the Santa Anita Oaks ARB. And, there is the code enforcement aspect of this matter, which is to address the fact that these tree removals and encroachments all took place prior to the submittal of any applications or requests for approvals. Removal of Englelmann Oak Tree The first matter that was brought to staffs attention was the removal of the Engelmann Oak tree that was in the front yard of the subject property. Code Services received a call about the removal of this tree on April 27, 2010, and the inspector found that the trunk of the Engelmann Oak tree was already being ground down. It was also apparent that several other trees had been removed. Upon informing the property owner that a permit was required prior to removal of the oak tree, Application No. TRD 10 -07 was submitted on April 29, 2010. This application was submitted with the April 7, 2010 report from arborist Mr. Vance V. Tucker that recommended, "prompt removal." Based on this report, Application No. TRD 10 -07 was administratively approved on May 3, 2010. But, this approval was rescinded when the Santa Anita Oaks HOA informed staff that Mr. Tucker's certification could not be verified. The property owner was informed that the approval of Application No. TRD 10 -07 was voided, and that a new report from a certified arborist that would clearly corroborate Mr. Tucker's statement would be necessary. If such a report could not be obtained, it would be assumed that the Engelmann Oak tree was not diseased enough to warrant removal and that its removal would have to be considered through an application for removal of a healthy oak tree. The applicant provided the August 3, 2010 report from certified arborist, Mr. Craig Crotty that based an evaluation of the Engelmann Oak tree on photographs. The report states that the Engelmann Oak tree did appear to be diseased because of its thin canopy. However, since this is not a definitive statement that the tree was diseased, staff required that this matter be handled as if this oak tree were healthy. Therefore, the applicant, Ms. Sharon Kwan submitted Application No. TRH 10 -01, which was considered and denied by the Modification Committee and also by the Planning Commission upon appeal. Neither the applicant, nor the homeowner attended the Modification Committee meeting. It was later learned that Mrs. Hwang had been hospitalized due to an automobile accident. And, because the applicant, Ms. Kwan used the address of the Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive January 4, 2011 — page 4 subject property as the mailing address on the applications, neither she, nor Mrs. Hwang received notice of the Modification Committee hearing date. At the Modification Committee hearing, the Santa Anita Oaks HOA presented a report, and the neighbors expressed concern that if this case enters the penalty phase, it may delay the issuance of building permits and the house and landscaping will remain unimproved. The applicant had indicated that the owner is planning to remodel the house and re- landscape the property; however, one of the administrative remedies of the oak tree regulations is the suspension of any building permits until all mitigation measures are satisfactorily completed. The Committee assured the neighbors that any penalties and action would be handled concurrently with any permitting process for the subject site. The Committee denied the applicant's oak tree permits and referred the matter with the HOA's report to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. This decision was appealed by Ms. Kwan. Both Mrs. Hwang and Ms. Kwan attended the Planning Commission hearing and presented the property inspection report dated March 25, 2010, which states that the roots of the oak tree in the front yard have caused damage to the main sewer line and also noted that the front yard is saturated, possibly due to a leaking sprinkler and /or the damaged sewer line. This information supports Mr. Tucker's report that the Engelmann Oak tree was diseased. Also, on November 24, 2010, the day after the Planning Commission meeting, the attached letter was received from Mr. Gary L. Suess, the easterly neighbor at 270 Hacienda Drive. The letter states, "...no trees were destroyed at the property except for a dying oak tree in the front yard." The Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Modification Committee's action. However, because of the neglected appearance of the property, the Commission directed staff to allow the applicant to begin performing the necessary work to address the items noted in the March 25, 2010 property inspection report; such as, the leaking sprinkler system, the broken sewer line, the settling foundation, and the termite damage. In particular, the Commission mentioned the maintenance of the landscaping. Encroachment Upon Two Coast Live Oak Trees On June 6, 2010, staff received a complaint about work for a block wall being done without ARB approval. Staff found that the work being done was not permitted and that none of the necessary approvals had been obtained, including a permit to encroach upon two Coast Live Oak trees on the neighboring property that are adjacent to the westerly property line of the subject property. Code Services informed the property owner that an encroachment permit is required for any work within the protected zone (i.e., within the dripline or canopy perimeter) of an oak tree. Shortly after this incident, staff learned of and informed the property owner of Mr. Tucker's lapsed certification and rescission of the approval of application no. TRD 10 -07. The property owner was advised to select another arborist whose certification could be verified, and to have that arborist report on the encroachments, and to the extent possible, on the condition of the Engelmann Oak tree that had been removed. The applicant, Ms. Sharon Kwan provided the August 3, 2010 report by Mr. Crotty, which states that two oak trees were encroached upon with significant damage having been done to one oak tree (no. 5 in the report) and mild damage to the other (no. 6 in the report). To address this matter, Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive January 4, 2011 — page 5 the applicant submitted Application No. TRE 10 -20, which staff referred to the Modification Committee in conjunction with TRH 10 -01; both of which were denied by the Modification Committee and also by the Planning Commission upon appeal. The applicant has since stated that the block wall will not be built, which eliminates the need for an encroachment permit. However, the code violation of having encroached upon the two oak trees without a permit, and the damage to the oak trees still need to be addressed. Removal of Magnolia Tree Following up on the initial complaint and observation that several trees besides the Engelmann Oak tree had been removed, Code Services informed the property owner on May 11, 2010 that a report from a certified arborist needs to be provided regarding any protected trees that may have been removed (Le., in addition to oak trees, sycamores, Iiquidambars, magnolias, and pines if larger than six inches in diameter as listed in the Santa Anita Oaks Resolution No. 5290). A report by Mr. Vance Tucker was submitted on May 24, 2010 (attached) that stated the only protected tree that had been removed was the Engelmann Oak tree. Based on this report, no further action was taken with regard to the removal of any other protected trees. At the Modification Committee hearing on October 26, 2010, the Santa Anita Oaks HOA provided testimony and documentation that a Magnolia tree had been removed, and which, if its trunk was greater than six inches in diameter, was subject to their approval for removal. Because Mr. Tucker's certification had lapsed, his report has been disregarded. The Modification Committee did not directly address this matter, but their action included that the HOA's report and recommendations be forwarded to the City Attorney for enforcement actions, and the Planning Commission upheld this action upon appeal. If it can be determined that the subject Magnolia tree was large enough to qualify as a protected tree, then its removal was done in violation of Resolution No. 5290 and the City's design review regulations. Code Enforcement After the Planning Commission's action was appealed, staff met with the City Attorney to discuss potential enforcement actions. The City Attorney, in accordance with the Enforcement provisions of the City's Oak Tree Preservation regulations, advised staff to consult with a certified arborist to obtain expert opinion on the valuation of the Engelmann Oak tree that was removed, the two Coast Live Oak trees that have been encroached upon and damaged, and the Magnolia tree that was removed and if possible, to determine whether, or not it qualified for protected status. Such expert opinion would provide some basis for formulating the enforcement action. The City Attorney also asked to have Code Services provide an opinion and estimate of any fines and citations that could have been issued. Planning Services has contacted the City's certified arborist in the Public Works Services Department and an independent certified arborist, and expects these valuation reports to be available in early January. In accordance with the City's Oak Tree Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive January 4, 2011 — page 6 Preservation regulations, such values are to be based on a formula prescribed by the International Society of Arboriculture. Code Services has reviewed the timeline of events concerning the removal of the Engelmann Oak tree, the encroachment upon the two Coast Live Oak trees, and the possible removal of a protected Magnolia tree. Based on the timeline, two citations could have been issued for the Engelmann Oak tree removal that would have amounted to $600 in fines; three citations could have been issued for the encroachment upon the two Coast Live Oak trees that would have totaled $1,600 in fines; and no citations would have been issued for the Magnolia tree because its protected status is still in doubt. The total fines could have been $2,200. Code Services did not issue citations because they are subject to a 30 -day appeal process, which would have added to the delays that were already being experienced in the processing of the oak tree permits, and based on the City's Oak Tree Preservation regulations, such monetary penalties could still be imposed. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Development Services Department finds that the proposed project is a Class 4 Categorical Exemption per CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 —Minor Alterations to Land. FISCAL IMPACT The processing of oak tree permit applications has no significant impact on the City's general fund. The applicant and /or property owner have paid application fees of $540 for TRH 10 -01, $195 for TRE 10 -20, and appeal fees of $540 for each appeal. There may also be imposed monetary fines and other mitigation measures for the violations of the City's Oak Tree Preservation regulations and for the removal of the Magnolia tree if it was large enough to qualify for protection. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the City Council take the following three actions: 1) Sustain the appeal of the denial of Application No. TRH 10 -01 and approve the application, subject to the following conditions: A. That a 36" -box Engelmann Oak tree shall be planted on the subject property at a location subject to the approval of a certified arborist and the Development Services Director. B. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive January 4, 2011 — page 7 limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. C. Approval of TRH 10 -01 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to acknowledge awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. 2) Deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's action on Application No. TRE 10 -20 and uphold its denial; and 3) Uphold the referral of the code violations to the City Attorney for the imposition of appropriate penalties and remedies. Alternatively, the City Council may choose to make a determination as to the penalties and mitigation measures that are to be imposed. Approved: /1111•11111, et_ • •Wald Penman, City ager Attachments: Property Inspection Report dated March 25, 2010 Photos of filled trench Santa Anita Oaks HOA Resolution No. 5290 Timeline November 23, 2010 Planning Commission staff report, which includes the following as attachments: • Aerial Photo and Vicinity Map • Appeal Letter • Modification Committee Findings • Arborist Report by Mr. Tucker dated 4 -7 -2010 • Arborist Report by Mr. Crotty dated 8 -3 -2010 • Photos of the Subject Property • Letter from Mr. Krause re Magnolia tree dated 9 -20 -2010 • Photo of Magnolia Tree Stump • HOA Report, Recommendations and Photos • Radius Map • Oak Tree Preservation Regulations November 23, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt Letter from Mr. Gary L. Suess received on 11 -24 -1010 May 24, 2010 report by Mr. Tucker regarding other protected trees Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive January 4, 2011 — page 8 O Detail Property tt , PRO PE Inspection, Inc. •�` 249 N. Brand Blvd., Sulte 336 Glendale, CA 91203 "'" 818 -563 -8198, 323 -668 -1676 Fax 818-475-5396 www.detailinspect.com e cT1,O $ �;. t Y K `F !� "S4 Y} �.c� j t I , itAtir A Sl r . ` 4 #ti AI F p > 7�r �r t' . � � A A y � Y � T'� � #', � �a f+ v �' .� e �x a "t i e x a �'" � d,` r N s7Y . .;r , �, es�ty�f' fi�`S,A��7+�� tx r �� a4 1 ' N 1 ,Nw ; ,'ev+. E w+.xw w -+„".' ..e .___4fi *+.au� ' ;c t n , -0 , ?i c to m"' ^tMM .. - a ' , . 4 ' . ' , F , '� ? t'', . l t t Y J� Y Y 1 �r u� ` � Y � { A s a '�„ ✓ r W ' E "�. � x r? i, A t : .1.i', , � tx . a r qN i , .. tt . . *a x aC �. r x d ,a i'� F 1 NQ h m� { kk' w ,( kr Y. ::f.. ry �1. Y 6�! ,W. H .N. 'fR �'', . i � � �I{ :.. At '�k�.�.9P' nk.•a "�.� .`. Schedule Date : Thursday, March 25, 2010 Report # :: M1003076 Client: Roland Lee Hwang Sublect Property Address: 276 Hacienda Dr. City /State/Zip: Arcadia, CA 91006 Buyers Ag : Jenny Wibisono Office : ColdweII B -New Century Work Phone: 626- 285 -8899 Address : 960 E. Las Tunas Dr, #A Fax #: - City /State/Zip : San Gabriel CA 91776 Sellers Agent : N/A Off : Work Phone: - Address : Fax #: - City /State /Zip : y � ; Detail Property Inspection, Inc. �,r 249 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 336 ih ° Glendale, CA 91203 : g 818. 663 -8198, 323 468 -1676 Fax 818-475-5396 www.detailinspect.com Roland Lee Hwang Invo'ice Invoice Date: Mar 25, 2010 Inspection Date: Mar 25, 2010 Subject Property: Invoice #: 276 Hacienda Dr. Report #: M1003076 Arcadia, CA 91006 Inspector : Mike Owdeh - Chief INSPECTION FEES INSPECTION FEE: $500.00 SUB TOTAL : $500.00 CHECK # 743 PAYMENT: $500.00 TOTAL DUE : $0.00 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. 249 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 336 Glendale, CA 91203 818 -553 -8198, 323- 668 -1676 Fax 818 - 475 -5396 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. � .c P rtY P . 249 N. Brand Blvd. Suite # 336 2 + .� Glendale, CA 91203 ' "' °'' ^••.�� , 'ti1 l i i... Tel: (818) 553 -8198 www.detailinspect.com THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT... PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. Report #: INA Client: / Print: Roland /et. 1/tffl5 Subject Proa Address: /e -mail: Z,6 j{GIG�! D'Y • City/State/Zip: /Telephone No:, .�AYra D g kVA I/We (Client) hereby request a limited visual inspection of the structure at the above address to be conducted by Detail Property Inspection, Inc., (Inspector), for my /our sole use and benefit. IMIe warrant that lIWe will read the following agreement carefully. 1/We understand that I/We are bound by all the terms of this contract. !further warrant that I will read the entire inspection report when I receive it and promptly call the inspector with any questions I may have. Initial Here SCOPE OF INSPECTION The scope of the inspection and report is a limited visual inspection of the general systems and components of the home to identify any system or component listed in the report which may be in need of immediate major repair. The inspection will be performed in compliance with generally accepted standards of practice, a copy of which Is available upon request. OUTSIDE SCOPE OF INSPECTION Any area which is not exposed to view, is concealed, or Is inaccessible because of soil, walls, floors, carpets, ceilings, furnishings. or any other thing is not included in this inspection. The inspection does not include any destructive testing or dismantling. Client agrees to assume all the risk for all conditions which are concealed from view at the time of the inspection. This is not a home warranty, guarantee, Insurance policy or substitute for real estate.transfer disclosures which may be required by law. Whether or not they are concealed, the following ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS INSPECTION: Specific components noted as being excluded on the individual systems inspection forms Private water or private sewage systems Mold, Mildew, odors or noise Proximity to railroad tracks or airplane routes Saunas, steam baths, or fixtures and equipment Boundaries, easements or lights of way Seismic safety, security or security bars and /or safety equipment Sprinklers related systems, timer and components Radio- controlled devices, automatic gates, elevators, lifts, dumbwaiters and thermostatic or time clock controls Weter softener / purifier systems or solar heating systems Furnace heat exchangers, freestanding appliances, security alarms or personal property Adequacy or efficiency of any system or component Prediction of life expectancy of any item Permits, building code or zoning ordinance violations Geological stability or soils condition, wave action or hydrological stability, survey or testing Structural stability or engineering analysis Termites, pests or other wood destroying organisms, dry-rot or fungus, latent or concealed defects Gas appliances such as fire plts, barbecues, heaters and lamps. Main gas shut-off valve and any gas leaks Unique/technically complex systems or components My adverse condition that may affect the desirability of the property Asbestos, radon, formaldehyde, lead, water or air quality, electromagnetic radiation or any environmental hazards Buflding value appraisal or coat estimates Condftlon of detached buildings Pool or spas bodies and underground piping Verification of Chinese drywall Items specifically noted as excluded In the insPection report Your inspector Is a home Inspection generalist and is not acting as a licensed engineer or expert in any craft or trade. If your inspector recommends consulting other specialized experts, client must do so at client's expense. 1 HAVE READ AND AGREE TO THE ABOVE SCOPE OF INSPECTION. : t Page 1 of 2 lnitial Here 1 . 1 1 • S 1 Report # : M1003076 Exterior 1 KEY: (1) R ecommend evaluation by a structural engineer/goo-technical engineer (4) This item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (6) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information * This item warrants attention/repair or monitoring IMPORTANT NOTE - PLEASE READ: The Summary page is provided to allow the reader a brief overview of the report. This page is rat encompassing. Reading this page alone is not a substitute for reading the report in entirety. The entire Inspection Report, induding the Standard Of Practice, Limitation, Scope of Inspection and Pre - Inspection Agreement must be carefully read to fully assess the findings of th the inspection. property. n areas as ofuncertaint to determine which items may need to be g to the contract should be darlfied by consulting h anattomey or requirements of the estate agent sale of the prop Any b It is recommended that any deficiencies and components/systems related to these deficiencies noted in the report be evaluated/inspected and repaired as needed by licensed contractors/professionals PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF ESCROW, Further evaluation PRIOR to the close of escrow is recommended so a properly licensed professional can evaluate our concems further and inspect the remainder of the system or component for additional concems that might be outside our area of expertise or the scope of our inspection. Please call our office for any clarifications or further questions. Tree planted at front, seller to disclose roots damage to main sewer line. If any, we recommend further video inspection. pic 2 Clean out noted at exterior (front), seller to disclose roots damage to main sewer line. If any, we recommend further video inspection. pic 3 Metal windows noted, do not close properly and few are difficult to operate. pic 8 Wet ground noted at front, possible sprinkler leak, call a plumber. pic 10 Loose clamp noted at hose faucet at front. Recommend to tighten. pic 12 Ash door at chimney is buried. pic 14 Disconnected down spout and water damage noted at west side window. pic 18 Damaged dryer cap noted at exterior. pic 19 Wires touch trees. Contact utility company. pic 21 Breaker is OFF at main panel. Recommend evaluation. pic 24 Gate leading pool are unsafe due to missing self closer and do not self latch, recommend repairs for safety. pic 26 Outlet at exterior is not exterior rated type, recommend upgrades. pic 28 Down spout and gutter at rear terminates at a poor location, recommend to extend. pic 29 Recommend handrail at rear exterior stairs. pic 30 Glass at rear sliding doors is not tempered. pic 31 Water damage noted at soffits at various areas. pic 32 Tree touches roof / structure noted at rear, recommend tree service. pic 33 Damage noted at rear and side blockwall. pic 35 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Contract continued Client: Report #: THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT... PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. ARBITRATION: Any dispute, controversy. interoretation or claim includina claims for. but not limited to. breach of contract. any form of nealiaence. fraud or miareoresentation or any other theory of liability arising out of. from or related to this contract or grisina out of. from or related to the inspection or inspection reoort shall be submitted to final and bindina arbitration under the Ivies and procedures of the Expedited Arbitration of Home Inspection Disputes of Construction Arbitration Services. Inc. The decision of the arbitrator a000inted thereunder shall be final and bindina and iudament on the award may be entered in any court of comoetent iurisdiction. CONFIDENTIAL REPORT: The inspection report to be prepared for Client is solely and exclusively for Client's own information and may not be relied upon by any other person. Client agrees to maintain the confidentiality of the inspection report and agrees not to disclose any part of it to any other person. Client may distribute copies of the inspection report to the seller and the real estate agents directly involved in this transaction, but Client and Inspector do not in any way intend to benefit said seller or the real estate agents directly or indirectly through this Agreement or the inspection report. CLIENT AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD INSPECTOR HARMLESS FROM ANY THIRD PARTY CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF CLIENT'S UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION OF THE INSPECTION REPORT ATTORNEY'S FEES: The prevailing party in any dispute arising out of this agreement, the inspection, or report(s) shall be awarded all attomey's fees, arbitrator fees and other related costs. SEVERABILITY: Client and Inspector agree that should a Court of Competent Jurisdiction determine and declare that any portion of this contract is void, voidable or unenforceable, the remaining provisions and portions shall remain In full force and effect. DISPUTES: Client understands and agrees that any claim for failure to accurately report the visually discernible conditions at the Subject Property, as limited herein above, shall be made in writing and reported to the Inspector within ten business days of discovery. Client further agrees that, with the exception of emergency conditions, Client or Client's agents, employees or independent contractors, will make no alterations, modifications or repairs to the claimed discrepancy prior to a reinspection by the Inspector. Client understands and agrees that any failure to notify the Inspector as stated above shall constitute a waiver of any and all claims for said failure to accurately report the condition in question. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the INSPECTOR/INSPECTION COMPANY is not an insurer, that the payment for the subject inspection is based solely on the value of the service provided by the INSPECTOR/INSPECTION Company in the performance of the limited visual inspection and production of a written inspection report as described herein, that it is impracticable end extremely difficult to fix the actual damages, if any, which may result from a failure to perform such services and in case of failure to perform such services, and a resulting loss the INSPECTOR/INSPECTION COMPANY'S liability hereunder shall be limited and fixed in an amount equal to the inspection fee paid multiplied by two (2), or to the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00), whichever sum shall be leas, as liquidated damages, and not as a penalty, and this liability shall be exclusive. No legal action or proceeding of any kind, including those sounding in tort or contract, can be commenced against the Inspector/Inspection Company, or its officers, agents or employees more than one year after the date of the subject inspection. Time is expressly of the essence herein. The written report to be prepared by Inspector shall be considered the final and exclusive findings of the Inspector regarding the inspection of the property. Client shall not rely on any oral statements made by the Inspector prior to issuance of the written report. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns, agents, and representatives of any kind whatsoever. This agreement constitutes the entire integrated agreement between the parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and may be modified only by a written agreement signed by all of the parties hereto. No oral agreements, understandings, or representations shall change, modify, or amend any part of thls agreement. (Initial) PERMITS I/We have read, understand and agree to all of the terms and conditions of this contract and agree to pay the fees listed below. • , ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Signed: / • Ddte: Signed: / Date.: INSPECTION FEE: TOTAL INSPECTION FEES: Signed: _P Date: Z s pector PAYMENT: Page 2 f 2 LTA capyrgn►1693a032 DUE: Page Detail Property Inspection, Inc. • KEY TO THE INSPECTION REPORT 1 Report #:M1003076 I This Report lists the systems and components inspected by this company. Items not found in this report are considered beyond the scope of this inspection, and should not be considered inspected at this time. "APPEAR SERVICEABLE" means that we did not observe conditions that would lead us to believe problems existed with this system or component. The item is capable of being used. Some serviceable items may, however, show wear and tear. Other conditions if applicable, will be noted in the body of the report. Significantly deficient systems or components will be identified as: Not functional / unsafe / wom / near end of lifespan. When in the inspector's opinion, an item is "significantly deficient ", the reason will be within the body of the report. Please read the entire report for all Items, comments, Inserts and pictures. As they all constitute Inspection m report. p ort. consultation o c : This report contains technical information that may not be readily understandable to the lay person. with the Inspector is a mandatory part of this inspection report If you choose not to consult with the inspector, this Inspection company cannot be held liable for your understanding or misunderstanding of this report's contents. If you were not present during this inspection please call the office to arrange for your verbal consultation. KEY TO THE INSPECTION REPORT * Items that have an asterisk next to them. This Item or component warrant additional attention, repair or monitoring. (1) items that have a (1) next to them. The Bracketed Numbers are defined as follows: (1) Recommended evaluation by a qualified licensed structural engineer / geotechnical engineer. (2) Recommend further review and repairs as needed by a qualified licensed contractor or specialty tradesman dealing with that item or system. . (3) Recommend further review for the presence of any wood destroying pests or organisms by qualified Pest Inspector. (4) This Item is a safety hazard - correction Is needed (5) Recommend upgrading for safety enhancement This building may have been constructed before current safety standards were developed. If you do not understand how to read this report please contact our office. 1 have read and understand the Key to the Matrix inspection Report. Representative/Agent's Initials _ d the special "NOTICES" in each section of the report for further information concerning the limitations 1 agree to rea Pe of this inspection. Client's Initials Representative /Agent's Initials -- -- Present During The Inspection: ® Client ® Buyer's Agent ❑ Seller's Agent ❑ Seller INSPECTOR : Mike Owdeh - Chief Inspector Inspection Date: Mar/25/2010, Thursday Start Time: 9:00 am Completion Time: The weather condition at the time of inspection was Approximate temperature during _ inspection Property information: The subject property inspected was a (an): Single Family. # of units Approximate age of building: Stated by: Approximate age of roof: Stated by: Additions / Alterations to: Stated by: NOTICE: It is always wise to check with the building department for permit Information, especially If additions or alterations are noted. IMPORTANT NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES OR OTHER PURCHASERS: RECEIPT OF THIS REPORT BY ANY PURCHASERS OF THIS PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE PARTY(IES) IDENTIFIED ON THE CONTRACT PAGE 51 18 NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE INSPECTOR. THE INSPECTOR STRONGLY ADVISES AGAINST ANY RELIANCE ON THIS REPORT. WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU RETAIN A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL INSPECTOR TO PROVIDE YOU WITH YOUR OWN INSPECTION AND REPORT ON THIS PROPERTY. Copyright ,000 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Report # :M1003076 Exterior 1 Client: Roland Lee Hwang Sublect Property: 276 Hacienda Dr. Schedule Date : Thursday, March 25, 2010 Arcadia, CA 91006 w , x ; r ,� r� .. a " ur : 77 I. ` :; ,44 • a r•:, + � �e: ' ! • I • , �. ... ' ....M..... ,. B aal ? " ���� Gas meter at exterior. _ tree,planted at front, • Clean out notelet A/C condensers at rons AiC unit B Seismic shut of valve seller to discbse roots exterior (front), sefer to exterior. is not installed. t damage to main sewer ,, disclose roots dame, e , , :1, , i0:, , J , , • • • ; 1 .. ,,,,,,„_., -„,, 4, , .,,,,,- 14j, ,,, ti . A/C service disconnect Metal windows noted, d • Metal windows noted, d • I .Wet ground noted at Galvanized plumbing Loose clamp noted at box. not close properly and not close properly and front, possible sprinkler , noted at hose faucet. hose faucet at front. few are difficult to few a p difficult to leak call a • lumber. Recommend tot hten. All • ,vie °.1 x A i ` 4�.f.ff,,�� '� k IW'.HY ' q„,,, . R 1 ', �jj14 Clean out noted at Ash door at chimney is Water damage noted at Galvanized main water Water softener noted, Disconnected down exterior (front), seller to • buried. • exterior wood doors. line and main water not in the scope of this disclose roots damage valve at exterior. ' ins. -coon. I dame�, noted and water = west I ' ,::,;=,.., r A n F {� I ' 'ti y t r °a a (� '' � � p r 1 I, i S ,p,+ 7 �t '' ./ : k g xr '' . 4 • Rf tSl a • � ,., I i . { , a R'l NYy t k �' t N 'ip' i y f£ a to L meellimmosommi Damaged dryer cap Weather head. Wires touch trees. Main panel at exterior. Main switch at main Breaker is OFF at main noted at exterior. I Contact utility company. Main switch at main panel. 200 amps. I panel. Recommend • anal. 200 am • s. evaluation. �'%' X44.: sg� A ,c ,d 2 4 C� • s l iii r S I ""Y ,,#,y .. S4 '.^v ffi„+u.�cr M �useer�ozmrn�nw- tom. 1 f . 7 '' . V !, . ' ' . ' 4 i .I` 7 ,, ,;',,": Tilt up garage door. Gate leading pool are BBQ at exterior is not in Outlet at exterior ig not Down spout and Butte Recommend handrail unsafe due to missirp the scope of this exterior rated type, at rear terminates at a at rear exterior stairs, self closer and do not ins • - coon. er •• mmend u • . rades. • • or location aw ,,,,f,.;. 1 i to 5, r ,4 , 4 ( ,. k r ., �r ;p ''n d F« ti x , dad rx 3' i .N , a y,r r' '''';.-1,-- r' ' a' r -p IaYSn .....t.-,, -- fi x; u e t a 4 - i 3 \ ' .� ko , y 4 . >1.a c �� `•"' w•'.+.+ z r:" f r ,, r .Y�� y e t -:, '` s ti ,„ a a .5 •.� d i� - , ., t W :Jr k „,- » V,,,I..:,,,,,,,t,,,,,.,i,...., ., , ? Glass at rear siding Water damage noted at Tree touches roof / Blockwall noted. Damage noted at rear Pool at rear. doors is not tempered. soffits at various areas. I structure noted at rear, and side blockwall. re commend tree I SUMMARY ( Report It : M1003076 Exterior 2 K EY: ( 2 ) Recommended evaluation uation and repairs by a licensed contractor nglneer (4) This are�recommended fo safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information This item warrants attention/repair or monitoring IMPORTANT NOTE - PLEASE READ: The Summary page is provided to allow the reader a brief overview of the report. This page is not encompassing. Reading this page alone is not a substitute for reading the report in entirety. The entire Inspection Report, including the Standard Of Practice, Limitation, Scope of Inspection and Pre - Inspection Agreement must be carefully read to fully assess the findings of he need to be addressed per property. Any It is recommended that any deficiencies and components/systems related to these deficiencies noted in the report be evaluatedrinspected and repaired as needed by licensed contractors/professionals PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. Further evaluation PRIOR to the close of escrow is recommended so a properly licensed professional can evaluate our concems further and inspect the remainder of the system or component for additional concems that might be outside our area of expertise or the scope of our inspection. Please call our office for any clarifications or further questions. Water is cloudy and pool surface is deteriorated, recommend resurfacing. pic 1 Pool equipments at rear are old and need evaluation and repairs. pic 3 • Pit noted at rear, unable to determine use. Inspector is unable to determine septic tank. pic 4 Timer at pool equipments is not functional, recommend evaluation. pic 5 Missing body bond noted at pool pump, pump is unsafe, recommend repairs for safety. pic 6 Operation of pool light is undetermined, recommend evaluation. pic 8 Outlet at rear yard is buried and unsafe. pic 12 Missing sensors at garage door opener. pic 15 Improper wiring noted at garage. pic 16 Fire rating at garage interior door is undetermined and closer is missing, recommend evaluation for safety. pic 17 Hole needs repair noted at garage fire wall. pic 18 Animal hole noted at garage dormer, recommend repairs. pic 25 Signs water ponding noted at second and roof does not drain properly at corner, recommend repairs. pic 27 Upper roof down spout terminates improperly at lower roof corner, recommend improvement. pic 28 Water damage noted at roof to wall connection at rear second roof. pic 29 Old flue noted, recommend further evaluation of chimney. pic 35 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Report # : M1003076 Exterior 2 Client: Roland Lee Hwang Sublect Prooertv: 276 Hacienda Dr. Schedule Date : Thursday, March 25, 2010 Arcadia, CA 91006 • �� • i �q, `,ky \ 2 k 7 ,,! _ to ,. . s :t..l ... !A•, Water is dowdy and Diving board noted, not Pool equipments at rear, Pit noted at rear, unable Timer at pool Missing body bond pool surface is in the scope of this are old and need ! to determine use. equipments is not noted at pool pump, deteriorated, ins. action. evaluation and re • airs. Ins • actor is unable to unctional, recommend • um • is unsak, id • ,e '- { is f v �p ' � F w r F . ,. ' .t,..,,,.",,,'4..:'' N, r y ` '.. z a5 if .a 4� a -•,t <;�4,.. MMMIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMM Damaged blockwall Operation of pool light is Operation of pool light is Stockwell at rear. Chain at Zink west fence side. noted Outlet buried at rear end unsafe. yard is noted at rear. undetermined, undetermined, recommend evaluation. recommend evaluation. a .., ,,,,,,.,,, i , irii. i is-4 ,it n I } x p . . ' ' t a t - • Limited view noted at Garage interior. Missing sensors at Improper wiring noted at Fire rating at garage Hole needs repair garage interior. garage door opener. garage. ' interior door is noted at garage fire undetermined and wall. .7 111111111IINNINIMmomp a ,• " ter yq .� o ! fi r' y ^t C ^ ,: ,,, E, 1 °,i a , g.�Aa+ .1.0or n �� Improper wiring noted Metal windows noted, Wires touch ity company. trees. Main roof. Main roof. Second roof. at garage. do not close properly Contact util and few are difficult to r , ti .r+" „ t 1 , VN S 7' A t Y" Animal hole noted at Tree touches roof, Signs water ponding Upper roof down spout Water damage noted Main roof. garage dormer, recommend tree noted at second and terminates improperly at at roof to wall re commend re • airs. service. roof does not • rain lower roof corner tonne ion at re , r R 7 4,0,„ 40' t � ., Main roof. Main roof. A non professional Recommend rain caps Old flue noted, Recommend rain caps skylight noted at roof. at chimneys. recommend further at chimneys. evaluation of chimne . • rr. SUMMARY I Report # : M1003076 Exterior . 3 I K EY: ( 1) Recommend evaluatlon by a structural engineer/goo-technical engineer (4) This Item is a safety rmendd - for es needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (6). file Item are reo nac t m en de d for safe or monitoring (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further Information IMPORTANT NOTE - PLEASE READ: The Summary page Is provided to allow the reader a brief overview of the report. This page is not the S t a n an d Of ecpsing. Pr Race, Li mit i at i on, Scope of Inspection and Pre-Inspection Agreement t must be carefully read to fully assess the find ngs of of the e ins a Practice, the inspection. This is n�c tt intended to determine which items may need to be addressed per the contractual requirements of the sale of the property. Any areas of uncertainty regarding to the contract should be clarified by consulting an attomey or a real estate agent. It is recommended that any deficiencies and components/systems related to these deficiencies noted in the report be evaluated/inspected and repaired as needed by licensed contractors/professionals pr IOcTOe THE E C LOSE O o ESC t uOn . Further inspect evation PR t to the of the close of escrow is recommended so a properly professional system or component for additional concerns that might be outside our area of expertise or the scope of our inspection. Please call our office for any clarifications or further questions. Water heater at basement is not strapped. pic 3 Improper solid gas connector noted at water heater, recommend a flex type. pic 7 Water heater is unsafe due to missing pressure relief valve, recommend to install for safety. pic 8 Major water and possible termite damage noted at basement structure beams, recommend evaluation by a termite inspector and Engineer. pic 11 Evidence of water intrusion noted at basement wall. pic 18 Recommend handrail at basement interior stairs. pic 19 Surface drain noted at basement, appears blocked. pic 21 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. I Report # : M1003076 Exterior 3 1 Client: Roland Lee Hwang Sublect Property: 276 Hacienda Dr. Schedule Date : Thursday, March 25, 2010 Arcadia, CA 91006 � � .. Nf f G A �. y r f 1,-, ,,,,,,,,,..41 �i�' R t A kTY. 1 kt" N E �i � IF if 3 R E'. '+1N� "116'1 9 ' f , - 4 j' K � ` 1 "4Y.N+a.S I -. ` ! i f, ' ✓,'i 4 J �t, h T 1 rionomannommin Old flue noted, Disconnected down Water heater at I Water her at Data plate at water Copper plumbing recommend further spout and water damag - basement is not basemen s not heater. 75 gallons, r. noted at water he evaluation of chimne . noted at west side stra • • -d. stre • • -d. 988 y ater. 1 § + t w,,, RR , --`, 1-e, ' - , : - --,* o.vt. , - '4' G4 r � g 4 Improper solid gas Water heater is unsafe Temperature at hot Furnace A and B at Major water termite and Major water term and ite connector noted at due to missing pressure water (water heater), basement I water heater relief valve recommend 113 d- • - - dame . e no • • • at dame, -noted at + 1 *' y s dBP a� i g ° r .r. IgiSk g e r . a ��sv x g!4 n Crawl space. Crawl space and duct Access to crews space Crawl space. Copper plumbing Evidence of water system. Is blocked. noted at basement. intrusion noted at Tii basement wall. � 1 ,�I M.'- .7- -n a W tG+ . T7 ft a — „:„;,,,i,;,, ■ i ce • ,, - ia 4 � t l s , r 14 , �?' t i : , - ..1 0 , s � ", i C W - , P- , Recommend handrail Major water and Surface drain noted at Sprinklers and timer at basement Interior possible termite basement, appears noted, not in the scope stairs. dama • e noted at blocked. of this ins . -ction. 111111111111111111° 1 iiiji NMI 1 111111111111111111 1 1 1 SUMMARY Report # : M1003076 Interior 1 KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer /geo-technical engineer (4) This Item is a safety hazard - correction Is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information * This Item warrants attention/repair or monitoring ■ IMPORTANT NOTE - PLEASE READ: The Summary page is provided to allow the reader a brief overview of the report. This page is flot encompassing. Reading this page alone is not a substitute for reading the report in entirety. The entire Inspection Report, Including the Standard Of Practice, Limitation, Scope of Inspection and Pre - Inspection Agreement must be carefully read to fully assess the findings of the the property. Any areas as to deterrnine which items may need to be addressed per g tote contract should be clarified by consullting attorney or requirements sale of real estate agent. It is recommended that any deficiencies and components/systems related to these deficiencies noted in the report be evaluated/inspected and repaired as needed by licensed contractors/professionals PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. Further evaluation PRIOR to the close of escrow is recommended so a properly licensed professional can evaluate our concerns further and inspect the remainder of the system or component for additional concems that might be outside our area of expertise or the scope of our inspection. Please call our office for any clarifications or further questions. Major restriction noted at galvanized plumbing, recommend evaluation and upgrades. pic 4 Slow drain noted at master bathroom sink. pic 7 Cracked glass panel noted at master bathroom shower enclosure door. pic 8 Master bathroom door does not latch. pic 9 Recommend door stopper where needed. pic 10 Electric heaters at various bathrooms walls are unsafe, recommend to unplug for safety. pic 11 Missing smoke detectors at bedrooms, recommend to install. pic 13 Toilet at upper bathroom 3 is not functional. pic 25 Missing smoke detectors at hallway, recommend to install. pic 29 Exposed wires noted at rear exterior light, recommend a cover plate. pic 30 Lower bathroom toilet is not functional. pic 34 Drain stopper at lower bathroom sink is not functional. pic 35 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Rort # : M1003076 Interior 1 Client: Roland Lee Hwang Subiect Property: 27 Hacienda Dr. Schedule Date : Thursday, March 25, 2010, Arcadi CA 91006 j :; : . ' , r ', , ,,,,, 4 „ , , , ,,, ,,, , ' f '''Y'"4:' a p .�3 � • t � ' x+ 'F +cc'XI'� 4 � w c xr S. ', t $ w.. c c J w a � rim,-::, �' 4 a gg``i ''','L,•••;' t v$• Ac .� 6 a ,'''''''.• � �� �'" 4 4. i ''''''''1' r u �� . kk . yy � ' ' * i .. 4 �, •' 4� '° 4 5 �. "' „�,,t is iY ,+, a 5r _ } ,� k . 'r'$`f"';f..� �' L, < t . . _ . t'�s . ),. ' k�r 7 �t ' ,%, i �' '+ °fib a • 4 k �` i, , �1 "C w c i . cgs �' � � n�� k � :rss� } ' { 4‘''''''' 3'» p. Master Bath A: Master Master bathroom. bathroom Major res d plumbing, at galvanized • lumbin triction noted Major restriction noted Major restriction noted bathroom. I shower pan noted, not I at galvariize' I at galvanized Ins • acted for leaks, rocommend evaluation •lumbin • ,recommend , recommend ,�$da. � � al. � b4. ' w R rr �` •C w4�” � 3 l � � ��,*a '.': f�' a, .a �' � ` � • , ,,: k !, F } `4 +n v f S l } et n j' t '' $ ;� k) y :R ' N¢ ,. N R, w a'x' s ^p` t 't'""'S ,c kt4 i+: y 4,#,.'''''' • 4 mKa� ' ` k ' :r x, ,, . � LLi .,Y x .'....4.'-a'„'.., '..' s • „ ,ki V .. . Slow drain noted at Cracked glass panel Master door ommen l door Electric heaters noted prong outlets master bathroom sink. I noted at master d oes bathroom not latch. stopper Rec where needed. at various bathrooms noted Two at various arose, bathroom shower walls are unsafe recommend u • re • - . e , Y t 13 X t k )iV w { �, d rtu P t •,• a c Lr S- ir f •n } ;,tt. Sv i N �w 'a t 8 -0,-,,,,,.,- • , A l 1 . 3 a. J - - % � � � � � �., � � � ax q � j : , i� � � tea u r� r .fat c � ,� Missing smoke Bath B: Upper bathroom Temperature at hot Missing smoke Upper bathroom Bath C: Upper detectors at bedrooms, 2. water (water heater), detectors at bedrooms, shower pan noted, not recommend to install. bathroom 3. ommend . 114 d - rasa. j recommend to install. ins • - ed or teaks , , a M 6 , K F RI :, —r o 5 ' A � S A Two prong outlets Attic frame. Attic frame. Attic and insulation. Attic and insulation. Temperature at upper noted at various areas, I floor A/C. 54 degrees. recommend d!'. rades. >. ; a 7' „ y i , r� . , a t• w .,. r ! � � , *i • I s �2 g at: C f «?, A li' , 't,- ` #` , .4', Sri.' E �"Ax, .: Toilet at upper Wood and carpet Tiles and wood flooring bedroom walls are detectors a Buttons noted at Missing smoke Exposed wires noted bathroom 3 is not flooring noted. noted. t hallway, at roar exterior Tight, ,tliii , F functional. nde ermined. mend to in tall. recommend a cover I i 1111 g . 410., I [ ,,,„ , , ' , . :.' x t y iy.,,,, r...,,, r,,,,,,,, 11, . Temperature at upper Fireplace. Bath D: Lower Lower bathroom toilet is Drain stopper at lower I Fireplace. floor furnace. 80 bathroom. not functional. bathroom sink Is not d,. • functional. • SUMMARY I Report # : M1003076 Interior 2 KEY: (t) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer/goo-technical engineer (4) This item is a safety hazard - correction Is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information ` This item warrants attention/repair or monitoring IMPORTANT NOTE - PLEASE READ: The Summary page is provided to allow the reader a brief overview of the report. This page is jj encompassing. Reading this page alone Is not a substitute for reading the report in entirety. The entire Inspection Report, including the Standard Of Practice, Limitation, Scope of Inspection and Pre - Inspection Agreement must be carefully read to fully assess the findings of the inspection. This is i14t intended to determine which items may need to be addressed per the contractual requirements of the sale of the property. Any areas of uncertainty regarding to the contract should be dartfied by consulting an attomey or a real estate agent. It is recommended that any deficiencies and components/systems related to these deficiencies noted in the report be evaluated /inspected and repaired as needed by licensed contractors/professionals PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. Further evaluation PRIOR to the close of escrow is recommended so a properly licensed professional can evaluate our concems further and inspect the remainder of the system or component for additional concerns that might be outside our area of expertise or the scope of our inspection. Please call our office for any clarifications or further questions. Gas valve at living room fireplace is not functional. pic 1 Wet bar sink faucet is not functional. pic 4 Main bathroom shower fixture is damaged and need repairs. pic 6 Corrosion noted at galvanized plumbing. pic 7 New wire upgrades noted, recommend to check permits. pic 9 Water damage noted at lower side entrance ceiling due to roof leak, recommend evaluation and repairs. pic 10 Cook top is not functional. pic s14 Upper oven is not functional. pic 15 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. I Report # : M1003076 Interior 2 Client: Roland Lee Hwang Sublect Prouerty :276 Hacienda Dr. Schedule Date Thursday, March 25, 2010 Arcadia, CA 91006 i '- ' R „, s '#s 1 t '4''''''''' r s ra4Y 3Ctit n ` ,',,,• '+,� 'k uy .' wjFyF + �s 4f',...,.2- $ ni ; F tr .` � .. '� a�4Y �T o t $ , r l ; ` A Gas valve at living Temperature at lower Wet bar. Wet bar sink faucet is Bath E: Main Main bathroom shower room fireplace is not floor A/C. 54 degrees. not functional. bathroom. fixture is damaged and functional. I need re . ai rs. h Y }r LL N X '2 S ' C ., o "f V y , { ut� i k �T f i. 4 �n 1 y i , 111 2t Y i ` ' , '+'> ) ,i; h, , +,11 Tr 35 fi �t Y4 ' t , ! b'G++'s '" L x/� ,.`,1-k*, '',,,,,:','":',.;% t i re i Q 4 ~�' Corrosion noted at Laundry area. Gas and New wire upgrades Water damage noted at Temperature at lower Kitchen. galvanized plumbing. I electric dryer option noted, recommend to lower side entrance floor fumaoe. 84 noted. check . - rmits. ceilin. due to roof leak ' d - revs. I 3 ri v ,, M . tnl #l ef ..�! kY ..: tl' VP't.�. ..:: wfL �r fi .» . .w a .A^ � .. Kitchen. Cook top Is not Upper oven is not 1 Oven is functional. Upper oven Is not functional. functional. functional. I 1111111111111111111111•141 11111111111TO, 1 rlillj I ! Ill Till" 1111/1 41111 11111 I. dillicTi 1 1 1 1 1 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. . ` . ' GROUNDS I R eport # : M1 003076 I Page 2 KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer /geo- technical engineer (4) This Item �i a m correction ty es needed t (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades des ar recorrecta m menendded ed tor r s or a ni ance (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further Information 1 Driveway 10 N/A I ❑ Asphalt ® Concrete ❑ NIA ® Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ Eroded Asphalt* ❑Maintenance* 0 Sealant needed* ❑Deterioration* El Evidence of poor drainage* ❑ No cracks found Si Common cracks ❑ Major cracks* ❑ time hazards* 0 Surface raised* ❑ Surface settled* Comments: Common cracks up to 114 were fund In the driveway at the 2 Sidewalks to N/At ® Concrete ❑ Brick ❑ Paver / Tile ❑ NIA ® Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ No cracks found ® Common cracks ❑ Major cracks* ❑ Trip hazards* ❑ Surface raised* ❑ Surface settled* ❑ Concrete is above* Si Evidence of poor drainage* ❑ Other* Comments: Common cracks up to 1/4 were noted In the sidewalk at the time of the Inspection. 3 Retaining Walls Igi N /AILOCATION(S): ❑ Concrete ❑ Stucco ❑ Block ❑ App ac k serviceable ❑ Cot s found ❑ Common Functiol* ❑❑ Unsafe* Ma Major cracks (1) Wom* ❑ 0 Near Moisture a pent aeon* ❑ No Not dra drainage openings* ❑ No crkm c j Comments 4 Patio 10 N/A ILOCATION(S): Rear side ® Concrete ❑ Brick ❑ NIA ® Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ No cracks found ® Common cracks ❑ Major cracks (1) ❑ Trip hazards* ❑ Surface raised* ❑ Surface settled* ❑ Concrete is above* ❑ Evidence of* poor drainage* Comments: 5 Patio Cover I® N/A ILOCATION(S): ❑ Earth contact (3) ❑ Open Design ❑ Covered Roof (refer to Roof Page)* ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ❑ Not fully visible* ❑ Attachment to house * ❑ Patio cover lacks ❑ Moisture at ❑ Wood appears Comments: 6 Decks 1 Porch I® N/A I ❑ WOOD ❑ Waterproofed Coating ❑ Concrete ❑ N/A LOCATION(S): A B C ❑ Appears Serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ❑ Not fully visible* ❑ Deck is on grade -- unable to inspect* ❑ Piers need ❑ Posts need ❑ Cracks ❑ Moisture ❑ Deck appears unsound (1) (2) ❑ (A) ❑ (B) ❑ (C) ❑ Flashing ❑ Earth -to -wood contact (3) ❑ (A) ❑ (B) ❑ (C) ❑ Porch* ❑ Steps* ❑ Uneven* ❑ Screens* ❑ Panels* ❑ Unable to ❑ Railings are serviceable ❑ NIA ❑ Railing ❑ Railing of Comments: 7 Fences & Gates I❑ N/A I ❑ NOT INSPECTED ❑ Wood ® Chain Link ® Masonry ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ Posts are ® Blocks are Cracked ❑ Boards are ❑ No cracks ❑ Common cracks ❑ Major cracks (2) ❑ Fence height at ® Gate(s) need adjustment & repair* ® Self closing device is missing around pool* ❑ Post leaning* Comments: Gate leadin pool are unsafe due to missing elf closer and do not self latch, recommend repairs for page 2 safety. plc Damage noted at rear and side blockwall. plc 35 I.T.A Copyright 1993/2000, • Detail Property Inspection, Inc. ♦ Page 3 EXTERIOR Report # : M1003076 KEY' (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer /geo- technical engineer (4) This item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information * This item warrants attention/repair or monitoring 8 Exterior Stairs F1 N /AI Type: Concrete ® Appears serviceable ❑Not Functional Location: A Rear B C ❑ Moisture ❑ Unsafe * ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ❑ Not fully visible* ❑ Uneven ❑ N/A ❑ Railings serviceable ® Railings are not installed Comments: Recommend handrail at rear exterior stains. plc 30 ❑ Openings in rails too large (5) 9 Exterior Walls ID N/A I Structure: ® WOOD FRAME Wall Covering Is: Stucco ® Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* 0 Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* IN Not full * ❑ No cracks found ® j ) ❑ Common cracks* ❑ Major cracks 1 y visible ❑ Moisture stains/damage'❑ Damaged ( ❑Nailing defects * ❑ Comments: Common cracks up to 1/8" were found In the exterior walls at the time of the inspection. Notice: Wall insulation type and value is not verified* UFFI Insulation or hazard are not identified* Conditions inside the wall cannot be judged* Lead paint testing Is not perforated* 10 Trim / Eaves,Fascia,Soffits ID N /AI ® WOOD 0 METAL ❑ VINYL ❑ N/A ❑ Eaves, soffits, fascia & trim appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Worn* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Moisture stains at soffits & fascia (2)(3) ® Not fully visible* ❑ N/A ❑ Fleshings /Trim : ❑ Not visible at: Comments: Refer to termite Inspection report for further evaluation. Water damage noted at soffits at various areas. pic 32 11 Chimney(s) IO N/A I Location: A Living Room B Family Room C D Material: A Brick B C D ❑ METAL FLUE ❑ WOOD FRAME ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ Chimney / brick / mortar is: ❑ Settlement (2) ❑ Flashing is ❑ Spark screen present ❑ Spark screen: ® Raincap / screen recommended * ❑ Cracks/separations /sealing needed at ❑ Unlined flue (2) ❑ Cracks in chimney cap * El Ash dump / door is: Buried Damage / deterioration / defect * Comments: Recommend evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor. Ash door at chimney is buried. plc 14 Old flue noted, recommend further evaluation of chimney. plc 35 Notice: The interior of the flue was not Inspected at this time. We recommend that you retain a qualified chimney sweep to clean and evaluate the flue 12 Sprinklers ID N/A I ® Not inspected* ❑ Non operational (2) ❑ Control box location ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ❑ Not fully visible* ❑ Valve ❑ Head ® Line Leaking * ❑ Anti - siphon valves needed * ❑ Adjust spray away from ❑ Areas of inadequate spray coverage * * Comments: The sprinkler system Is not In the scope of this Inspection. the system needs to be adjusted so spray Adjust no hit structures,sidewalks,fences. Wet ground noted at front, possible sprinkler leak, call a plumber. plc 10 Notice: Underground pipes cannot be Judged for breaks or possible root Intrusions. Association- maintained systems are not tested. Grove systems are not 13 Hose Faucets I❑ N/A I ® Faucets are not anti - siphon type valve (5) ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Some inoperative / corroded (2) ❑ Leaks (2) ❑ Missing handle(s)* ❑ Broken handle(s)* Comments: Loose clamp noted at hose faucet at front. Recommend to tighten. plc 12 14 Gutters & Downspouts ICl N/A I ❑ Full ® Partial 0 None Installed ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ Drains blocked* ❑ Debris filled* ® Gutters / downspouts: Disconnected * ® Add gutters & downspouts for drainage* ❑ Add splashblocks for drainage* ® Route downspouts away from building* ® Roof / gutters not draining properly* ❑ No secondary drain(s) on roof (2) ❑ Subsurface drains not tested* Comments: Recommend adding gutters and down spouts for proper drainage. Disconnected down spout and water damage at west side window. pit 18 Down spout and gutter at rear terminates at a poor location, recommend to extend. plc 29 Upper roof down spout terminates Improperly at lower roof comer, recommend Improvement. Pic 28 Notice: Gutters and subsurface drains we not water tested for leakage or blockage.* Regular maintenance of drainage systems Is required to ` to avoid water problems at the roof and foundation.* I.T.A copyright 1663/2000 Page 3 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Page 4 FOUNDATION ( Report #:/1003076 • KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer /geo- technical engineer (4) This item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further Information • This Item warrants attention/repair or monitoring 15 Grading ID N/A I ® Level Site ❑ Slope Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Steep (1) ❑ Stalrstepped ❑ Banks ❑ Drainage of sitelslope of soil at foundation is proper based upon visual observation M® Not fully visible* ❑ Improper soil slope toward foundation* ❑ Soil / pavement is high at foundation* ❑ Earth -to -wood contact visible* (3) ® Plants touch house* ® Trees planted close to structure * ❑ Overgrown landscaping* ❑ Surface drains noted, not tested - underground pipes cannot be judged* ® Signs of poor drainage / erosion* Comments: Pit noted at r ear, u nab l e to determine use. b Inspector plc unable to determine septic tank. plc 4 Notice: This inspection does not include geological conditions or site stability information. For irdormation concerning these conditions, a geologist or soils engineer should be consulted. D 16 Slab -on -grade ®17 Crawlspace 2118 Basement ID N/A ® Foundation: ® Poured Concrete ❑ Masonry Block ❑ Brick ❑ Stone ® Piers ❑ Wood ❑ ® Columns: ❑ Concrete ❑ Steel ® Wood ❑ Masonry Block ❑ Brick ❑ Not Visible* ❑ Entered crawl space ❑ No access* ❑ Partial access* ® Viewed from access opening only* ❑ Door ® Cover : ® Damaged* ❑ Missing* ❑ Crawlspace ❑ Basement not inspected, blocked access Foundations: ❑ Visible ® Partially visible* ❑ Not visible at ® Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ No cracks found ❑ N/A ❑ Further evaluation needed (1) ❑ No moisture present ❑ N/A ❑ Exposed footing* ❑ Unable to inspect ❑ Slab not visible due to Carpet and floor covering. No readily visible problem noted. ❑ Cracks ❑ Settlement Ventilation: ® Serviceable ❑ N/A ❑ Vents comments: Notice: All slabs experience some degree of cracking due to shrinkage in the drying process. In most instances floor coverings prevent recognition of cracks or settlement in all but the most severe cases. The inspector will, at additional cost, reinspect, provided the client removes floor covering and releases the inspector from damage caused by this process. Floor coverings are not removed during this Inspection' Floor Construction: JOISTS ❑ TRUSSES ❑ CONCRETE ❑ NOT VISIBLE ISII Beams Wood Frame: ❑ N/A ® CONVENTIONAL WOOD FRAMING ® TRUSS ❑ Other ® Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ Framing is ❑ Missing framing ® Moisture stains & damage (2)(3) ❑ Damaged ❑ Missing ❑ Earth -to -wood contact (2) (3) ❑ Joists ❑ Beams ❑ Post ❑ Columns ❑ Debris under house* ❑ Concrete floors: ❑ Evidence of ID Anchor bolts not present ❑ Shear panels ❑ Probing where deterioration is suspected revealed: ❑ Engineer recommended (1) ❑ Insulation VAPOR RETARDER ® N/A ❑ Installed ❑ Not installed* ❑ Not visible* ❑ Loose* ❑ Installed incorrectly* ❑ Sump pump ® N/A ❑ Serviceable ❑ Not functional* ❑ Pump not tested* ❑ Sump pump needed* Comments: Major water and possible termite damage at basement structure beams, recommend evaluation by a termite inspector and commend at interior stairs. ssttairs. noted at basement wall. plc 18 t19 BASEMENT STAIRS ® N/A ❑ Serviceable ❑ Uneven rise(2)(4) ❑ Uneven run(2)(4) ❑ loose step(s) (2)(4) ❑ Railings ❑ Stairs too steep (2)(4)(5) ❑ Ceiling is Comments: Nodce: The inspector does not determine the effectiveness of any system installed to control or remove suspected hazardous substances' No engineering is performed during this inspection • 0 Page 4 I.TA Copyright 1993/2000 , Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Page 5 ROOF Report # : M1003076 KEY: ( Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer/geo- technical engineer (4) This item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information • This item warrants attention/repair or monitoring Roof style: Main Roof Slope Third Roof N/A Second Flat Slope How inspected: ® VV4ated ❑ Viewed from ladder' 0 Visiued from grime' 0 Wth biro rs* e d i* ❑ Not fully visible due to: 0 Height 0 Weather 0 Snow 0 Type ❑Debris Debris 0ectia,isfrrr� N/A 19 Main Roof ID N/A I Roof Covering Is: Wood Shingle # of layers: 1 ® icipearesenicsablelvilhinusekilie ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of fifes an* 2 ❑ Typical maintenance recommended. This usually consists of repair /replacement of damaged/miss ng ridge and Not fuvrsibN * shakes /shingles. This maintenance should help ensure the water tightness of the building and be performed on a regular basis: ❑ General condition favorable with signs of weathering and aging - regular maintenance and inspection advised.* O Roof covering has ❑ Moisture stained / damage* ❑ Weathering* ❑ Aging* ❑ Bumt through (2) ❑ Cracking* ❑ Holesbper*gl2) ❑ Bcoseggi ❑ Deieriaraledrnerrixarte(2) ❑ Loose ❑ Displaced ❑ Damaged 0 Missing: ❑ Pitch appears insufficient (2) ❑ Moss covered* ❑ Roof material appears to be improperly installed (2) ❑ Fasteners are (2) ❑ Roof appears to be ❑ Evidence of prior patching / repairs (2) Comments: Tree touches roof / structure noted at rear, recommend tree service. plc 33 20 Third Roof I® N/A I Roof Covering is: # of layers: ❑ AppeersseMoesblE6Ahintseful& ❑ NdFundtioner ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Warn* ❑ Nearendofikspan*(2) ❑ Notfulyvi9ble Condition: ❑ Fasteners (2) ❑ Dented ❑ Rusted 0 Deteriorated paint (2) ❑ Loose ❑ Displaced ❑ Damaged ❑ Missing ❑ Prior repairs (2) ❑ Insufficient Pitch(2) ❑ Moss covered* ❑ Roof material appears improperly installed (2) ❑ Holes /openings(2) ❑ Exposed(2) ❑ Deteriorated membrane(2) Comments: Notice: Roofs of this material are often not walked on to avoid cawing damage. Not all tiles/slates are checked for attachment.' Inspection is limited* 21 Second Roof ID N/A I Roof Covering is: Roll Composition Sheets # of layers: 1 ❑ AppossseMoeitokkeintselal lie ❑ NotFt idiom' ❑ Unsafe* ❑ WItre 0 Nearendofifespan*(2) ® NctfullyvislJle* ® Typical maintenance recommended. This usually consists of covering exposed/bare with additional coating /aggregate material. Repair of open seams, cracks in fleshings, deteriorated roof coverings, etc. * ❑ Excessive damage (2) ❑ Excessive deterioration (2) ❑ Roof material appears to be improperly Installed (2) ❑ Blistering* ❑ Cracking* ❑ Alligatoring* ❑ Open seams (2) ❑ Moss covered (2) ❑ Deteriorated surface (2) ® Evidence of ponding (2) ❑ Bare areas exposed to the sun (2) ❑ Fasteners ❑ Roof appears to be ❑ Evidence of prior patching / repairs (2) Comments: Signs water ponding noted at second and roof does not drain properly at corner, recommend repairs. plc 27 Roof Notes 10 N/A I ® NOTICE: Comments: The report is an opinion of the general quality and condition of the roof.* The Inspector cannot, and does not, offer an opinion or warranty and to whether the roof has leaked in the past, or may be subject to future leakage. Notice: The report is an opinion of the general quality and condition of the roof.* The Inspector cannot, and does not, offer an opinion or warranty and to whether the roof has Naked in the pas . or may be subject to future leakage. 22 Exposed Fleshings JO N/A I ❑ Fleshings appears serviceable ❑ N/A ❑ Not Functional* 0 Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan *(2) ® Not fully visible* Separation (s) / improper at: El Roof* ® Wall* ❑ Drip edge* ❑ Vent Pipes* ❑ Skylight* ❑ Other * is Vent caps appear serviceable ❑ Needs repair* ❑ Missing caps* ❑ Rusty flashing* ❑ Mastic covered* ❑ Damaged flashing* ❑ improper flashing at: ❑ No visible flashing at: ❑ Skylight(s).appear serviceable ❑ Cracked (2) ❑ Damaged (2) ❑ Defect (2) ® Non professional skylight* Comments: Water damage noted at roof to wall connection at rear second roof. plc 29 — Notice: Determining the presence of asbestos or hazardous materials is beyond the scope of this inspection.* Roofs, skylights and flashing are not water tested for leaks.* Tenting a home for fumigation may cause damage to roofs — recommend reinspection for damage after tenting is completed.* ` ® I.T.A Copyright 1983/2000 Page 5 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. , Page 6 PLUMBING I Report # : M1003076 KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer /geo•technical engineer (4) This item Is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further Information * This Item warrants attention/repair or monitoring 23 Main Line I❑ N/A 1 Main pipe is Galvanized Size: 1" Pressure: OK ❑ AM ® PM ❑ Pressure is above 80 psi - recommend: ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ® Main valve location:West Side ❑ Not located* ❑ Operational ❑ Not operational (2) ® Not inspected* ❑ Handle is ❑ Excessive corrosion on valve (2) ❑ Copper pipe not protected from concrete* ❑ Watersollaner (walarccoloortiqually is nottested") ❑ Leaks at main valve (2) ❑ Leaks at water conditioner (2) Comments: Galvanized pipes have limited life, further evaluation is recommended *(2) 24 Supply Lines 10 N/A I Supply lines are Copper & Galvanized* ❑ Appear serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* Si Supply pipes show moderate corrosion* ❑ Leaking noted at: is Water flow appears to have major restriction (2) ❑ Noise in pipes (2) ❑ Pipes lack support at: ❑ Cross connection(s) present at: ❑ Evidence of ❑ Copper and galvanized pipe contact visible (2) Insulated : ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No Comments: Recommend evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor. Galvanized pipes have limited life, further evaluation is recommended. *(2) . Major restriction at galvanized plumbing, recommend evaluation and upgrades. plc 4 Corrosion noted at galvanized plumbing. plc 7 Notice: Underground pipes or pipes inside wens cannot be Judged for size, leaks or corrosion.* Water quality testing or testing for hazards such as lead is not part of this inspection.* Notice: Be advised that some "Polybutylens" Ink pip' systems have experienced documented problems. 25 Waste Lines I ❑ N/A Waste lines are Cast Iron ❑ Appear serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ Waste pipes show ❑ Pipes lack proper support at: ❑ Plumbing l8! All vents/traps not fully visible* ❑ Leaking noted at: ❑ Insufficient fall for adequate drainage (2) ❑ Open waste line (2) ❑ Trap Comments: Tree planted at front, seller to disclose roots damage to main sewer line. If any, we recommend further video inspection. Clean out noted at exterior (front), seller to disclose roots damage to main sewer line. If any, we recommend further video ���� � dwe ins rv peecttiio W n. tpm nd raro�d a src w �� sc ion dAlnaae oe�{ ot �e►erm�ned • ee advised � tra acm e "ABS" pia spipin s nsi a ix documented problems Contact the m nuracrusr br p �innn a ta for n turihsr infamatlon and evaluation.* 26 Fuel System I❑ N/A I Shut Valve Location: Street curb Fuel type is Gas Meter ❑ Fuel system is not on for inspection- suggest utilities company Tight and test all fuel appliances* Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ Pipes not ❑ Pipe is corroded (2) ❑ Pipe is under strain (2) ❑ Improper piping at: ❑ Exposed plastic pipe (2) ❑ Pipe is not 6" above ground (2) ❑ No shutoff valve at: ❑ Improper union at: ❑ Pipes lack proper support (2) Comments: Recommend to install a wrench and a seismic shutoff valve. Notice: Underground piping & fuel tanks canna be judged. Pipes inside walls or pipes concealed from view cannot be judged and the Inspector does not perform tests for gas leaks or pipe size.' 27 Water Heaters i❑ N/A I Location A Basement Type Gas Capacity 75 Gallons Location B Type Capacity ❑ Appears serviceable 0 Not Functional* ® Unsafe* ® Wom* ® Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ Rust flakes in bumer chamber* ❑ Bumer flame appears improper (2) ❑ Heater leaks ❑ Water shutoff valve ❑ Corrosion on pipes* ❑ Heater in garage is not on 18" raised platform* (5) ® Temperature Pressure Relief Valve overflow pipe is missing (2) ❑ Combustion air ❑ Insufficient clearance to combustible material (2) ❑ Pilot / system off — could not inspect* ❑ Vent flue piping ❑ Vent flue piping ❑ Seismic straps appear serviceable ® Seismic straps are needed* (5) ❑ Thermal blanket ❑ Unit needs a catch pan with an exterior routed drain line* ❑ Recommend protecting heater from physical damage* ❑ Enclosure ❑ Firewall Comments: Recommend evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor. Water heater at basement is not strapped. plc 3 Improper solid gas connector noted at water heater, recommend a flex type plc 7 Water heater Is unsafe due to missing pressure relief valve, recommend to install for safety. plc 8 Notice: Estimate of remaining life is not part of this inspection. Solar systems are not pen of this inspection. Not water recalculating ®I,T.A Copyright 1883/201X! Page 6 ` pumps/systems are not part of this inspection.* • • Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Page 7 HEATING 1 Report # :M1003076 1' KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineedgeo- technical engineer (4) This Item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recomnded evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further Information * This item warrants attention/repair or monitoring 28 Description ID N/A I Approximate BTU's Unit A N/A Unit B Location A Basement Location B Basement Unit C asement Location C Heating Type: Forced air Heating Type: Forced air Fuel Type: Natural gas Fuel Type: Natural gas Fuel Heating Type: Type: Comments: Notice: If a fuel burning heater 1 furnace b loeetsd in a bedroom, we recommend evaluation by a qualified heating contractor for safety and air volume requirements.* -- 29 Condition ID N/A I ❑ Not inspected* ® System(s) appear serviceable Unit A &B ❑ Did not respond to normal controls (2) ❑ Not Functional ❑ Unsafe ❑ Wom ❑ Near end of lifespan ❑ Damage ❑ Deterioration ® System(s) Unit AB do not appear to have been serviced per manufacturer's instructions, within the last year* Comments: Notice: Inspector does not light pilots. If pilots are "OFF' , a full inspection is not possible. It Is suggested that heating systems be activated and fully inspected PRIOR TO CLOSE OF TRANSACTION. • 30 Venting pN/A1 ❑ Backventing (2) 0 Unable to fGily inspect vent pipe* ® Appears serviceable ❑ Damage (2) ❑ Not accessible* ❑ Vent lacks clearance from combustibles (2)(4) ❑ Improper vent rise ❑ Improper materials used for vent pipe ❑Improper elbow angle ❑ Soot/Rust on ❑ Defective ❑ Vent terminates near window /opening (2) Comments: 31 Combustion Air 10 N/A I ❑ Air supply ® Appears serviceable Unit AB ❑ Damage* ❑ Deteriorated* ❑ Defects* ❑ Combustion and retum air sources are too close or mixing (2) ❑ Recommend sealing platform at: Comments: • 32 Burners ID N/A I ❑ Closed system / unable to inspect* ® Burner flame appears ❑ Unusual flame pattern (2) ppears typical ❑ Damaged ❑ Rust flakes in bum chamber (2) ❑ Chamber Comments: Notice: The inspector Is not equipped to thoroughly insped heat exchangers for evidence of cracks or holes, as this can only be done by dismantling the unit or other technical procedures.* Same furnaces are designed in such a way that inspection is almost impossible * Safety devices are not tented by this company 33 Distribution I❑ N/A I Type: Ducts & Registers ❑ Ducts: IN Appears serviceable Unit A &B * ® Not fully visible* Unit A &B * ❑ Low air volume (2) ❑ Register(s) ❑ Asbestos -like materials ( 4 ❑ Zone valve did not operate ❑ Circulating ❑Insulation ❑ Radiator inoperative (2) g Pump • P () � ❑ Radiator cold (2) ❑ Convector inoperative (2) ❑ Convector cold (2) ❑ Leaks on radiator (2) ❑ Leaks on convector (2) ❑ Leaks on fitting (2) Comments: Notice: Asbestos materials have been commonly used in heating systems.* Determining the presence of asbestos can ONLY ` by laboratory testing and is beyond the scope of mhb inspection.* NLY be performed) I.T.A Copyright 1993/2000 — — Page 7 IF Detail Property Inspection, Inc. ♦ P age 8 HEATING Continued & AIR COOLING R eport # : M1003076 KEY (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer/goo-technical engineer (4) This Item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information This Hem warrants attention /repair or monitoring 34 Normal Controls ID N/A I ❑ Unable to inspect.* ❑ Utilities o ❑ off* ® Appears serviceable Unit AB* ❑ Damage* ❑ Deterioration* 0 Defects* ❑ Controls need ❑ Gauges need ❑ Switch is ❑ Leaks at: ❑ Corrosion at: ❑ Expansion tank Comments: Notice: Thermostats are not checked for calibration or timed functions.* Adequacy, efficiency or even heat distribution of the system through the house is not part of this inspection. • 35 Air Filter I❑ N/A I ❑ Missing* ❑ Wrong size* ❑ Unable to inspect* El Appears serviceable ® Suggest changing ❑ Cleaning filter* ❑ No filter hold -down* Comments: Notice: Electronic ale cleaners, humidifiers and dehumidifiers are beyond the scope of this Inspection. • Have these systems evaluated by a qualified Individual. • 36 Heating Notes I❑ N/A I ❑ Recommend complete system evaluation (2) ❑ Unable to locate heat in all rooms* ® Suggest cleaning & servicing entire heating systems (2) ❑ Fuel tank leak (2) (4) ❑ Heater makes unusual noise during operation, further evaluation needed (2) ❑ Undercut doors off carpet* ❑ High ❑ Low ❑ Air leaks at: ❑ Leakage at: ❑ Condensate lines: ❑ Termination location: Comments: Suggest cleaning and servicing the entire furnace. (2) Notice: Verification of the location or condition of underground fuel storage tanks Is not part of this inspection.* Environmental risks, if any, are not included. • Notice: Asbestos materials have been commonly used in heating systems.* Determining the presence of asbestos can ONLY be performed by laboratory testing and is beyond the scope of this inspection.* 37 Cooler & 38 Air I❑ N /AI Location(s) UnitA Exterior B Exterior C Type: Central air conditioning Power: ❑ 120volt ® 240volt ❑ One speed fan only* ® Appears operational ❑ Not Functional* .❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ Unit makes unusual noise during operation (2) ❑ Unit is not level* • ❑ Pads ❑ Unit ❑ Float valve ❑ Pump ❑ Leaking noted* Comments: Recommend servicing the cooling system and checking the refrigerant level. ❑ No power - unable to test* ❑ Warm air only (2) ❑ Air temp below 65 degrees - unable to test system(s)* (operation could cause damage) ❑ One speed fan only* ❑ Not level(2) ❑ Makes unusual noise(2) ❑ Air temperature differential is Incorrect (2) ❑ Coil is damaged (2) ® Recommend servicing system and checking refrigerant leveldnit AB* POWER: ❑ N/A ❑ 120 Volts ® 240 Volts ® Electrical disconnect present ❑ Gas* (not inspected) ❑ No electrical disconnect provided (2) ❑ Improper conduit (2) ❑ Proper grounding not provided (2) ❑ No conduit (2) ❑ Junction box ❑ Cover ❑ Heat pump auxiliary heat not functional(2) CONDENSATE: ❑ N/A ® Condensate line Installed ❑ Line not fully visible* ❑ Termination location: ❑ No trap in line* ❑ Condensate lines: REFRIGERANT LINES: ❑ N/A ® Insulation installed on -lines ❑ Ice on unit (2) ❑ Insulation damaged* ❑ Insulation deteriorated* ❑ Ice on lines (2) ❑ Lines not fully visible ❑ Leaks at: ❑ Line(s) appear damaged (2) Comments 1® N/A I DATA PLATE: . Comments: Notice: The inspector does not perform pressure tests on coolant systems; therefore no representation Is made regarding coolant charge ®I I.T.A Copyright 1993/2000 Page 8 • or line integrity. Subjective judgment of system capactty is not pert of the inspection. Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Page 9 ELECTRICAL 1 Report # : M1003076 i KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer /geo-technical engineer (4) This Item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information * This Item warrants attention/repair or monitoring 39 Service ❑ N/A I ® Overhead ❑ Underground ® Number of conductors 3 ❑ 120V* ® 240V 81120V ® AMPS 200 ❑ AMPS NOT DETERMINED ® Appears serviceable ❑ Defects* ❑ Deterioration* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ❑ Loose connections at ❑ Damaged connections at ❑ Frayed wires (2) ❑ Improper splices on main wires (2) ❑ Improper tap on main wires (2) ❑ Conductors too close to ® Wires touch trees* Contact utility company(4) IS Ground present ❑ Ground loose at: ❑ Ground ❑ Ground clamp not visible* ❑ Ground system not visible* ❑ More than six breakers with no main shutoff (2) ❑ Main disconnect inspected at: ❑ No drip loop on service wires (2) Comments: Wires touch trees. Contact utility company. plc 21 40 Main Panel 10 N/A I #A Location Exterior is Panel rating 200 ❑ Not verified ❑ Power is off at main.No inspection performed* Recommend further evaluation* ® Appears serviceable ❑ Defects* ❑ Deterioration* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ❑ Not accessible* Comments: Notice: Six or fewer breakers usually do not require a main breaker, however this may Indicate minimal electrical capacity.* If the service amperage is less than 100, upgrade may be needed to operate larger electrical appliances' 41 Conductors I❑ N/A I ® Service Wire: Copper Z Branch Wire: Copper ® Wiring Methods: Metal Conduit 42 Sub - panel(s) dig N/A I #B'Location #C- Location #D Location Panel» ❑ is locked -could not inspect.* Further evaluation is needed* Panel» ❑ is inaccessible -could not inspect.* Further evaluation is needed* 43 Panel Notes 1 N/A I ® Wiring Methods: ® Breakers ❑ Fuses Operational ® Panel(s) appear(s) serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ❑ Improper wiring at panel# (2): ® Breaker is off at panel # *Main ❑ Two wires connected to one breaker at panel # (2): ❑ Signs of ❑ Overfusing fuse/breaker size too large for wire panel #(2): ❑ Aluminum wiring noted at the general 120volt circuits(2) ❑ Neutral and ground wires connected at sub -panel #(2): (Aluminum connections should be checked by a licensed electrician) • ❑ Direct tap ❑ Antioxidant not visible on aluminum wire connections* ❑ Panel bond is not provided for safety at panel #(2): ❑ Unprotected opening(s) in panel # (2): ❑ Missing 240 volt - split branch coupler(s) at panel # *: ❑ N/A ❑ Fused neutral wire(s) at panel # (2): ❑ Breakers ❑ Fuses ❑ Electrical system appears outdated by today's standards (2) ❑ Opening(s) dead front cover(s) at panel Comments: Breaker is OFF at main panel. Recommend evaluation. plc 24 Nag& upgrades noted, recommend to check permits. 44 Wiring Notes I❑ N/A I ❑ Sample of switches and outlets tested appear to be serviceable ❑ Grounding and polarity of receptacles within 6' of plumbing fixtures ❑ Appears serviceable (tested) ❑ Fumishings prevent testing of all outlets and switches* SI Three prong outlets did not test properly grounded (2)(4) at: Various areas ❑ Reverse polarity (2)(4) at: ❑ Evidence of arcing (2)(4) at: ❑ Outlet not operational (2)(4) at: ❑ Light not operational *(2)(4) at: ® Outlets ❑ Switches Two prongs *(2) ❑ Open neutral (2)(4) at: ® Not exterior rated outlet at exterior. ❑ Missing cover plates *(2)(4) at: IN Exposed wiring needs protection (2)(4) at: Exterior ❑ Damaged cover plates *(2)(4) at: ❑ Box cover missing *(4) at: ❑ Exposed splices (2)(4) at: ® Improper wiring (2)(4) at: Garage ❑ Extension cord used as wiring (2)(4) at: ❑ 'GFCI(s) responded to test ❑ 'GFCI' not operational (2)(4) at: ® 'GFCI', (a safety device for outlets near water) recommended at: (5) All wet areas ❑ Closet Tight is subject to damage at:* ❑ Closet light is subject to hazard at:* ❑ Doorbell ❑ Fixture Comments: Recommend evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor. Two prong outlets noted at various areas, recommend upgrades. Outlet at exterior Is not exterior rated type, recommend upgrades. plc 28 Outlet at rear yard is burled and unsafe. pis 12 Improperty wiring noted at garage. plc 16 ■ Exposed wires noted at rear exterior Tight, recommend a cover plate. plc 30 © I.T.A copyright 1993/2000 Page 9 • Detail Property Inspection, Inc. ♦ Page 10 INTERIOR I Repot:M1003O76 KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer /geo-technical engineer (4) This item Is a safety hazard - correction Is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information This item warrants attention/repair or monitoring 45 DOORS (Entry) p N/A 1 ® Appears serviceable ❑ Damage* ❑ Deterioration* ❑ Defects* ❑ Hardware not operational* ❑ Doorbell ❑ Door jamb not operational* ❑ Weather stripping damaged* Comments: 46 & 47 DOORS (Interior & Exterior) ID N/A I0 Several frames are not square - .may indicate movement (1) ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Damaged jamb* ❑ Needs adjustment at: ® Hardware is operational ❑ Missing* ❑ Loose* ❑ Not operational* various areas ❑ Door(s) rub at: various areas ❑ Door stick at: various areas ® Damaged at: exterior ❑ Difficult to operate at: ❑ Tempered glass ® Not tempered (5) ❑ Unable to determine tempered glass* ❑ Tracks serviceable ❑ Deteriorated track(s) at: bedrooms ® Door won't latch at: master bathroom ❑ Screen doors not checked* ❑ Screens missing *at rear sliding door Comments: Water damage noted at exterior wood doors. plc 15 Glass at rear sliding doors Is not tempered. pic 31 48 Windows ID N/A I Type: Metal ❑ Security bars present (not tested) ❑ Sample tested appears serviceable ® Window was difficult to operate at: various areas ❑ Window ❑ Broken * ❑ Window ❑ Stains* ❑ Damage* ❑ Screens Comments: Metal windows noted, do not close properly and few are difficult to operate. plc 8 Notice: Determining condition of all insulated windows is not possible due to temperature, weather and lighting variations. Check with owner for further information. 49 Interior Walls ID N/A I ® Drywall ❑ Plaster ❑ Paneling ❑ N/A ® General condition serviceable ® Wall had common cracks at:various areas ❑ Wall ❑ Wall ❑ Fumishings prevent full inspection -do a careful check on your final walk- through ❑ Recommend evaluation by engineer (1) Comments Notice: The oondtlon of walls behind wall pencil and fur lithcannot inas cannot be Judged. 50 Ceilings I 0 N /AI ® Drywall ❑ Acoustic Spray ❑ Plaster ❑ N/A ❑ General condition serviceable IN Ceiling(s) had common cracks at: various areas ▪ Ceiling(s) stains noted at: lower west entrance ❑ Ceiling(s) Comments: Water damage noted at lower side entrance ceiling due to roof leak, recommend evaluation and repairs. plc 10 Notice: Determining whether acoustic sprayed ceilings contain asbestos Is beyond the scope of this inspection. For more information please contact the American Lung Association or an 'beans vocalist 51 Floors ID N/A I ® Carpet ❑ Vinyl ® Wood ® Tile ❑ N/A Si General condition serviceable ❑ Damage * ❑ Deterioration * ❑ Cracked tiles at: ❑ Damaged* ❑ Uneven area at: ❑ Fumishings prevent full inspection -do a careful final walk - through* ❑ Loose carpet noted* ❑ Floor squeaks noted* Comments: Notice: Determining odors or stairs is not includedl" Floor covering damage / stains may be hidden by furniture.* The condition of wood flooring below carpet is not inspected.* 52 Fireplace(s) ID N/A I Location(s) A Living Room B Family Room C Type Masonry ❑ INSERT (have checked by removal *) Fireplace(s) Unit B Appear serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of Iifespan* ❑ Fireplace(s) ❑ Fireplace(s) ❑ Fireplace(s) ® Gas was not operational at living room ❑ Gas at fireplace ❑ Gas at fireplace ❑ Gas at fireplace ❑ Fans/blowers at fireplace ❑ Remove or block damper open if gas log is used* Comments: Gas valve at living room fireplace Is not functional. plc 1 • Notice: Recommend installing safety spacer on damper when gas logs are present* Wood and ashes are not moved for inspection, Recommend clearing debris and further evaluation.* ® LT.A Copyright 189312000 Page 10 do Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Page 11 INTERIOR Continued rt # ' I Repo: M 1003076 I KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer/geo- technical engineer (4) This item Is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information " This item warrants attention /repair or monitoring 53 Interior Features I❑ N/A I ❑ Ceiling fan(s) operational ❑ Fan (s) ® Interior stairs appear serviceable ❑ Uneven ❑ Stairway is ® Stair handrails appear serviceable ❑ Railing is ❑ Openings in rails too wide* (5) ❑ Wet bar faucet appears serviceable ® Faucet is not operational (2) ❑ Faucet Teaks (2) tDI J aldterant3ed(4 ❑ Counter appears serviceable ❑ Damage to ❑ Deterioration to ❑ Plumbing under sink serviceable ❑ Leaks (2) Items installed but not inspected: ❑ Central vacuum system cuum ❑ Security ❑ Improper piping ❑ lcemaker not on � y ❑Intercom ❑ N/A Comments: Recommend door stopper where needed. plc 10 Wet bar sink faucet Is not functional. plc 4 54 Smoke Detector p N/A I Locations: A: Hall B: Master Bedroom C. Bedrooms D: ❑ Smoke detector test button responds ❑ A ❑ 8 ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Not tested* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Did not respond to test button* ❑ A ❑ B 0 C ❑ D ® None found (5) ® A ®B ® C ❑ D ❑ Couldn't test / no test button* ❑ Indicator light on ® Suggest additional detectors in appropriate locations* (5) Comments: Missing smoke detectors at bedrooms, recommend to Install. plc 13 Missing smoke detectors at hallway, recommend to install. pic 29 • 55 Laundry ID N/A I ❑ Garage ❑ Basement ® Service Area ❑ Other ® Piping (water&waste) serviceable ❑ Unable to view / not tested* ❑ Damage* ❑ Deterioration* ❑ Door / jambs* ® Electrical outlet grounded (120 Volt) ❑ Unable to test* ❑ Ungrounded* ❑ Not operational (2) ❑ Miswired (2) ® 240 volt outlet operational ❑ Inoperative* ❑ No 240 outlet ❑ Not viewed* ® Gas piping appears serviceable ❑ N/A ❑ No gas provided ❑ Unable to view* ❑Not inspected* ® Dryer venting provided ❑ Dryer venting not provided* ❑ Dryer vents into attic* ❑ Dryer vents into crawl space* ❑ Laundry sink serviceable ® N/A ❑ Damage on sink* ❑ Deterioration on sink* ❑ Sink is loose* ❑ Slow draining* ❑ Pl uc t i p slow sink serviceable ❑ Deterioration* ❑ Co ❑ Improper piping (2) ❑ Leaks (2) ❑ Deterioration ❑ Corrosion* ❑ Faucet leaks (2) 0 Hot/Cold reversed(4) Comments; Damaged dryer cap noted at exterior. plc 19 Notice; washing machines and dryers are not moved during this Inspection - condition of walls or flooring under these machines cannot be judged.* The inspector does not test washing machin drains or supply valves. • Water supply valves if tumed may be subject to baking. * 56 Attic I❑ N /A' ❑ Full NI Partial Roof Frame: ❑ Truss ® Rafter Framing X Ceiling Frame: ❑ Truss HI Joist Framing X Hallrir.pecb2 ® Entered ❑ Access Location: Bedroom x Inspection limited to view from access* ® Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ❑ No stains visible ❑ Small stains* ❑ Moderate stains (2) ❑ Major stains (2) ❑ Unable to determine leakage* ❑ Sagging framing (1)(2) ❑ Broken framing (1)(2) 0 Truss(es) ❑ Framing appears undersized* (1) ® Vents provided ❑ None* ❑ Blocked* ❑ Minimal* 0 Poor ventilation *❑ Missing wind resistant straps(2) ❑ Power ventilator operational ❑ N /A ❑ Not inspected* ❑ Not operational* ❑ Screens ® Insulation Type: Blown In • ❑ No insulation* ❑ Poor coverage* ❑ Compressed* r g P * ❑Wrong side up* Approximate depth: 10 inches ❑Insulation covers ❑ Air/vapor retarder ❑ N/A ❑ Installed ❑ Vent pipe Comments: • • Ventilation IN N/A I ❑ Appears serviceable at: ❑ Exhaust fan ❑ Exhaust fan Comments: Notice: Determining the presence of asbestos or other hazardous materials is beyond the scope of this inspection.* * Tenting a home for ♦ fumigation may pause damage to roofs - recommend reinspection for damage after tenting is completed* I.T.A Copyright 1993/2000 Page 11 .ar. Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Page12 GARAGE rReport # : M1003076 KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer /geo-technical engineer (4) This item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further Information This Item warrants attention/repair or monitoring GARAGE / CARPORT: ❑ N/A ® Attached ❑ Detached ❑ Carport ❑ Other 57 Floor ID N/A I IN Appears serviceable ❑ Damage* ❑ Deterioration* ❑ Defects* ❑ No cracks found ® Not fully visible* ❑ Major cracks (1) ❑ Possible flammable material on floor*(4) ❑ Floor raised* ❑ Floor settled* ❑ Poor drainage* ❑ N/A Comments: Common cracks up to 118" were found on the garage floor. 58 Firewall / Ceiling I❑ N/A I ® Not fully visible* ❑ Does not appear fire rated (4) ❑ N/A ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Moisture stains* ❑ Damage* ❑ N/A ❑ Framing: ❑ Exterior: ® Holes* ❑ Damage* ❑ Missing wall covering* Comments: Hole needs repair noted at garage fire wall. plc 18 59 Ventilation I❑ N/A I ® Appears serviceable ❑ Blocked* ❑ None* ❑ Screens ❑ Window Comments: 60 Door To Interior 10 N/A I ® Solid ❑ Rated Door ❑ Hollow Core (Non -Fire Resistive)* ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Damaged* ❑ Deterioration* ❑ Pet door interrupts integrity of fire door (2)(4) ❑ Badseal"(4) ❑ EntefsiiaBedroorn*(4) ❑ Doordoesnctlt h*(4) ❑ Door lacks threshold* ❑ Door lacks weatherstrip* ❑ Self closer operational ❑ N/A ❑ Closer non - operational* El Closer missing* ❑ Closer needs adjustment* Comments: Fire rating at garage interior door le undetermined and closer Is missing, recommend evaluation for safety. plc 17 61 Exterior Door 1® N/A I ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Damaged* ❑ Delaminated* ❑ Needs adjustment* ❑ Lock inoperative* ❑ Door jamb* ❑ Damaged door jamb* ❑ Door threshold* ❑ Damaged* ❑ Not inspected* ❑ Locked* ❑ Blocked* ❑ Rubs jamb* Comments: 62 Vehicle Door(s) ID N/A I ❑ Roll Up ® TIIt -Up ❑ Sliding ❑ N/A ® Appears serviceable ❑ Damage* ❑ Deterioration* ❑ Defects* ❑ Door / jambs* ❑ Moisture stained* ❑ Damaged* ❑ Tension rods loose* ❑ Door warped* ❑ Needs adjustment* ❑ Needs balancing* ❑ Hinges loose* ❑ Damaged* ❑ Safety springs installed ❑ Not safety type springs* (4)(5) ❑ Broken springs (2)(4) ❑ Broken safety wire(2)(4) ❑ Vehicle door(s) are locked - could not test* ❑ Rollers damaged(2) ❑ Tracks damaged(2) Comments: 63 Automatic Opener ID N/A I ❑ Non - operational* ❑ Opener / auto - reverse was not tested* is Appears serviceable It of Units 1 ❑ Unit IN Electronic sensor: None(2)(4)(5) ❑ Automatic reverse operated ❑ Automatic reverse did not operate (2)(4)(5) ❑ Not inspected* Comments: Missing sensors at garage door opener. plc 15 64 Electrical 10 NIA 1 ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Damage / deterioration / defects* ® Not fully visible* ® Improper wiring (2)(4) ❑ Exposed wiring subject to damage *(4) Si Extension cords used as permanent wiring (2)(4) ❑ Outlets serviceable ❑ Open ground (2)(4) ❑ Reverse polarity (2)(4) ❑ Improper light fixture wiring (2)(4) ❑ Open splices (2)(4) ❑ Junction boxes missing covers *(4) ❑'GFCI' recommended(5) ❑'GFCI' defective(2)(4) ❑ Some aubt(s)are iiaooesetle* ❑ Ouiet(s)notfurcl onal ❑ Looeaaan'mgedoitel2) ❑ Lcoeaklaiiiagedower" Comments: 65 Comments ID N/A I ❑ Moisture stains on garage ceiling* ❑ Moisture stains on garage wall* ® Occupants' belongings block view of entire garage - unable to fully inspect.* Do a careful check on your final walk- through.* Comments: Animal hole noted at garage dormer, recommend repairs. plc 25 Notice: Determining the rating of fire walls and fire door D beyond the scope of this inspection ® I.T.A Copyright 1993/2000 Page12 Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Page13 KITCHEN 1 Report # : M1003076 KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer/goo-technical engineer (4) This item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (5) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termlte report for further information * This item warrants attention/repair or monitoring 66 Kitchen Sink(s) ID N/A I p Dishes block access to sink; could not inspect* • ® Sink(s) appear(s) serviceable ❑ Minor wear ❑ Heavy wear* ❑ Chipped* ❑ Sink is loose* ❑ Slow draining* ® Recommend sealing at sink to counter connection* ❑ No hot water* ❑ Hot & cold water reversed *(4) ® Faucet serviceable ❑ Non- operational(2) ❑ Defective(2) 0 Faucet: ❑ Spray wand defective* ® Plumbing under sink serviceable . ❑ Pipes are ❑ Improper piping (2) ❑ Moisture stains below sink* ❑ Moisture damage below sink* ® Restricted view below sink* 67 Kitchen (general) IO N/A I Counters: ® Tile ❑ Laminate ❑ ® Not fully visible* IN Counters ® Floor ® Lights ® Appear serviceable 0 Grout* ❑ Caulking* ❑ Handles* . ❑ Doors ❑ Drawers *❑ Counter ❑ Other ❑ Minor* ❑ Moderate* ❑ Heavy wear* ❑ Cracks* ❑ Damage* ❑ Minor cracked tiles) ❑ Moderate damage* ❑ Heavy damage* ❑ Missing'* ® Cabinets appear serviceable ❑ Minor wear ❑ Moderate damage* ❑ Heavy wear* ❑ Heavy damage* e* Comments: 68 Disposal ID N/A I ❑ Dishes block access to sink and disposal, could not inspect* Pe El Not fully visible* ® Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ❑ Non operational (2) ❑ Blades appear to be: ❑ Unit makes unusual noise* ❑ Splash guard damaged* ❑ Not inspected* ® Wiring serviceable ❑ Improper wiring noted (2)(4) ❑ Loose wire clamp at disposal* .❑ Missing wire clamp at disposal* ❑ Switch is in a hazardous location (2)(4) ❑ Exposed wire splices (2)(4) ❑ Missing junction box cover(s)* ❑ Power off* Comments: 69 Range / Cooktop ID N/A I # of ovens: 1 ® Gas ® Electric ❑ Combination ❑ Electric Ignition ❑ Range / oven appears serviceable ® Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ❑ Upper ❑ Lower ❑ Right ❑ Left ❑ Front ❑ Rear ❑ No inspection (power /gas off)* ❑ Free standing oven - not tested* ❑ Ranges / Cooktop not inspected* ® Oven door(s) appears) serviceable ❑ Lower ❑ Non operational (2) ❑ Door(s) gasket(s) appear(s) serviceable ❑ Damage noted* ❑ Door does not close properly* ❑ Cracked glass (2) ❑ Separate cooktop serviceable ❑ Not applicable 0 Damaged gasket(s)* ❑ Clock not tested ❑ Appears non functional* ❑ Gas shutoff valve installed ❑ N/A ❑ Bumer did not operate (2) 0 Element did not operate (2) O Gas shutoff valve not provided (2) ❑ Gas valve is not visible* ® Exhaust ventilation appears serviceable Comments: Cook top Is not functional. plc s14 Upper oven is not functional. pic 15 Notice: Self and/or continuous cleaning operations, clocks, timing devices, lights and thermostat accuracy are not tested during this inspection.* Appliances are not moved.* 70 Dishwasher ID N/A I ❑ This Company Does Not Test Dishwashers ❑ No test (power/water off)* ® Appears serviceable ❑ Not Functional* ❑ Unsafe* ❑ Wom* ❑ Near end of lifespan* ® Not fully visible* ® Condition: door, liner & racks serviceable ❑ Rust at: ❑ Damage at: ❑ Soap dish inoperative* ❑ Washer arm appears frozen (2) 0 Unit is not secured to cabinets* ® Door seals appear serviceable ❑ Deteriorated* ❑ Leaking (2) ❑ Door DRAIN LINE INSTALLATION: ® Air gap device ❑ Hi -loop method ❑ Drain line is improperly installed (2) ❑ Air gap device ❑ None ❑ Improper* ❑ Leaking noted at drain lines* ❑ Leaking noted at air gap device* Comments; Notice: Determining the adequacy of washing and drying functions of dishwashers is not part of this inspection.* 71 Special Features 10 N/A I ® Special features not inspected* ❑ Trash compactor appears serviceable ❑ Non operational (2) ❑ Not inspected* ❑ No Key* ❑ Microwave appears serviceable ❑ Non operational (2) IN Not inspected* ® Other features /appliances present but not inspected include:* fridge Comments: Notice: RsMperators, freezers and built -in Ice maker are not pert of this Inspection* ® I.T.A Copyright 1 Page130, Detail Property Inspection, Inc. ♦ Page14 BATHROOMS 1 Report* : M1003076 KEY: (1) Recommend evaluation by a structural engineedgeo-technical engineer (4) This Item Is a safety hazard - correction Is needed (2) Refer to evaluation and report for further licensed (5) This safety i Item warrants attention/repair or monitoring LOCATION: Bath A Master Bathroom B Upper Bathroom 2 C Upper Bathroom 3 D Lower Bathroom E Main bathroom 72 Toilet A ID N/A 1 ppears serviceable . B A B B ❑ C ❑ D B E Toilet loose at floor* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Loose toilet tank* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Recommend new wax seal (2) ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E bathroom is not functional ❑ A ❑ B B C B D ❑ E Water runs continually in tank* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Rust in Tank * ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Does not flush properly* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D OE Moisture around toilet (2) ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ 0 ❑ E Comments: Toilet at upper bathroom 3 Is not functional. plc 25 Lower bathroom toilet is not functional. plc 34 73 Sink P N (Appears serviceable ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E ❑ Hot & cold water reversed *(4) Sink cracked* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Corrosion under sink* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Faucet appears serviceable ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Sink faucet Teaks* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Corrosion at sink faucet* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Low water volume* B A B B MC MID B E Corrosion on supply valve ❑ A B C D E Drain appears serviceable ❑ A ❑ B . ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E below sink* Slow draining* B A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Sink drain stopper non ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C B 0 ❑ E Rust / corroded drain line* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E functional / missing* Leaking drain line (2) ❑ A ❑ 8 ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Improper drain trap (2) ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ 0 ❑ E Counter & cabinet Restricted view below sink* ❑ A ❑ 8 ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Appears serviceable ❑ A ❑ BB ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Damage to counter* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ 0 ❑ E Deterioration to cabinet* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Grout needed at counter* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Moisture damage below sink* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ 0 ❑ E Comments: Slow drain noted at master bathroom sink. plc 7 Drain stopper at lower bathroom sink is not functional. plc 35 74 Vent / Heat . p N/A I Appears serviceable ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D OE Comments: Electric heaters at various bathrooms walla are unsafe, recommend to unplug for safety. plc 11 75 Bathtub I❑ N/A I Appears serviceable HA RIB B C ❑ D BE Damage to tub* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Not applicable to this bathroom ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C B D ❑ E Faucet appears serviceable ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Whirlpool not functional (2) ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Hot & Cold water reversed(4) ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Damage at faucet* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D 0 E Whirlpool not tested(2) ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E • Drain appears serviceable ❑ A O B ❑ C ❑ D O E Drain stopper missing* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Slow draining at bathtub* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ 0 ❑ E Caulking needed tub to floor*( ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Comments: 76 Shower (❑ N/A I Appears serviceable ❑ A B B B c ❑ D B E Damage to shower walls* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ 0 ❑ E Not applicable to this bathroom ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C B 0 ❑ E Caulking needed at shower walls* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Cracked tile(s)* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ 0 ❑ E Moisture damage to wall (2)(3) ❑ A ❑ 8 ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Caulking needed at floor* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Slow draining at shower ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Floor needs caulking* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ 0 ❑ E Leaking at water valve(s) (2) ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Low water volume at shower(2) 0 A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Shower fixture is defective B A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Shower diverter non- functional(2) ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Unable to determine If glass is tempered* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Enclosure appears serviceable B A B B B C B D E Not applicable to this bathroom ❑ A B C D E Glass does not appear to be tempered* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ 0 ❑ E Corroded fixtures* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Broken glass* B A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Doors difficulty to operate* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Caulking needed at enclosure* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Damaged enclosure* ❑ A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E Comments: Shower pan noted at bathrooms, not inspected for leaks, seller to disclose /check termite report. Cracked glass panel noted at master bathroom shower enclosure door. plc 8 Main bathroom shower fixture is damaged and need repairs. plc 8 ♦ Notice: Deta minhp whether shower pars are watertight Is beyond the wraps of this inspection.* . 0 I.T.A Copyright 1993/2000 Page 144 i Detail Property Inspection, Inc. Page15 POOL / SPA & EQUIPMENT 1 Report# : M1003076 r 7 KEY: ( Recommend evaluation by a structural engineer/goo-technical engineer (4) This item is a safety hazard - correction is needed (2) Recommended evaluation and repairs by a licensed contractor (6) Upgrades are recommended for safety enhancement (3) Refer to qualified termite report for further information * This item warrants attention/repair or monitoring 77 Pool / Spa Type I❑ N/A I ❑ Above Ground ® Below Ground ❑ N/A ® Plaster / Gunite ❑ Vinyl ❑ Fiberglass ❑ Unable to determine Notice: Pool and spa bodies are beyond the scope of this inspection. • The Informatbn regarding the type of poolfspa is given as a courtesy only. 78 Heater IN N/A 1 ❑ Gas ❑ Electric ❑ Solar Panels (not tested) ❑ Appears serviceable ❑ Inoperative* ❑ Unable to determine operation* ❑ Pilot is not or ❑ Gas/breakers off ❑ May not be adequate for pool heating* ❑ Improper material used in gas line (2) ❑ Gas shut -off not provided (2) ❑ Burners serviceable ❑ Corrosion ❑ Deterioration ❑ Rust noted in bumer area (2) ❑ Not all burners are operating (2) ❑ Venting serviceable ❑ Improper vent location (2) ❑ Improper vent dearance (2) ❑ Obstructed* ❑ Debris in/on vent* ❑ Pressure limit switch appears operational ❑ Inoperative (2) ❑ Delayed response* ❑ Unable to determine operation* Comments: 79 Water Filter . 1D N/A I ❑ Cartridge Filter ® Diatomaceous Earth Filter D Sand Filter ❑ Pressure gauge appears serviceable: ® Inoperative* ❑ Broken glass* ❑ None provided* ❑ Bleeder valve appears serviceable: ❑ Inoperative* ❑ Leaking* ❑ None provided* Comments: 80 Pumps ID N/A I Pumps Installed: ❑ Circulation ❑ Spa Jet ❑ Pool Sweep ❑ Circulation pump operated when tested ® Pump did not operate (2) ❑ Leaking pump (2) ❑ Excessive noise (2) ❑ Body bond present ® No body bond (2) ❑ Loose body bond (2) ❑ Pump has loose attachment* ❑ Pump has no attachment* O Separate Jet pump operated when tested ❑ Pump did not operate (2) ❑ Leaking pump (2) ❑ Excessive noise (2) ❑ Body bond present ❑ No body bond (2) 0 Loose body bond (2) 0 Pump has loose attachment* ❑ Pump has no attachment* ❑ Sweep pump operated when tested ❑ Pump did not operate (2) ❑ Leaking pump (2) ❑ Excessive noise (2) ❑ Body bond present ❑ No body bond (2) ❑ Loose body bond (2) ❑ Pump has loose attachment* ❑ Pump has no attachment* Comments; Missing body bond noted at pool pump, pump is unsafe, recommend repairs for safety. plc 6 81 Blowers I® N/A I ❑ Air Bubbler ❑ Supplemental to Jet Pump . ❑ Blower operated when tested ❑ Blower did not operate (2) ❑ Not tested due to:* Comments: Pool equipments at rear are old and need evaluation and repairs. plc 3 82 Electrical IC] N/A I Breaker Location: ® Main Panel ❑ At Equipment Wiring: ® Liquid Tile Flex ❑ Rigid Conduit ❑ NM Cable (Romex) (2) ® Wiring appears serviceable ❑ Improper wiring noted (2)(4)0 Improper conduit (2) ❑ Deteriorated conduit (2) ❑ Pool lights operated when tested ❑ Inoperative (2) ® Unable to determine operation* ❑ GFCI responded to teat button ❑ Inoperative (2) ❑ Unable to determine operation* ❑ Spa Tight operated when tested ❑ Inoperative (2) ❑ Unable to determine operation* ❑ GFCI responded to test button ❑ Inoperative (2) ❑ Unable to determine operation* Timers: Equipment ❑ On ❑ Off at time of inspection ❑ Power is off - could not verify operation* ❑ Circulation pump timer appears operational ® Inoperative (2) ❑ Unable to determine operation* ❑ No wire protector* 0 Rusted ❑ Damaged ❑ Sweep pump timer appears operational ❑ 2 Inoperative p () 0 Unable to determine operation * ❑ No wire protector* ❑ Rusted ❑ Damaged ❑ Remote switches appear operational , ❑ Inoperative (2) ❑ Unable to determine operation* ❑ None Comments: Timer at pool equipments is not functional, recommend evaluation. plc 5 Operation of pool light is undetermined, recommend evaluation 83 General JD N/A I Fencing Enclosing Pool /Spa: IN Yes 0 No* (Caution) (5) Self - closing /latching Gate: 0 Yes ® No* (Caution) (5) 0 Inoperative* (5) ® Coping appears serviceable ❑ Lifting* ❑ Settling* ❑ Cracked* 9 0 Missing 0 Caulking ® Surrounding deck/concrete appears serviceable ® Common cracks 0 Major cracks (1) ® Diving board/slide is not part of this inspection* ❑ Damaged ❑ Pool water fill valve ❑ Spa water fill valve ❑ Pool is doudy/bottom not visible (2) ❑ Gutters Comments; Swimming pool Is not inspected for leaks, seller to disclose If any.* Water Is cloudy and pool surface is deteriorated, recommend resurfacing. plc 1 0 I.T.A Copyright 1893/2000 PAGE P/S 0, � " 41 " Aft t t mss �_ � ; • . e If 4 a i t 7 7S ` 1 tee. *e __ . � � .yam x • Photos of filled trench f _ $ € 7 PPP ' of I , \ a 1 f ' f . ft . f � .r ' p '�✓„ . M • / tAt ■ W r A . tiA. , p / V r ` ..4 „L 7 ,fie,,.: 9 , , f t! , - piu, ,,, . ! .3 y t t � : 1 ke *'. -: • ..ice �� � `� - , i 04 ., . '&” .ve .� „ r . - e 417 '--- ,1 % - Photos of filled trench RESOLUTION NO. 5290 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE SANTA ANITA OAKS "D" ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 5231, and adopts the following Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 1815, for the property described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto. To implement the regulations applicable to the real property within the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association "D" Architectural Design Zone area, the Architectural Review Board is established and is hereinafter referred to as the "Board ". The governing body of the Board is the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association. SECTION 2. In order to promote and maintain the quality single - family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments, in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4, there is hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said association may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 3. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within said area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of said property, the following conditions are hereby imposed upon all property in said area pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those in control of property within said area, are subject to this Resolution and Ordinance No. 1832: 1. FLOOR AREA. No one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 2,000 square feet of ground floor area, except in Tracts 14656, 13544, and 10617 in which no one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contain Tess than 1,800 square feet of ground floor area. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls. 2. FRONT YARD. No building shall be erected Tess than sixty -five (65) feet from the front property line, except that Tract 13544 shall be not less than sixty (60) feet, Tracts 13345 and 11013 shall not be less than fifty -five (55) feet, and Tract 14656 shall not be less than fifty (50) feet. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the Board shall have the power to require an appropriate front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as large as an adjacent front yard. 3. CORNER LOTS. On a corner lot, a separate carport or garage not connected to a dwelling, as an integral part thereof, shall not be located Tess than twenty (20) feet, at any point, from the side street property line. 4. GARAGES. A carport or garage not connected to a dwelling, as an integral part thereof, shall not be located less than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the front property line, except for Tract 11013 which shall be one hundred forty (140) feet and Tracts 13345, 14656 and 13544 which shall be one hundred twenty -five (125) feet, and in no case shall the garage or carport be closer to the front property line than the main dwelling. 5. TREES. No living oak, sycamore, liquidambar, magnolia, or pine tree with a trunk diameter larger than six inches, measured at a point on the tree which is not more than three feet above the grade immediately adjacent to said tree, shall be cut down, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written permission of the Board. Such permission shall not be granted unless it is shown that the tree is a nuisance, and that there is no practical way of removing the nuisance except by cutting down, killing or removing it. 6. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. 7. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. 8. APPROVAL OF BOARD REQUIRED. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the Board. Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the Board. No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the Board. If necessary to properly consider any application, the Board may require specific plans, working drawings, specifications, color charts and material samples. - 2 - 5290 The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building which does not substantially change the external appearance of the building. 9. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. The Board shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: a. A formally organized property owners organization exists in said area. b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the Board. c. Said by -laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the Board. d. Owners have been appointed to the Board in accordance with the by -laws. e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto have been filed with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. f. The Board shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, action, and decision of the Board shall be maintained by the Board. Any decision by the Board shall be accompanied by specific findings setting forth the reasons for the Board's decision. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. A copy of the Board's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3) working days of the Board's decision. h. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). 10. POWERS OF THE BOARD. The Board shall have the power to: a. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard pursuant to Condition 2 of Section 3. b. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible in accordance with the above Conditions 6 & 7 of Section 3. c. If a grading plan is required for a building permit for a structure, the Board may require such plan to be submitted along with the building plans. d. Any of the conditions set forth in Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3, may be made less restrictive by the Board if the Board determines that such action will foster the development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the general neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Resolution. e. The Board shall have the power to establish rules for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such rules shall be kept on file with the Secretary of the Association and the City Clerk. - 3 - 5290 11. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE. a. The Short Review Process may be used by the Board for the review of applications for modifications to the requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3, provided that the application for a Short Review Process shall be accompanied by a completed application form which shall contain the signatures of all contiguous property owners indicating their awareness and approval of the application. b. The Board is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process Application. c. The Board Chairman or another Board member designated by the Board Chairman, to act in his absence, 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. d. The Board may determine which requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3 are not appropriate for the Short Review Process, and therefore require the Regular Review Process for the consideration of such Condition. Any list of such Conditions which are not appropriate for the Short Review Process shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. 12. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURES. a. The Regular Review Process must be used by the Board for the review of the Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3, (eligible for Short Review) in those cases in which the applicant failed to obtain the signatures of approval from all of the required property owners. b. The Regular Review Process must be used for the review of applications to those Conditions 1 through 5 of Section 3, which the Board has determined are not appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above. c. The Board is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process Application. d. Notice of the Board's meeting shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the applicant and to all property owners within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. The applicant shall also provide the Board with the last known name and address, of such owners as shown upon the assessment rolls of the City or of the County. The application shall also provide the Board with letter size envelopes, which are addressed to the property owners who are to receive said notice. The applicant shall provide the proper postage on each of said envelopes. - 4 - 5290 e. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. f. The Board shall render it's decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) 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 thirty (30) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. 13. EXPIRATION OF BOARD'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board, has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. 14. LIMIT ON BOARD'S POWER. The Board shall not have the power to waive any regulations in the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the property in said area. The Board may, however, make a recommendation to the City agency, which will be considering any such waiver request, regarding waiving such regulations. 15. APPEAL. Appeals from the Board shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within seven (7) working days of the Board's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal from the Board's decision, such appeal shall be processed by the Planning Department in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee. 16. STANDARDS FOR BOARD DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The Board and any body hearing an appeal from the Board's decision shall be guided by the following principles: a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to 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 adjacent structures and other structures in the 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 enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. - 5 - 5290 (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). SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative impact on the environment of the community, effecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which pre- existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 1st day of April, 1986. Is/ DONALD PELLEGRINO Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: /s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia - 6 - 5290 276 Hacienda Drive — Oak Tree Timeline 4 -7 -2010 Tucker's Tree Works issues an arborist's report recommending prompt removal of the oak tree in front yard. 4 -27 -2010 Code Services receives call about an oak tree and other trees being cut down at the subject property. Code Services' inspection finds the subject Engelmann Oak tree already removed with the stump being ground down. A Notice of Violation is issued. 4 -29 -2010 Oak Tree Permit Application No. TRD 10 -07 is submitted. 5 -3 -2010 Oak Tree Permit No. TRD 10 -07 was administratively approved for the removal of the Engelmann Oak tree based on the arborist report by Mr. Vance Tucker. 5 -11 -2010 A Notice of Violation is issued for the removal of several other trees that cannot be identified by either the property owner, or Code Services. The property owner is required to submit a report by a certified arborist identifying any protected trees that were removed. 5 -24 -2010 Tucker's Tree Works issues an arborist report stating that the one Engelmann Oak tree is the only protected tree that was removed from the subject property. 6 -10 -2010 Building Services receives call about unpermitted work being done for a block wall. Code Services' inspection finds a trench dug for block wall footings and encroachment upon two Coast Live Oak trees on the neighboring property. Significant damage has been done to the oak trees by the excavation. A Notice of Violation is issued to the property owner to obtain an Oak Tree Permit for the encroachment by the trench. The property owner is also informed that Mr. Vance Tucker's certification has lapsed and that the approval of Oak Tree Permit No. TRD 10 -07 for the removal of the Engelmann Oak tree has been rescinded. A new arborist's report is required to address the condition of that tree as well as for the encroachment and damage to the two Coast Live Oak trees. 8 -3 -2010 Arbor Culture submitted its arborist's report. 8 -12 -2010 Code Services issues a Notice of Violation for the property owner to obtain not only an Oak Tree Permit for the encroachment by the trench on the neighbor's two Coast Live Oak trees, but also to obtain an Oak Tree Permit for the removal of a healthy oak tree since the report by Arbor Culture did not definitively state that the Engelmann Oak tree was diseased. 9 -13 -2010 Code Services contacted the property owner's representative, Ms. Sharon Kwan about the required Oak Tree Permit Applications. Ms. Kwan said the owner had just returned from an overseas trip and the applications would be filed shortly. 9 -23 -2010 Ms. Kwan submitted Oak Tree Permits Applications TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20. 10 -26 -2010 Modification Committee denied the applications and referred the matter to the City Attorney. 11 -1 -2010 Ms. Kwan files an appeal of the Modification Committee's action. 11 -23 -2010 Planning Commission upholds Modification Committee's action. 12 -2 -2010 Ms. Kwan files an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. v ~ i .. r ou nupwa s, wos STAFF REPORT Development Services Department November 23, 2010 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: An appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of Oak Tree Applications TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20 at 276 Hacienda Drive SUMMARY This is an appeal by the applicant, Ms. Sharon Kwan, of a denial by the Modification Committee of two (2) Oak Tree Applications. The Committee denied the requests based on a finding that the removal of one oak tree and the encroachment upon two other oak trees was done without any review or approval as required. The Committee determined that the removal and encroachments should not be allowed or legitimized, and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. The Development Services Department is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's decision. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ms. Sharon Kwan — representing the property owner LOCATION: 276 Hacienda Drive REQUEST: An appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of the following Oak tree permits: 1. Legalize the removal of an Engelmann Oak tree that was located in the front yard area of the subject property; and, 2. Legalize the non - permitted encroachment by the trenching for a block wall within the dripline of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that are located in the rear yard of the adjacent property at 280 Hacienda Drive. SITE AREA: 30,000 square feet (0.69 of an acre) FRONTAGE: 100 feet along Hacienda Drive EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is zoned R -0, and is developed with a 4,482 square foot, two -story, single - family residence constructed in 1937. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: The surrounding properties are developed with single - family residences, and are zoned R -0. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single- Family Residential with a density of 0 -2 dwelling units per acre PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on November 12, 2010 to the owners of those properties within 100 feet of the subject property and to the Santa Anita Oaks HOA President, Ms. Mary Dougherty, and the ARB Chairman, Mr. Vince Vargas. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) oak tree permits are Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15304 of the Guidelines as Minor Alterations to Land, and therefore, the public hearing notice was not published in a local newspaper. BACKGROUND Oak trees are protected in the City of Arcadia under Code Sections 9700 et sec. (attached). The applicant is seeking to legalize the non - permitted removal of an Engelmann Oak tree that was located in the front yard area and the non - permitted encroachment by a block wall trench within the driplines of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that are located in the rear yard of 280 Hacienda Drive, which is the adjacent property to the west of the subject site. In April 2010, the applicant removed a 26 "- diameter Engelmann Oak tree based on findings by Mr. Vance Tucker of Tucker's Tree Works. After being informed that an Oak Tree Permit is required for the removal of an Engelmann oak tree with a trunk diameter of over four inches, the property owner, Ms. Jenny Hwang submitted application no. TRD 10 -07 to request approval of the removal. This application was initially approved based on Mr. Tucker's report (attached) which recommended prompt removal. This approval, however, was rescinded when it was learned that Mr. Tucker's certification had lapsed. Subsequently, a new arborist report was prepared by certified arborist, Mr. Craig Crotty (attached) for seven (7) oak trees either located on or overhanging the subject property, including the removed tree. This report is the basis for Oak Tree Permit Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive November 23, 2010 — page 2 applications TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20. Mr. Crotty's report indicates that the very thin crown on the Engelmann oak tree, as it appears in a photograph, most likely supports Mr. Tucker's assertion of disease of the removed tree. Oak trees no. 5 and 6 on the report are the two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that have been encroached upon with the non - permitted trenching for a block wall. The report indicates that the roots of tree no. 5 were cut too close to the trunk, and if the tree is to remain, it is recommended that a structural support system be provided for the leaning tree as there is now risk of structural failure. Tree no. 6 was also damaged by the excavation; however, the tree does not appear to be destabilized by the wounds and remains in fair condition. Mr. Crotty recommended replacement of the soil and keeping the area at the base of the tree dry. Due to the damage, the applicant stated that the block wall will not be built and the soil will be replaced. Staff consulted with Mr. Crotty and was advised that a 36" -box Engelmann Oak tree would be a fair replacement for the removed tree. The Santa Anita Oaks HOA also provided information about a Magnolia tree that was removed. Attached are a letter from the adjacent neighbor at 280 Hacienda Drive, Mr. Jim Krause, and a photo from the HOA, which was identified by a consultant from the Arboretum as a Magnolia tree. Removal of live Magnolia trees with trunk diameters of over six inches requires HOA approval. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE FINDINGS The applicant was not present at the hearing. The Committee stated that without knowing what the property owner intends to do with the property, it would be more difficult to determine the course of action. The adjacent neighbor at 280 Hacienda Drive, Mr. Jim Krause, was present and stated that oak tree no. 5 is the focal point of his backyard, and the subject trenching has likely jeopardized the structural integrity and the health of the tree, as indicated in the arborist report. He is concerned that the tree may not survive even after structural reinforcement, but replacement is not satisfactory because a mature tree of this size cannot be purchased. The President of the Santa Anita Oaks HOA, Ms. Mary Dougherty also spoke and submitted the attached report, which includes a list of requested actions, a recommended course of action, and photos of the property; both as is appeared before being sold, and as it currently appears. Besides the oak tree removal and encroachments, the HOA is concerned about the appearance of the property because of the drastic removal of the landscaping in general. The Committee felt that this type of non - permitted activity should not be allowed or legitimized, and referred this matter to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. The neighbor across the street from the subject site, Mrs. Holmes expressed concern that if this case enters the penalty phase, it may delay the permitting process and the front yard will remain unimproved. Mr. Charles Duffy, a member of the Santa Anita Oaks HOA Board commented that the City should allow the HOA to review the proposed improvements of the subject property. The Committee assured the neighbors that any penalties and action would be handled concurrently with any Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive November 23, 2010 — page 3 permitting process for the subject site. The Committee denied the applicant's oak tree permits and referred the matter with the HOA's recommendations to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. APPEAL The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Modification Committee's denial of the oak tree applications. The attached appeal letter states that the applicant was not able to attend the Modification Committee hearing because she did not receive notice of the hearing in time. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's decision on TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20. If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and the oak tree applications, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. A 36" -box Engelmann Oak tree shall be planted on the subject property; location subject to the approval of a certified arborist and the Community Development Administrator. 2. Depending on Mr. Krause's preference, the applicant shall install a structural support system for tree no. 5, or remove and replace this tree in accordance with a certified arborist's recommendations, or install a structural support system for tree no. 5 and plant a 24" -box oak tree on Mr. Krause's property in accordance with a certified arborist's recommendations. 3. The applicant shall replace the soil from the trench excavation, and shall maintain the area on the subject property at the base of tree no. 6 in accordance with a certified arborist's recommendations. 4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive November 23, 2010 — page 4 5. Approval of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to acknowledge awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the Modification Committee's denial, the Commission should move to approve Oak Tree Applications TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20, subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report, or as modified by the Planning Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's decision, the Commission should move to deny the appeal, based on the evidence presented and affirm the Modification Committee's decision. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the November 23, 2010 public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447 or at tli(ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Jim sama Community Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo and Vicinity Map Appeal Letter Modification Committee Findings Arborist Report by Mr. Tucker Arborist Report by Mr. Crotty Photos of the Subject Property Letter from Mr. Krause Photo of Magnolia Tree Stump HOA Report, Recommendations and Photos Radius Map Oak Tree Preservation Regulations Appeal of TRH 10 -01 and TRE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive November 23, 2010 — page 5 . • Subject im ' IP Property ‘...: , '\\ \ ... 1 ,' ,, ,,, , t4 , , , , , , , — , ,,,„, R-0 R-0 - . • 'IA-. 1 , 44.,44: , .„,.. „,... ,., .10,...., 4 4, is 1 .4 _ 1 , ' ' 4iiii,tfiro*tedy,,■-0141kir 0.4,V:ii..,s'eM*4.%«9 . 4,, l'i'f . # , , • , —, • R-0 - • 0 1". ` 1Th ,i. 0 . 1 004, v , i • 1 11111 r""...7 : 276 Hacienda Drive TRH 10-01 and TRE 10-20 3 / 41 ity 00 ... At. -- -- — — - - Sharon Kwan 276 Hacienda Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 November 1, 2010 Lisa Flores Senior Planner City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Dear Ms. Flores: I sincerely apologize for missing the hearing meeting held on October 26, 2010, I was not aware of the meeting till I received the letter dated October 29,2010. Roland Hwang currently doesn't reside on the property and therefore, does not routinely collect his mail in a timely manner. We are changing this practice and I will be picking it up personally until he moves in, for we do not want to miss another important notice as we've missed this hearing. We are writing to appeal for this application and enclosed is $540.00 for this process. Please feel free to contact me at 626- 807 -6311 and thank you for your time in this matter and we sincerely do want to work with the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association to remedy this situation. RECEIVED Sincerely, NOV 01 2010 Planning Services Sharon Kwan City of Arcadia • ; , FINDINGS i4 O �s ARCADIA MODIFICATION COMMITTEE IL---- Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 7:45 a.m. '• ••►•"' � Arcadia City Council Chambers Conference Room PUBLIC HEARING TRH 10-01 and THE 10 -20 Address: 276 Hacienda Drive Applicant: Sharon Kwan (Representative of the Property Owner, Roland Hwang) Request: The applicant is requesting oak tree permits for the following (AMC Sec. 9703): 1. Legalize the removal of an Englemann Oak tree that was located in the front yard area of the subject property; and, 2. Legalize the non - permitted trenching for the block wall footings that encroach within the dripline of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that are located in the rear yard of the adjacent property at 280 Hacienda Drive. BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking to legalize the non - permitted removal of an Englemann Oak tree that was located in the front yard area and a non - permitted block wall trench that encroaches into the dripline of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that are located in the rear yard of the adjacent property to the west of the subject site. In April 2010, the applicant removed a 26 "- diameter Englemann Oak tree under the direction of Mr. Vance Tucker of Tucker's Tree Works, whose arborist certification had expired. In the report, Mr. Tucker indicated that the subject tree was infected by parasites that had killed 80% of the trunk. He recommended prompt removal of the tree as it would not survive, and was in danger of falling. Subsequently, a new arborist report was prepared by certified arborist Mr. Craig Crotty for the seven (7) oak trees that were either located on or overhang the subject property, including the observation of a photo of the removed tree. Mr. Crotty indicated that the very thin crown on the tree most likely supports the assertion of disease of the removed tree. Oak trees no. 5 and 6 on the report are the two (2) Coast Live Oak trees that the applicant encroached upon with the non- permitted trenching for a block wall. The report indicates that the roots of tree no. 5 were cut too close to the trunk. If the tree is to remain, the arborist recommends providing a structural support system beneath the leaning trunk. However, removal and replacement would remove the risk of structural failure. Tree no. 6 was also damaged by the excavation; however, the tree does not appear to be destabilized by the wounds and remains in fair condition. Mr. Crotty recommends replacement of soil, and keeping the area at the base of the tree dry. Due to the unintended damages already caused, the applicant will not construct the block wall, and will replace the excavated soil. Staff consulted with Mr. Crotty and was advised that a 36" -box Engelmann Oak tree would be a fair replacement for the removed tree. The Santa Anita Oaks Association is also concerned about a Magnolia tree that was removed, and a letter from the adjacent neighbor at 280 Hacienda Drive, Mr. Jim Krause, states that there was a Magnolia tree in the rear yard area of the subject property. This tree species is protected under the HOA guidelines. FINDINGS The applicant was not present at the hearing. The Committee stated that without knowing what the property owner intends to do with the property, it would be more difficult to determine the course of action. The adjacent neighbor at 280 Hacienda Drive, Mr. Jim Krause, was present and stated that oak tree no. 5 is the focal point of his backyard, and the subject trenching has likely jeopardized the structural integrity and the health of the tree, as indicated in the arborist report. In response to staffs recommendations, he is concerned that the tree may not survive even after structural reinforcements, and the alternative to replace the tree is not a good recommendation since a mature tree of this size cannot be purchased. The President of the Santa Anita Oaks Association, Ms. Mary Dougherty, also spoke and submitted a list of recommended course of action the City should take: remand the case back to the association for approval, including a full landscape plan to be submitted and approved by the association, and to require fair replacement of the removed trees at the ratio of 2 to 1. The Committee felt that this type of non - permitted activity should not be allowed or legitimized, and, instead of remanding it to the Association, it should be referred to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. The neighbor across the street from the subject site, Mrs. Holmes, was concerned that if this case enters the penalty phase, it may delay the permitting process and the front yard will remain unimproved. Mr. Charles Duffy, a member of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association board, also commented that the City should not reject the Association review of the subject property. The Committee assured that any penalties and action would be handled concurrently with any permitting process for the subject site; the City will not delay the issuance of permits because of these violations. Furthermore, any proposal for the subject site would still require Homeowners Association approval. Therefore, the Committee denied the applicant's oak tree permits, and referred the item with the Association's recommendation to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. AC - Denied and referred along with the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association's recommendations to the City Attorney for appropriate penalties and action. APPEAL PERIOD There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. An appeal must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division with the $540.00 appeal fee by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 2010. If there are any questions, please call Thomas Li, Associate Planner, at (626) 574 -5447 or (626) 574 -5423 or by e-mail at tliaci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Lisa Flores, nior Planner PLANNING COMMISSIONER PRESENT: Parille COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Penman, Kruckeberg PLANNING SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE: Li TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20 October 26, 2010 Page 2 , _ ...._ TUCKER'S TREE WORKS dok. 19311 Crossdale Avenue Cerritos, CA 90703 DATE ‘.. 1 OW (562) 865-0123 Ok 1 0)* 4t)b TO rN SUBJECT tg,.,c k cZenn 2SS)\(0_, ..sZ WO *i 1 klt TLC, \\WSWogfr 0( Nczaiet, .,C1) ckNOV,0 Ovief C.14 gn4enotv\r■AV 02.x)AvvranY\ octV., \,c)Q_ f _CY) *761'T rA 410 \ DZI) SO % 0\ - \ -- cV■Y\Y-.. 0..SCRWrTh eS■ef\C-4. \VS \XEY) wAecl OKAe.i" r _ 4 mak .6 .A - N\N2.J cco*• ).ky\_ racmo t -e., VIV%V.427 *■% in o \\17t'n-•\ bO •-). gk Actk..)- 'W vi r\lcm "t. SIGNED 0 PLEASE REPLY 0 NO REPLY NECESSARY 1 wt. tsk 4-7/41 FK.ot -v 'Y frc-Ki Oaks 1 " CRAIG CROTTY ARBOR CULTURE P.O. Box 246 Verdugo City, CA 91046 Tel. 818 957 -8824 Client Name: 6 �n f C W4.& Date: 8 / 3 / io Address: Z t-t br A re-itte Tel: 624, 807 ! 3 i 1 ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure or death of a tree. Trees are living organisms, subject to the forces of nature, and fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees or below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee a tree's health or safety. Further, Arborists cannot guarantee the effectiveness of remedial treatments, like any medicine or pruning. Property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord- tenant matters, etc. are issues outside the scope of arborist services. The client (person hiring the arborist) accepts full responsibility for authorizing any recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees cyan be managed, but not controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. I have received and read a copy of this disclosure. Client Signature: Date: '25/2, /(3 ARBORIST NOTES � o _ � � '? Assignment: 0 66 erve 611 CA aikd, GO 61 s" �tkakt k Ytkaak, b y V tiACILTU 4—Cir 8 TTcke r4 `1'fe. Works Observations/Discus ion: f eivic� kr% V� , Q O�Qr-0.),s v`YKRI ti 04 hi. l l; 14 r ev o uS re tu' et( 6+0.4-e4 fDO+ o 'BASIS o' Ju r u "e9°` tAt/4Q Oak , Q aui c' 1r ,-- 13 ° t L-L ca t� j comer .. [�,.. 61 � s-rer�,'�' 1 t S t� u \ r co ACtS*' A. w A- legit t ° Recommendations: * vkArcit s k- C&x s v'e• Oa�c � v2rt5 rl �ic�' i5 � 1ocAAAG �f° L e k 1 • - r� , � $ teert, d*s:A , 6 1 s 17 11 Q S O kj eCf i`4& p i C¢,0.s tv`2 a* O,e -c 1c - f 'Ag 1,, 144 E. f ee itoo r-S 1� S� ree d(' o-► r - - s-v io 1 ko use., - �. sW i 414 tea"' 1 iv`e.e. Is acLo ( A 'ezilr C CiAll‘a 146 See 6 i +e s 4 + ctt 1'r4 -e. . -- tM y ! Oak CRAIG CROTTY ARBOR CULTURE P.O. Box 246 Verdugo City, CA 91046 Tel. 818 957 -8824 Client Name: 5 kkrzo‘ KW " Date: 8 / 3 it o Address: Z 7 (40.atAhk. ��, , A a Tel: 62xte 150°7.631 ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure or death of a tree. Trees are living organisms, subject to the forces of nature, and fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees or below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee a tree's health or safety. Further, Arborists cannot guarantee the effectiveness of remedial treatments, like any medicine or pruning. Property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord- tenant matters, etc. are issues outside the scope of arborist services. The client (person hiring the arborist) accepts full responsibility for authorizing any recommended treatment or remedial measures. • Trees can be managed, but not controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. I have received and read a copy of this disclosure. Client Signature: Date: 4-4* ARBORIST NOTES1Sgtvp, , "" Assignment: © GDP& 1 .1"f ' i t kq f - kCI tree e ¶ ivt 6c kykra 484- 116 *ci eol GAq n . Sze- s tTE. 4 L bser Ova it fi e Aij Ip Lo ki ° � c +Liy,041,Qwax>4.49f4bkek..z4 %s e� 1/44-S w�Q4 b9 � � �- � +�t`�-i'd�� "'Cr�t as .111/4, - yj • 14 �.s & SAej. +k I�.a 4D vt .s+ it 5 . wt Pcs- - of - (bw-er- " (n) 4k * be se w r 5 1� h X71 • y �/"'�I red f'D��^ i �^ \ ��" � � � z-7(9 �C. �tU�c !b Flon bpdt. Pg t n � p Recommendations: �� ( �� e r �+ `ice. o cs s fie sieA Cor c (At 4 _ . t-kv4k )�,t , -� II l is I ��e Dula) ev (~e fie. 4k Qr s��i �b �,� u � / O r ' 4 M4 v �� ►'�1 �¢, 1 CCU- G� re.OltetiPea GCOSer wo o14 rezehl4tuguizi ` P-o etm au+ i 4 e . o ��: Wit a►^e ate L � Wetki - re P I c� 1 1 , s , is n�+.4 th f ti rk vu'utd P 0'f +17, p° y t l.e a {YUc v rtt( y u ppor -(- S� - eu�i , l �t ?. -twit F. int.( tut f ( rt u, wt¢ w b li t a r o . �'�•¢ rgct se riisk ra ( cd IV re. .0 ‘ vU tsk- 7�R '$ Pre- 1L'!/ -RI) 0414_ a 47 CRAIG CROTTY ARBOR CULTURE P.O. Box 246 Verdugo City, CA 91046 Tel. 818 957 -8824 Client Name: Sittorkk {tAct,A Date: 8 ! 3 / t v Address: 1 1(9 ct �l ' br. ' rib Tel: Z(o $0'1- 4 ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure or death of a tree. Trees are living organisms, subject to the forces of nature, and fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees or below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee a tree's health or safety. Further, Arborists cannot guarantee the effectiveness of remedial treatments, like any medicine or pruning. Property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord- tenant matters, etc. are issues outside the scope of arborist services. The client (person hiring the arborist) accepts full responsibility for authorizing any recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees can be managed, but not controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. I have received and read a copy of this disclosure. Client Signature: J. L / Date: . ARBORIST NOTES Assignment: 6 b S.uvve ebxt ,,,,,,,,,, (. �_ � Q S , ' b h k ttk z7G, ke 1). sib s Observations/Discussion: /%� j �/ czto -s 1 Liu( O4k. f'�S ,/l-4 IC4 14 I Dc( A. OK �., ``� '�. �s�- neck � �a.� 1 r nP54- •-C SW cc- r+1-tr a -k, 27(p 1 *c rya woo A(is , Lt ;411 A - del exc4 iti) AA 4 Rro 1pilv &CAA/ watt o +me- 64-€. ito4 4 e pteiLf Recommendations: Liu a ,, k i i ti S 2 tze aV .� S �Qti,1 i srit Cod k -Q ���'^'1 �- �t,�ll,• t o n'� � � r''��4c�►S t� �i l �4� i f b � wou► '� �L s a o l�e¢, - bye C k ' e LiciE Qwtr '' v 1c - Z3 i" is CI p \0v` Se i`e tcL3 0 - s(-te. `t1• )s ` tlr GOA t c +b (fie. erV,,I1v, reltS k,uk, lib} La_ (Act# s .,„ �' , '���~�� �� v ~— o ^ p ~ �� 8��� m~�~-6`~« u~r~�� " t -` ��^~^�~z � +��, ������\�J N . � ''-- ° »�� '..~ ~~ _'. ~~ - -- -- 11cA 'N ) Prlf... , _______________ . ��� � . `�~� ^____ ___-_---__- . V i --___�-____�____._--_________--_-___-'___-____- _ _-___-_-- _' '_ , ,--- -'~J �� � � -- -- --- �'--'--------- ------------' ------------------ ----- -���----_�_--_-_-- _«��-r�� I . `. . _____ ��� �� - -- '- --- ---�- �~�- �&�� --- ------- ----- -_- __ �� ffti � ' �-^ i ---�--�� -�4���ci��u���@�=e� Tri � � v i _ � _-- _�__� _—_'_____'�_____—_ __— I — ~c- _ ___ —__ ___'._-_ — �������� _---_— -_-_-____----_�__'. � Y � / : _ _ -' _ _ � ` ' \ � , v - ---_-_ � _-_-__- �m \ ��u�' �. �*�� (FocAs—ore-)- - { � ,�~ - - - -- -- -----------��--'--�---�- ' --- ---- � �� -___-_�__-_-___-__ \*--i � � � � �_��-_______- ___----______-__- V �� _-� ^� ~- ~� / -- -� ---'--'- ---- -- --' --' --- \ ^ _ :.:. _____ __—-_�— `~ »wD�wWW�C� � ~ ~~_ _,� ~ -- ' _ - -------- - ------------- ` -----'- -- --- ' - ---- -- -- ----' - ---- --- | �� +r l Front view of the subject property at 276 Hacienda Dr. - ..r • 1 . 4 • View of the area where the tree was removed N . � � `ce r .; t, a , i . - N. � t _, w r View of the trench for the block wall footing 1 8 3 .. a y14, , .'. ^f !s 3 ti , S h .. 4 k . 1 7 Y` r k1H 4 �+ f t * ,...= �3 - flex , 11' a , it i 4 al to. sled: , ...,, Lip., View of the trench and tree no. 5 • + ,, t A'R Y T V . . { � �s r .'I , k. ! . w . tr View of the trench and tree no. 6 z IMINIMPAIMIWIIIIMIWKWS Jim and Kathy Krause 280 Hacienda Dr Arcadia, CA 91006 September 20, 2010 Jim Kasama Community Development Administrator City of Arcadia Development Services Dept PO Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 • Jim, I am the owner (since 1994) of the residence located at 280 Hacienda Dr in Arcadia. I have been asked by our Association to report if I knew of any trees that existed next door at 276 Hacienda Dr. There was a Magnolia tree in the backyard of 276 Hacienda Dr that you could see from our back yard. This tree was noticeable since it was very tall. I understand that Magnolia trees are protected under our Association guidelines. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or to discuss this issue. Sincerely, im Krause • Y , 4. ^Y� n .k,;. ,Af i ti ea -Y - • ',It r 0 f1 , ..,, ..l i ' ... -. i r ys' r 'F�^ . � '""' 8 ° � •. r +. =s,� 3, ��,: -, �'� ' tie. , �, - ' qi - � .. ♦ � '�'. f : 1.;.',:e: Z.: , 7 . ' ' .i,:, ' ' • ,, ,, ' 's / a i ; ti a y . 1 ..,:, E,,,, , : - is, jf kt; . . ' - -'r . , - ,...,:.,„..,:.„,,,,,,,,,.. , . ,.., :, 4 ' I r . ' *'' • tr" -, . - - ' .. ` - f ,' ' ' Ot - !.' .. =,-.. ,->,, '...: og•-,' .4 ,' 1 .,. : ,s ,f, .... i t,,,,, ,, . .., ,n. .,. : , ,, i fik,, .--',„, .', : : : : , , - , ,, , , , ;!* , ,, ,,: .. , :t., ,, , : :: ;.: 4 % -,, .. ...,.......:. ,-.31-, w s �� , F „K '1 1 - = , !�q _ -' l • y �f _ s 4 4 i ~ . • ,,yy x ��� � � � y� » � '77.,,,.. '4',—,-. � 'G ¢ 3 4 ` i f — •• £ per. � � �, t. i I i _ _ _ f .w.. W T U + f filar - � ' 4 `" e q ♦ �1J W ter,. ! ar., r f "'+ : r 4.+' V1 L E 4. n *• a-_ •e +v —.-L.- -�=. , ' ,, y `* s . ,.,. *' o r te . °J c r4. w ,,. g 8 ,-. 4, 4 �tiF i 'cti. - ¢ .. _ >r . " W O E 1.J r ry O t g 17: k , E » - l p R ' 0 No L W b -1 t .. - C • - �, - -t • 6 W co TT A ....^d, ° 1. , _may 4 F�-- 276 Hacienda Issues for Modification Hearing — October 26, 2010 Presented by Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association Board of Directors Listing — Listing shows Buyer was informed of HOA Owner's Actions — Shows total disregard of neighbors & community Photos of before and after conditions Resolution 5290, Section 3, #8 "No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet ... shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the Board. "(ARB) The trench was dug to provide footings for a wall or fence. "The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inskle the building which does not substantially change the external appearance of the building." The current project has NOT been limited to inside the building, AND it has substantially changed the external appearance. Magnolia — Photo - suspected large Magnolia tree in upper right corner of photo, branch is at 2" floor level Letter from Jim Krause, long -term neighbor to the west Photo & new - growth leaves from Magnolia stump — Identified as Magnolia by Frank McDonough, Botanical Information Consultant at The Arboretum Requested Action by Modification Committee — • Staff recommendations are a mere slap on the wrist. If staff recommendations am approved it will encourage others to act first, and then seek forgiveness. Therefore the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association requests: • Denial of permit to legalize removal of Engleman Oak • Denial of permit to legalize trenching • Referral to Santa Anita Oaks ARB for review of full landscape plan including replacement of protected trees, including the Magnolia, on at least a 2 for 1 basis • Establishment of a timeline for completion • Recommend refusal to issue any building permits, until the ARB has approved the landsca r • 7 nd th -exterior condition has been remediated. dA E. ' •" gherty, Presid - t anta An : Oaks Home • ners A ociation Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association Board Motion to Adopt Position - Passed without Dissent 10/25/10 1. Legalize the non - permitted removal of an Engelmann Oak tree located in the front yard. A. Administrative citation for violation of AMC 9707 ... the oak trees within the City are assets to the citizens and as a result of the loss of any of these oak trees, the public should be recompensed, and penalties applied to assure the primary goal of conservation, protection, and preservation of oak trees as set forth in this Chapter. Proper restitution includes: 1. payment of a fine (starts at $100 per count) Tree values shall be established as provided in the tree evaluation formula, as prepared by the International Society of Arboriculture "guide to establishing value for trees and shrubs." 2. replacement of the oak tree (2 - 36" box trees) The type, number, size and location of said equivalent replacement trees shall be determined by the Director of Planning. 3. The City Attorney is authorized to take whatever legal steps are necessary for recovery of civil penalties. 4. Administrative Remedies — suspension of any building permits until all mitigation measures specified by the City are satisfactorily completed. 2. Legalize the non - permitted trenching for the block wall footings that encroach within the dripline of two Coast Live Oak trees. Same as above 1. payment of a fine 2. The City Attorney take action to recover civil penalties. 3. replacement of soil and keep the area at the base of the tree dry 4. suspend any building permits 3. Magnolia tree that was removed and protected under the HOA guidelines. 1. replacement of the Magnolia tree with 2 new Magnolia trees. The size and location of the said equivalent replacement trees shall be determined by the Director of Planning. ELI _, 4r lO -,-_,*.,..„, -‘, '4,1 ' ,t ,, 'S.,,,t41, : o 4 ■ R s a L\‘ ii ,,, ., . .• )0,,,,, ' ",- —,, ' .. , !y r, .. x � I Y ilk a� \ \\ It ' r 'CIE' b a 4 aKF .. Ig 1 :: ` i ry, � i Fr z * k * 'c . ,. ...,,,,,= a : it,* •1 k , , A 4 4..; r. , k ,. , .. 4 .'. - le V1 - X 0 - 91. - 0.... : .,.. - . , .,. . , t ,.„ . . 4 . • , , . ... ‘..‘ , ° . .... , ri ' i 4 . , i . t ,,- -,:: ) ,. 4 ,..„t . , * ,... . " * O tiet ,•• 0 , ool 1 ', .1',0 , N , -„0-0 . i ., ,, 4 • .. ,.. .4 4 41). . w . - ...... e` *Pt. . . A10001102_16_0 jpg (JPEG Image, 640x480 pixels) http: / /media.cdn- rediin.com/ photo /45/bigphoto /102/A10001102_16_0 jpl ' ' Sr" Of flr 4 t, i , , e. ' IC . i a , . av"" 1! ' * rr mom. kSii `vra�xtis . 4 ,S ' 7 P f/7Z: - . i 9 C/ 4SZ: (PRIOR 70 34 ) 1 of 1 10/15/2010 6:41 Pb w �:. E a � ; k r • \, r O_ $ , Y S x c if ��a "N y t { 1 :» l e 4 bit ., #R �, 4 t3. V, �9$'2: °� ,, t • ' 1 st'. I a '. s s 4 p .a fi w �. • M. r . . - f c c : fit. '.b1 fi y i n "� • t d { � ar i r _ . # r` ' - e h. ;S , i. *J r y n .� if . ,e � « a � o � , � � ft . 7 : � . -Y M E „ y ak 4 4 R•' A � 3 ct a A Y ' h - � � � 9C • r 0 a_r :„.,,,,,:„...,:,,,...,, 4 '4'' u j 1 A 4^ Y : 3 Md +s hv. iN i . r a n; i, '' ' IS f ` • It; y y k s d t �1 4 v) e 0 w ��4 l ' V I t 1. ., f , -.: i o g ¥„ r < �� 4 4. ; r . r _ ' Se • 'c, . . 91" .yealYr, 4. to dir 4, . }Rey 0 111111116 ..d II 1 It 1.54 1 1 , 404 ., _ ,.. _ 1. , , y Sh am )! . . • kti ii% ,,, 4. ,.. 4 . . cl 114'441111111 , - . . '% 4 w)::, .. - 4..._,. ,.. , "Zi r 1 ill% ......... 1114 , 1. . ... II % arkpi : , ‘ 4Y 4 / :: :- . . I ii 1 10 r4NLA Lr, Arcawa, LA YIUU6 I M1.J# AIUUU1102 lll1p:// www.redtin.com/C;A/Arcadta/276- Hacienda -Dr-91006 /home /72.. • REDFIN 01 Sold on 04/08/2010 $1,850,000 ;." . ,; '"�,�` `�!o r 276 HACIENDA Dr { a : { , Arcadia, CA 91006 BEDS: 5 �, `' BATHS: 5.25 ` �r SQ. FT.: 4,482 _ 1A NM' .. 0'� " ,' �" $ /SQ. FT.: $413 LOT SIZE: 0.69 Acres PROPERTY TYPE: Residential, Single Family ,, .- STYLE: Two Level, Tudor YEAR BUILT: 1937 COMMUNITY: Arcadia , - .> COUNTY: Los Angeles ° MLS #: A10001102 .. - SOURCE: MRMLS STATUS: Closed 00% arrow Located in the prestigious Santa Anita "Oaks" area, this 1937 estate property is replete with character & sophistication. A skylight illuminates the foyer & k highlights the grand sweeping staircase. Dining M$+ • 1. _ room appointed with chandelier, crown moldings, wainscoting & pocket doors. Liv room with majestic fireplace, crown moldings & picture window. Overlooking the rear yard through walls of glass, the family room features a hidden wet bar & brick flooring. The sun -filled breakfast room offers Listing Provided Courtesy of: Pamela Rose, Dilbedk Real Estate wainscoting and built -in buffet. There are a total of Buyers agent: OUT OF AREA ARCADIA, OUT OF AREA OFFICE 5 bedroom suites - one downstairs - each uniquely distinct. Study has beamed ceilings, fireplace, and built -in cabinetry. Large beamed bonus room could be transformed into a wonderful media room or playroom. New HVAC system. One + - year -old roof. Secondary staircase. Grounds include mature landscaping and brick garden walls. Pool located to rear of yard. All information deemed reliable, buyer to verify. Virhlal Tnnre 1 of 6 10/15/2010 6:53 PN A10001102_ 2_Ujpg image, 64Ux41SUpixels) bttp: / /media.cdn- redhn.com/ photo /45/bigPhoto/102/A100011U2_2 Ujpl �. � a� { �' , R 9 r 'x s s 4 , ,e .n A";'nr 3 to . '''‘..r.:-.043:t444,14= b. . 4 M^ I <x ra .bcsuar eps : .��h �rz -•� - ,sue 4 z Y y t h ' sue 1 of 1 10/15/2010 6:31 P1v A10001102_6_ jpg (JPEG lina 640x480 pixels) http: / /media.cdn- rediin.com/ photo /45/bigphoto/102/A10001102 6 0 jpl ,mob, 1 0 . 3 41 -, , , ,„ 1 .or I. 'i y . : { # a H gyp' 1 of 1 10/15/2010 6:34 Plv A10001 102_10 0 jpg (JPEG image, 640x480 pixels) http: // media. cdn- redfin.com/ photo /45/bigphoto /102/A10001102_10 0 jpi i � 1 ;' y {L Y rc ,- 4 7 t '� y "h. • '1 Pw aR Li ti,„ '''I'i'' o ck } , 4 .:: v 4 w t ' � , 3 b. -Pl.. d ry + i fi R t .: 47' ; �` .,' .: , - - . :::'..,..t. '.. , ` t:„.,, , v - � 1*- t `� "' x - * 1 , � b , 1of1 10/15/20106:36P1V A10001 102_13 0 jpg (JPEG Image, 640x480 pixels) http: // media. cdn- redfin.com /photo /45/bigphoto/102/A10001102_13 0 jpl t ..,,«�•...�...,,,,,, w 4 s 1 of 1 10/15/2010 6:39 P1v Al00011O2_18 U jpg (JPE(i Image, 640x480 pixels) http: / /media.cdn redtin.com/ photo /45/bigphoto/102/A100 0 jP1 t� 1 of 1 10/15/2010 6:45 PN �iwuiiv� }t u�pg��r�vtmage,t ux4au ptxeis) rntp :��media. can- reanncom/ photoi4 ,1U2IAI 00011u "l21_OjP1 Y' A . k �,+a, rte T T '! -! t a te, •+ky eM Alto' # " ; . 4 en k{ .x t 1 of 1 10/15/2010 6:47 Ph, A10001102 0jpg(JPtAiimage,64Ux480 pixels) http: // media. cdn- redtm.com /photo /45 /bigphoto /lU /AlUUUl "l 22_0jpi • If r . r i t ag 1 of 1 10/15/2010 6:49 Pb ....,. • — , s • , ., •'.‘ , ki :,,, , ,,t:L. -..,,,. ,•....,,. ,,•,. v • • .. r. .i,...-...on,,t-,-4-. 6 .. '''',- t1;: t) •( 4 eg ..,,, .•. or . . te i • .. -••--• ,.1:•,,.„..:, .. ..., . ie.'. - s• , . . • . , , ,,... ,„., ,... .: ,.. „..,.„ . ,,,....: , ' ,--:-....; ... - , • -., - •- :: • . ,, . ......, , _ ...... .,. ik• . .,. . r• „ t .o.:4••,,,.:&,,,!- •.•-•,••,- •, • . , \ .' ikii'jwi,', , ! . t I ! 1 N . . •:•45,,,,,vitit;',00i.:.•;, . . _ .,4._.„1....••,•,..-.....r:..,:-..:,-,,,,,, , ' , I , , : : f, 1 II l'e : ! ' ! • ! ., * 1 1 ''''..",''' V , ',, 4,1 ■ J , ' ' '• '',''.4,:; '',,,v, il i , \ •,- i*:‘' , 1 : . ' • , f 1 , x\ \ :,,,;.•,',T, 14.10,,f414'. ,tt , , ,.,, •...--.? , ' 'i ' -•,•-•...,4*.‘ 1-„ 1 1 N ... . , 1 1 l' ..., , . I ' • I I t 4 — 3 ' . ., '. • ''' - V ig 1 1 4 • ‘..c , ; , . i i ;'. ' ; ; - ' ; ., , • .. 1 . .,.., .. 1: ... .., 4 . ..,,, V. -' • - . ", lq ;:" VI ' I , . , .., . , i . • -.t';'," - i. 1 , , . k - I . . ' I A 1 , • V :., � R ' . r li 4 • -P .r' t t• ,,. . • 411 _ - ., .... a K .44.,.,..,....... ..„....t.„, . .. . ..°.. '.: ...,..,,_......,.,..,... .....,,,,,,,„._,.,.....t .....__......._......................._...... .. . , , „.....,..., ..„. ,... wi,„,,,,.„:,...4..,,„" .,„:„...,.....41- s s a r * °, €. • #„ >.. ..... ��� ^.s. � z . a� ;"rss.�•. yr„ �H^ - w - w x,. g °• r •1 : • r, i - w - ,,,,'' ' . s . t l'id), (Cumeart Co »rn -TioN) `, , , IF Y 4 • • • .„ . - ea • .• / • ,* . • a • - ,1;1 1 01 : 410. 1 • 0 ,, 1St' • . — (cti it'irM e0/4017711.4) 0,c7- f • ..., . ... ,. -.„.. „ . . ..,..,. , . ,.. , ...... .,. .., .,.. ' r ,,- ... ,„ .,4 ,, .....qt .. , .. . '.' Vt■ . ..,., - ' ., ! 4 .-., ' ,:-%., , :,,-,`,4':','`iitl, ',';'1e111::,:,1'''-',,,tf;:::•,?:.r.-::::.•;4.,51itqA, i'11,-,4:' , , r .... , . , .. '.• -' - 1 t '.1"- - . ' 't. ', ' -'' ''rt.'- '', - - ... - ...-. -A.., . r ‘,/,, ,5-;,.„-- - (ea re.4.0.11 esitivilleP) , ,. , , , . :....... - . , , rM -i t 1 i c‘ `..' ci r , A i , 1 . „ _ .., , .. k. ,. � : ,.. 1 . , ., • i '' ' '''''' re �' ♦ � f i �, d k5 t $ , u ' tn 1 x ' • t r y iii 4 , 41 , z ' 't ,il, a t �� , ,! + i r't r ! J 1F4 7 1 i f , G } 5 1 . >�, II f y � t r � 1 !i Y t ' i n` " i ir�tl ' ! s iv '.P, ` it i s' 7 5 „, x , i r l . lk ' y l +I t t ,i 1� , . f, J l s r l h F & 1 r, 1 ..M'' x, 4 ¢` l,, C l P V� t) . I, t r s 2 y n �s � gq � ► f k • l w !o- 8 S „:, l e s , ti, i y 1 r is r 4. I., � t' 4 t v . • ' r ,-� x hf .�`t a • d M lip i pp - R ,....., .. 's ,,, '" ,� r .. a r- ' , :,,,- ., :''z--- : .,' 4 - 4 ., „„.:,.., 4.': ' dr f I VO' 40 :MI . . „f. � Q1 µ ” , "' ..r e111r - •'y• — F I. # ..." .401 4 iN 6i, `0 , ,,-,-,;,-,, ,,,:-.' .,:'' ' . , ,.....'''',..4°::..,...,,,,,,,,,..,,,,...,::.„:,,-,,,.:"...,:'..-. ' 6 dip v . r • K . a • ii i //004„, • ` fit 'it , AL gg° ,` • ,,,,,, .. , 0:4:0 . >friii ,,,,,,/e • -' t f f «, • • AP T a 4 t ry ` �' . �, R ' wry r` r ..:fi� +rt x ` * t!1� p y r � Y • ■ L r � s�1 C r e 4f 7 ■ . .. ■ h � _ CD Me (PVT G.�.S 7 sjb� - // /rff f/PL I Ji/ 7---2.0e 6 " j edJ CoNn�nc ' .+ i ... o -rah V —� 4,' y # °1 a , ,�.k x t ,, 3 ew {,` P •�.w,�„,., .! .�."'► # ` R . % j z:;- - .1 'II" ' .{',:''?:.,:-.7f.,,,',:r....;',:ilk.r , • , . : , , :/' ' ' ''': 1 . '', : 0 ;" 1 17 : .. :� r � b yq,� 1 r x R '. b Y / - 1: nP .j.. 1. �/!n. ts. ti: e - �` ! , � +y r ,�,,.... -� 4.,::-/ t r a F ' y . ` , ",#'''..1:,, - - . mr.... j *" ' r ,q� ` '''•`' ''br, $eg � ��" +f-. ' / - 11 i ' • / #, '4, 1 ; mo w .. � S"�r /� T : i { �" sue+" '44, b fft ` j , _ r � t t� /r i �{ p . �A i ' ' ' 9i �, I_ " .4 '= ':-= .<! i ° r R y fib .. ., „. ro 5 . —" yr _ }� w. `:fir '� S ,r 4.....-i .. w u i J i'_' s^ t r 4 .. : 4 y 9 1 w • ° 0 � � A • . ,. ,R.. , ? /`. ' ,� ¢ a. M w ' , , A„ : +•`+ Jw yam/ 't 4 4 G/ , C> . 7 — RBA/c i f _ g4 "p prl�G 4 00. ri, a. PI 4.g -- Sim st 1428 1431 I 1328 um i .. 1420 1421 i VD L------.1415 _________ 1405 • I ' 1400 1320 ill 1 1 • 1414 1415 i ■ 261 255 1401 i 1 .... •;;;,...,,,,-" ' 1312 1400 1 , 1401 . 1 , '''q . „ „„„„ „ 1 ...1 I 236 1 , 1r ......... .. , 1300 240 ,„„..... ,. 256 250 p - " 1 ? 1300 300 296 290 , . 320 330 1301 , 1220 33 1225 321 315 301 ..; 1210 1329 261 251 245 239 341 ........— . _ .......... ... . , ;.. ''L)t) 0- E ) 322 314 300 288 280 1lLZ I!). 330 2 6 24 1199 270 268 260 252 246 244 ( ; V ,. 7 7 0 - c( - -5 ' CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION ARTICLE IX DIVISION AND USE OF LAND. CHAPTER 7 OAK TREE PRESERVATION 9700. INTENT AND PURPOSE. This Chapter is established to recognize oak trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources and to create favorable conditions for the preservation and propagation of irreplaceable plant heritage for the benefit of the current and future residents of the City. It is the intent of this Chapter to maintain and enhance the public health, safety and welfare through the mitigation of soil erosion and air pollution. It is also the intent of this Chapter to preserve and enhance property values through conserving and enhancing the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of many areas in the City. 9701. SCOPE. No oak tree shall be removed, damaged or have its protected zone encroached upon except in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all oak trees on all public and private property whether vacant, undeveloped, in the process of development or developed. Exceptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter: A. Combined Permit. An Oak Tree Removal Permit is not required where tree removal and /or encroachment has been specifically approved as part of a development permit. B. Emergency Situation. Cases of emergency where the Director of Public Works, or any member of a law enforcement agency or the City of Arcadia Fire Department, in the performance of his or her duties, determines that an oak tree poses an imminent threat to the public safety, or general welfare. C. Visual Barriers. Removal or relocation of oak trees necessary to obtain adequate line - of -sight distances as required by the Director of Public Works. D. Public Utility Damage. Actions taken for the protection of existing electrical power or communication lines or other property of a public utility. E. City Property. Removal of oak trees on City owned property, which in the opinion of the Director of Public Works, will cause damage to existing public improvements, or which are in a location that does not permit the development of the site for public purposes. F. Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Property. Removal of oak trees on Arcadia Redevelopment Agency owned property that, in the opinion of the Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, are in a location which does not permit the development of the site. (Amended by Ord. 2207 adopted 7 -5 -05) CITY OFARCADIA Page 1 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 =..# CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION 9702. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Article, certain words and phrases used herein shall be defined as follows: a. Damage. Damage shall mean any action undertaken which causes injury, death, or disfigurement to an oak tree. This includes, but is not limited to, cutting, poisoning, overwatering, relocating or transplanting an oak tree, or trenching, excavating or paving within the protected zone of an oak tree. b. Director. In a matter involving private property, "Director" shall mean the Director of Planning of the City of Arcadia or appointed designee. In the matter involving public property, "Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works of the City of Arcadia or appointed designee. c. Drip Line. Drip line shall mean a series of points formed by the vertical dripping of water, on any property, from the outward branches and leaves of an oak tree. d. Encroachment. Encroachment shall mean any intrusion into the protected zone of an oak tree including, but not limited to, grading, excavation, trenching, parking of vehicles, storage of materials or equipment, or the construction of structures or other improvements. e. Oak Trees. Oak trees shall include the following: 1. Quercus Engelmannii (Engelmann oak), or quercus agrifolia (coast live oak, California live oak) with a trunk diameter larger than four (4) inches measured at a point four and one -half (41/2) feet above the crown root, or two (2) or more trunks measuring three (3) inches each or greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one -half (41/2) feet above the crown root. 2. Any other living oak tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve (12) inches measured at a point four and one -half (41/2) feet above the crown root, or two (2) or more trunks measuring ten (10) inches each or greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one -half (41/2) feet above the crown root. f. Private Property. Private property shall mean land owned by individuals, partnerships, corporations, firms, churches, and the like to which land access by the public is generally restricted. g. Protected Zone. Protected zone shall mean a specifically defined area totally encompassing an oak tree within which work activities are strictly controlled. When depicted on a map, the outermost edge of the protected zone will appear as an irregular shaped circle that follows the contour of the dripline of the oak tree. In no case shall the protected zone be Tess than fifteen (15) feet from the trunk of an oak tree, or exclude the known root structure in the case of irregularly shaped trees. h. Public Property. Public property shall mean land owned by a public or governmental entity and generally accessible to the public. CITY OF ARCADIA Page 2 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION i. Removal. Removal shall mean the uprooting, cutting, or severing of the main trunk, or major branches, of an oak tree or any act which causes, or may be reasonably expected to cause a tree to die, including but not limited to the following: 1. Damage inflicted upon the root system by machinery, storage of materials, or soil compaction; 2. Substantially changing the grade above the root system or trunk; 3. Excessive pruning; 4. Excessive paving with concrete, asphalt, or other impervious materials in such a manner which may reasonably be expected to kill an oak tree; 5. Excessive watering within the dripline; 6. Encroachment into the protected zone. j. Root Crown. Root crown shall mean that portion of an oak tree trunk from which roots extend laterally into the ground. k. Undeveloped Property. Undeveloped property shall mean land which is in its natural, original, or pristine state. I. Vacant Property. Vacant property shall mean land on which no buildings or improvements have been erected or orchards planted but which may have been graded for drainage or other purposes. 9703. OAK TREE PROTECTION REGULATIONS. a. Oak Tree Permit Required. 1. An oak tree permit shall be obtained prior to the removal of any oak tree. 2. An oak tree permit shall be obtained prior to any encroachment into the protected zone of any oak tree. b. Required Protective Measures. The following protective measures are hereby established to protect oak trees during development or construction activity: 1. No building, structure, wall or impervious paving shall be located within the protected zone of any oak tree. 2. No construction related activities shall occur within the protected zone of any oak tree, including but not limited to, building construction, storage of materials, grade changes, or attachment of wires to or around tree trunks, stems, or limbs. 3. Each and every oak tree shall be shielded from damage during construction by a four (4) foot high barrier composed of wooden stakes, chicken wire, or chain Zink CITY OFARCADIA Page 3 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 ��" CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION fencing material, which shall enclose the entire dripline area on the construction site. Such barriers shall be installed prior to the commencement of any development on the site and shall remain in place throughout the construction period. 4. Branches that may be injured by vehicles or that interfere with construction shall be pruned carefully. 9704. APPLICATION AND FEES. A. Oak Tree Permit for the Removal of Diseased and /or Hazardous Oak Trees. 1. An application for an oak tree permit for the removal of a diseased or hazardous oak tree shall be made to the Community Development Division, and shall include an evaluation from a certified arborist as to the condition of the tree. 2. There is no fee for an oak tree permit for the removal of a diseased or hazardous oak tree. B. Oak Tree Permit for the Removal of Healthy Oak Trees. 1. An application for an oak tree permit for the removal of a healthy oak tree shall be made to the Community Development Division. The content, form, instructions, procedures, and requirements of the application package deemed necessary and appropriate for the proper enforcement of this Chapter shall be established by the Community Development Division. The application shall include: (a) An explanation as to why the tree's removal is necessary; (b) An explanation as to why tree removal is more desirable than alternative project designs; (c) An explanation of any mitigation measures. (d) A fee in the same amount as required for a modification application. C. Oak Tree Permit for Encroachment into a Protected Zone. 1. An application for an oak tree permit for encroachment into a protected zone shall be made to the Community Development Division, and shall include an evaluation from a certified arborist as to the condition of the tree and the effect of the encroachment upon the tree accompanied by the appropriate photographs showing the area(s) of encroachment. 2. A fee in the same amount as required for an administrative modification application shall be submitted at the time said application is filed with the City. (Amended by Ord. 2207 adopted 7 -5 -05) 9705. ACTION ON APPLICATION A. Oak Tree Permit for the Removal of Diseased and Hazardous Oak Trees. CITY OF ARCADIA Page 4 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 rr CITY OFARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION 1. Upon the receipt of an application to remove a diseased or hazardous oak tree, the Community Development Administrator or his /her designee shall have five (5) working days to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. 2. If the Community Development Administrator or his /her designee denies such application, the decision may be appealed to the Modification Committee. Such appeal shall be processed pursuant to the modification regulations. The fee for an appeal shall be the same as for a Modification application. 3. The privileges granted an applicant in this Section shall become null and void if not utilized within one (1) year from the date of the approval. B. Oak Tree Permit for the Removal of Healthy Oak Trees. 1. The application for an oak tree permit for the removal of a healthy oak tree or trees shall be subject to the approval or conditional approval of the Modification Committee or the Planning Commission (on appeal) or City Council (on appeal) pursuant to the modification regulations. 2. If the applicant lives within a Homeowners Association area established pursuant to Section 9272.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the applicant shall submit their tree removal plans to the Architectural Review Board (Committee) of said Homeowners Association for review and approval, conditional approval or denial, prior to filing an application with the City. 3. The Architectural Review Board's (Committee's) review and comment are not required if the Homeowners Association has filed a letter with the Community Development Division stating that their Association does not wish to perform such review. 4. The privileges granted an applicant in this Section shall become null and void if not utilized within one (1) year from the date of the approval or conditional approval. C. Oak Tree Permit for Encroachment Into a Protected Zone. 1. Upon the receipt of an application to encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree, the Community Development Administrator or his /her designee shall have five (5) working days to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. 2. If the Community Development Administrator or his /her designee denies such application or approves said application with conditions, the applicant may appeal the denial or the conditions of approval to the Modification Committee. Such appeal shall be processed pursuant to the modification regulations. The fee for an appeal shall be the same as for a modification application. 3. The privileges granted an applicant in this Section shall become null and void if not utilized within one (1) year from the date of the approval. (Amended by Ord. 2207 adopted 7 -5 -05) 9706. CONDITIONS. Conditions may be imposed on the issuance of an Oak Tree Permit including, but not limited to, the following: a. Relocating of oak trees on -site, or the planting of new oak trees. CITY OF ARCADIA Page 5 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION b. Planting of additional trees, other than oak, which may be more appropriate to the site. 9707. ENFORCEMENT. a. The Planning Department, through its Code Enforcement Officers, shall enforce the provisions of this Chapter. Additionally, Police Officers, inspectors from the Building Division and Public Works Department, in the course of their duties, will monitor construction activities for compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. Any irregularities or suspected violations will be reported immediately to the Code Enforcement Division for follow -up action. b. Whenever any construction or work is being performed contrary to the provisions of this Chapter, any oak tree permit, or any conditions of the appropriate development permit, a City inspector may issue a notice to the responsible party to "stop work" on the project on which the violation has occured or upon which the danger exists. The notice shall state the nature of the violation or danger and no work shall be allowed until the violation has been rectified and approved by the Director of Planning. c. Criminal and Civil Remedies. 1. Criminal. Any person who violates any provisions of this Chapter including violations of inspector's orders shall be subject to the following remedies in addition to misdemeanor penalties for violation of the Municipal Code. 2. Restitution - -Civil Penalties. (a) It has been determined that the oak trees within the City are valuable environmental assets to the citizens of this community and as a result of the loss of any of these oak trees, the public should be recompensed, and penalties applied to assure the primary goal of conservation, protection, and preservation of oak trees as set forth in this Chapter. (b) Accordingly, any person violating the provisions of this Chapter shall be responsible for proper restitution including but not limited to the following or any combination thereof: (1) payment of a fine, (2) replacement the oak tree, which has been removed, and /or (3) planting new oak trees or other trees which may be more appropriate to the site. Replacement shall be made based on the value or the actual replacement cost, whichever is higher, plus the cost of planting the replacement trees. The type, number, size and location of said equivalent replacement trees shall be determined by the Director of Planning. (c) Tree values shall be established as provided in the tree evaluation formula, as prepared by the International Society of Arboriculture "Guide to Establishing Value for Trees and Shrubs." (d) The City Attorney is authorized to take whatever legal steps are necessary for recovery of civil penalties. CITY OFARCADIA Page 6 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 Or* h CITY OF ARCADIA OAK TREE PRESERVATION d. Administrative Remedies. 1. A suspension of any building permits until all mitigation measures specified by the City are satisfactorily completed. 2. Completion of all mitigation measures as established by the City. 9708. LIABILITY. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the City, its officers, or employees. No duty of care or maintenance is imposed upon the City, its officers or employees with reference to private property, and no private property owner or other person in possession of private property is relieved from the duties to keep oak trees in a safe condition on their property. This ordinance does not relieve the owner or possessor of private property from the duty to keep oak trees subject to this chapter in such a condition as to prevent the oak tree from constituting a hazard or dangerous condition to persons or property. (Chapter 7 added by Ord. 1962 adopted 1- 21 -92) CITY OFARCADIA Page 7 of 7 Oak Tree Preservation, 2/08 The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the November 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. 2. APPEAL OF OAK TREE PERMITS TRH 10 -01 AND THE 10 -20 276 Hacienda Drive Sharon Kwan (representative of the property owner, Roland Hwang) This is an appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of the following Oak Tree Permits: 1. Legalize the removal of an Engelmann Oak Tree that was located in the front yard area of the subject property; and, 2. Legalize the non - permitted encroachment by the trenching for a block wall within the dripline of two (2) Coast Live Oak Trees that are located in the rear yard of the adjacent property at 280 Hacienda Drive. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Chairman Parrille asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Baerg asked to confirm that the Engelmann Oak was removed before the application was submitted. Yes, the tree had been removed before the application was submitted. Mr. Li explained that the applicant was not aware that a permit was required to remove an oak tree, however, the applicant did arrange for an arborist's report. Commissioner Baerg asked if the applicant disclosed that the tree had already been removed when she applied for the permit. Mr. Li explained that Code Services informed the property owners that a permit was required, and based on the arborist's report, the oak tree removal was approved. However, the approval was rescinded when it was discovered that the arborist's certification had lapsed. The Public Hearing was opened. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Ms. Sharon Kwan said that she is a friend of the property owner, Ms. Jenny Wong. Ms. Kwan explained that Ms. Wong has had a series of personal problems that made it difficult for her to manage the property. Ms. Kwan said that she is trying to help her friend with the property. She said that she contacted Mr. Vance Tucker, a local arborist who was included on the city's list of certified arborists, regarding the oak tree in the front yard. Mr. Tucker determined that the tree was dead and recommended immediate removal to avoid damage to the house should the dead tree fall. Ms. Kwan then made arrangements with a local contractor for removal of the oak tree. She also pointed out that a pre -sale inspection report noted that the tree was dying due to flooding from plumbing leaks. She further explained that the landscaping is in poor condition because the water had to be turned off until plumbing repairs are made. Excerpt from minutes of 11 -23 -2010 Planning Commission meeting Page 1 of 4 Ms. Kwan explained that a brick wall separating the property from one of the neighbors had fallen and she asked a contractor for an estimate for repairs. Due to a misunderstanding, the contractor began digging in the yard before obtaining permission. Since then, Ms. Kwan explained that she has been unable to get in touch with the contractor to repair or complete the work they began. Ms. Kwan said that they are very sorry to have upset their new neighbors. She explained that the owner, Ms. Wong, is also very upset about the condition of the house and yard and is working diligently to have the necessary repairs made. Commissioner Baderian asked if the realtor advised the applicant of the requirement to obtain a city permit for removal of an oak tree. Ms. Kwan explained that there was a very short escrow period and Ms. Wong could not remember if she had been advised of the need for a permit. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. Mr. Simon Russin, owner of the property to the rear of the subject site, said that this property has been in trouble for 35 years. He said that the pool and trees have not been maintained. Mr. Russin said the oak tree in the front yard was dead and there were sewage and plumbing problems. Now there is a new owner, but they have not been able to get permits to make the necessary repairs. Mr. Russin pointed out that the property is an eyesore and the new owner needs help to get the property in order. Mr. Jim Krause, 280 Hacienda, said that he would like to have a good relationship with his neighbors, but he is concerned about the pattern they are establishing of ignoring regulations, and when questioned, claim simply that they didn't understand. Mr. Krause said that the trenching under the oak tree went on for several days, not just one day as stated by Ms. Kwan. He noted that 12 -inch roots were sawed off and he questioned whether the tree would survive. Mr. Krause said that about a month after this occurred, someone came to his front door and asked him to sign a document signifying his approval for the work on the block wall which had already begun. He said that there used to be a large Magnolia tree in the yard and a nice lawn, but now there are only weeds and discolored fencing. Mr. Krause said that in his opinion, legalizing a permit that was ignored in the first place is not the answer. Ms. Mary Dougherty, Santa Anita Oaks HOA President, pointed out that the staff report shows Jenny Wang as the property owner but, in fact, the title is held by her son Roland Wang. She also said that the listing agreement clearly states that the property is in a Homeowners' Association so it is unlikely that Ms. Wang was not aware of this. Ms. Dougherty distributed some pictures of the property to the Commissioners showing that the appearance of the property has substantially changed since Ms. Wang took ownership. On behalf of the Santa Anita Oaks HOA, Ms. Dougherty asked the Commissioners to uphold the decision of the Modification Committee to deny approval for removal of the oak tree and the trenching and to request replacement trees on, at least, a two for one basis. She further requests suspension of any building permits until the property is brought into compliance. Chairman Parrille asked if the applicant wanted to speak in rebuttal. Excerpt from minutes of 11 -23 -2010 Planning Commission meeting Page 2 of 4 Ms. Kwan said Mr. Tucker assured her that there were no protected trees on the property and she had no recollection of a Magnolia tree. She also stated that the applicant was not aware that Mr. Tucker's certification had lapsed. She said that they obtained approval signatures for the block wall from two neighbors. Commissioner Beranek asked who the legal owner of the property is. Ms. Kwan said that the property was purchased in the name of her friend's son, Roland, who is away at college. Commissioner Beranek asked if the house is currently occupied. Ms. Kwan explained that the house is not habitable due to plumbing and termite problems but they can't work on these problems until the HOA is satisfied that the tree issues are resolved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, to close the public hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Baderian expressed concern about the various code violations that need to be addressed and the resulting negative impacts to the community. He said it appears that the owners are attempting to correct the problems but they don't know how to proceed. Commissioner Baderian said he would deny the appeal but he felt that follow up is needed. Chairman Parrille explained that the Modification Committee was concerned about the negligent appearance of the property and the apparent lack of concern about regulations. He noted that it is not good practice to allow unpermitted work to take place and legalize it after the fact. Commissioner Beranek said that he agrees that the trees are only a symptom of the problem. He said that the real issue is that the owner isn't working to bring the house up to code and make it habitable. He asked what would happen if the Commission denies the appeal. Mr. Kasama explained that if the appeal is denied the matter would be referred to the City Attorney. Commissioner Chiao said he understands that the HOA wants the tree issue resolved before permits can be issued for any other work. However, he said he feels it would be in the best interests of the community to allow permits to be issued for the other repairs without waiting for the tree issue to be resolved. Commissioner Baderian pointed out that there seemed to be a consensus to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Modification Committee on the trees. However, he also suggested that staff work with the owner to find solutions to make the house habitable. Commissioner Baderian said he felt the Commission should deny the appeal and refer the matter to the City Attorney for follow up. Chairman Parrille agreed and pointed out that the greater issue was that work was done without permits. Excerpt from minutes of 11 -23 -2010 Planning Commission meeting Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Baderian said that he wanted to be sure that the necessary steps would be taken to remedy the entire situation including termites, sewer, plumbing and foundation issues. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Baerg to deny the appeal of Oak Tree Permits TRH 10 -01 and THE 10 -20. ROLL CALL AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Chiao and Parrille NOES: None There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the approval/denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 2, 2010. Excerpt from minutes of 11 -23 -2010 Planning Commission meeting Page 4 of 4 // —/9 d Lis - 74-ei 6 -le o & Cel- ° ?1 0 74-e ri &j 1 - RECEIVED NOV 2 4 2010 Planning Services City of Arcadia 6 �+ I i i C1 1 1 , l I `! 1 ii, 1 1 I /6) I, i ,, ..., �1 , i I o, ! i t 4 i 9 1 1 , , . AP1 9,‘' 1 -H-.0.... . W 1 c.:! 1 ' 1 I W I__ co ..1) .; li i i" il I ,kel r y, i I ; I I I !! I vi , ..— i °� i ,; .:. gi ,.., . c. 1 I I zr/ 41 1 I e .e (.0 % Vi 1 1 1 { , W co V) I i _IX ; O c r i ` V I 1 ! I ( 1 a a. W 1 x O i 1 1 1 1 1 1.. � ;/ i 1 0 ins• - IO .�� O � i X01 1 1.11,-, 16 I �� '$ �1 a... • eftl 1 61 I H I .1 A 1 RI y LW 6 7 + ice! -V1 0 o— I I.9I • O a l d i i 1 , ! k, ` 1 a /7: "0. 1" "''''' , • I l i 14 [ - � i �' �' 6� ! 1 q 1 I ► i3i 1 ° ! I I ' t • r