GROUNDCOVERS
BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GALLON 876 S.F. LOW 0.10 6" TALL
Carex tumulicola @ 15" O.C. x 12" WIDE
MARATHON SOD 2,588 S.F. HIGH 0.80 3" TALL
TURF GRASS
O1
O2
O3
O3
O2
O2
O2
O2
P1
O3
C1
C1
C1
C1
CONTAINERS WITH PLANTS
TO BE SELECTED, TYP.
CONTAINERS WITH PLANTS
TO BE SELECTED, TYP.
PLANTING
PLAN
L3.00
10 OF 13
EXHIBIT 3
218 of 348
12:36 PM 12/17/24
THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS,
DEPICTIONS, IDEAS AND OTHER INFORMATION
CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE UNPUBLISHED WORK OF
SODDER STUDIO AND SHALL REMAIN PROPERTY OF
SODDER STUDIO IN PERPETUITY. THIS DRAWING IS PART
OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE STATED
PROJECT AND SHALL BE USED ONLY AS SUCH. NO PART
THEREOF SHALL BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, DISCLOSED,
DISTRIBUTED, SOLD, PUBLISHED OR OTHERWISE USED IN
ANYWAY FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE
ADVANCED EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SODDER
STUDIO. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ABOVE DRAWINGS,
OR ANY PART THEREOF, SHALL CONSTITUE CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.
OWNER
SHEET TITLE
SHEET
SHEET LEGEND
L0.01 LANDSCAPE TITLE SHEET
L0.02 GENERAL NOTES
L1.00 CONSTRUCTION PLAN
L1.01 STAKING PLAN
L1.10 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L1.11 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L2.00 IRRIGATION PLAN
L2.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS
L2.11 IRRIGATION DETAILS
L3.00 PLANTING PLAN
L3.10 PLANTING NOTES & DETAILS
L4.00 LIGHTING PLAN
L5.00 WATER USE INFORMATION
THIRTEEN (13) SHEETS TOTAL
No. Description Date
1 75% C.D. SET 10.22.2024
REVISIONS
SHEET NO.
DATE
DRAWN BY
12.17.2024
RD
MAZMANIAN RESIDENCE
906 WHITEHAVEN TERRACE
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
LIC
E
N S E D L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E
C
T
S T A T E O F C AL I F O R N I A
R
Y
A
N
J . D R N E K
N o. 5170
Signature
11.30.25 Renewal Date
12.17.2024
Date
RYAN DRNEK, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
CALIFORNIA LIC. NO. 5170 EXP. 11/2025
[email protected]
landscape architecture + planning
Sodder
Studio
12405 Venice Blvd. #275
Los Angeles, Ca 90066
www.sodderstudio.com
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
BRYAN GARRENE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
MR. MIKE MAZMANIAN
906 WHITEHAVEN TERRACE
GLENDALE, CA 91207
P. 818.434.3414
E. [email protected]
2 100% C.D. SUBMITTAL 12.17.2024
PLANTING
NOTES & DETAILS
L3.10
2. SHRUB PLANTING 3. SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER SPACING 11 OF 13 1 2
EQUAL
EQUAL
X
1/2 X
LEGEND:
1. BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVING.
2. PLANT LOCATION.
NOTES:
ALL SHRUBS/GROUND COVER TO BE PLANTED AT EQUAL SPACING
(TRIANGULAR) UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON PLANS: SEE LEGEND FOR SPACING REQUIREMENTS.
LEGEND:
1. SEE THE PLANTING PLAN(S) FOR TREE SPECIES, CONTAINER SIZE, HEIGHT AND SPREAD DIMENSIONS AND COMMENTS ON FORM REQUIREMENTS. (HIGH
HEAD, STANDARD FORM IS ILLUSTRATED) REMOVE NURSERY STAKES FOLLOWING PLANTING AND INSTALLATION OF TRIPLE STAKIING.
2. 'CINCH-TIES' TWO PLACES EACH TREE. SEE THE PLAN AND MANUFACTURER'S SKETCH.
3. LOWER 'CINCH-TIE' SUPPORT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED, INSTALL AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, TO BE REVIEWED FOLLOWING PLANTING.
4. ROOTBALL. TOP OF ROOTBALL 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE, DO NOT OVEREXCAVATE THE PLANT PIT.
5. TAMPED SOIL WATER BASIN RIM. INSTALL WATER BASIN FOR ALL TREES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PLANTING. AT THE END OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD,
REMOVE THE SOIL BASIN RIM AND LEAVE THE MULCH IN PLACE FOR TREES IN LAWNS. WATER BASINS FOR TREES IN GROUNDCOVER AND SHRUB BEDS ARE TO REMAIN.
6. FINISH GRADE.
7. FERTILIZER TABLETS, SEE THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPOSITION AND QUANTITY.
8. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL.
9. EQUAL SPACE THREE EACH 2" DIAMETER 10 FT. LONG LODGEPOLE PINE TREE STAKES, DRIVEN 30" IN TO GRADE OUTSIDE OF ROOTBALL, SEE PLAN.
10. MULCH WATER BASIN WITH 2" DEEP 'RECYCLED WOOD PRODUCTS' LANDSCAPE MULCH OR EQUAL.
11. PLANTING PIT WITH BACKFILL MIX PER THE PLANTING NOTES AND THE SPECIFICATIONS.
NOTES:
STAKING FOR SPECIMEN (4" AND LARGER CALIPER) TREES WILL BE DONE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, TO BE REVIEWED FOLLOWING PLANTING.
UNTANGLE MATTED ROOTS BY LOOSENING ALL ROOTS AT EDGE OF ROOT BALL; DO NOT CRACK ROOT BALL.
DETAIL IS DRAWN FOR 24" BOX TREE INSTALLATIONS. 12 FT. LODGEPOLE TREE STAKES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR 36" AND 48" BOX TREES.
TREES ARE TO BE HELD IN PLACE WITH #153 'CINCH TIE' OR APPROVED EQUAL. TIE IS TO BE FASTENED AROUND TRUNK TO SECURE IT AND THREE #12 GALVANIZED WIRES FASTENED TO
THE THREE EYE TABS, DOUBLE WRAP WIRES AT STAKES, TWIST TIE AND SECURE WITH GALVANIZED NAILS.
TWICE ROOTBALL WIDTH
SQUARE PITS WITH SCARIFIED
VERTICAL SIDES AND BOTTOM.
DIRECTION OF PREVAILING
WIND, DETERMINE ON SITE.
1 2
3 4
PLAN
SECTION
5 6
3" 6"
7 8
11 10
9 9
4 11
5 SECTION LINE
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
LEGEND:
1. SEE THE PLANTING PLAN(S) FOR SHRUB SPECIES, CONTAINER SIZE, HEIGHT AND SPREAD DIMENSIONS AND COMMENTS ON FORM REQUIREMENTS.
2. ROOTBALL. TOP OF ROOTBALL 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE, DO NOT OVEREXCAVATE THE PLANT PIT.
3. TAMPED SOIL WATER BASIN RIM. INSTALL WATER BASIN FOR ALL SPECIMEN SHRUBS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PLANTING.
4. FINISH GRADE.
5. FERTILIZER TABLETS, SEE THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPOSITION AND QUANTITY. DO NOT FERTILIZE NATIVE PLANTS UNLESS DIRECTED TO DO SO IN THE SOIL SUITABILITY TEST RECOMMENDATIONS.
6. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL.
7. MULCH WATER BASIN WITH 2" DEEP 'RECYCLED WOOD PRODUCTS' LANDSCAPE MULCH OR EQUAL.
8. PLANTING PIT WITH BACKFILL MIX PER THE PLANTING NOTES AND THE SPECIFICATIONS.
NOTES:
UNTANGLE MATTED ROOTS BY LOOSENING ALL ROOTS AT EDGE OF ROOT BALL; DO NOT CRACK ROOT BALL.
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
SECTION 3" 3"
2 7
TWICE ROOTBALL DIA.
SHOVEL CUT SQUARE PITS WITH
SCARIFIED VERTICAL SIDES AND
BOTTOM. AUGERED HOLES ARE
UNACCEPTABLE.
1 3 4
5 6 8
PLAN
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1 3
2 8
1. TREE PLANTING
PLANTING NOTES
PLANTING NOTES
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THERE BE ANY MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS EXCEPT WITH THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROCURING THE SERVICES OF A SOIL TESTING
LABORATORY TO PERFORM AN AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY ANALYSIS FOR INFILTRATION RATES, BOTH NATIVE PLANTS AND TRADITIONAL PLANT MATERIALS. THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR SOIL PREPARATION AND BACKFILL AMENDMENT AND PROCEDURES, AND FOR MAINTENANCE FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS. TWO RANDOM
SAMPLES SHALL BE TAKEN FROM EACH ON-SITE STOCKPILE OF NATIVE SOIL AND DELIVERED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE SOILS TESTING LABORATORY.
FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY, THE CONTRACTOR IS TO ASSUME THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT FOR SOIL PREPARATION, AND IS TO ASSUME UTILIZATION OF AMENDED SITE SOIL FOR PLANT PIT BACKFILL:
INCORPORATE INTO THE SOIL THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS, PER PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.
MATERIAL AMOUNTS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET:
3 CU. YD. NITROGEN FORTIFIED WOOD COMPOST
2 CU. YD. ORGANIC FERTILIZER
100 LBS. GYPSUM
30 LBS. COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER
FOR SOILS LESS THAN 6% ORGANIC MATTER IN THE TOP 6 INCHES OF SOIL, COMPOST AT A RATE OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALL BE INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO THE SOIL.
FOR EROSION CONTROL MEASURES DURING PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, INSTALL JUTE MESH NETTING ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 4:1 GRADIENT.
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THERE BE ANY MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS EXCEPT WITH THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
BACKFILL ALL PLANTERS WITH B.D. WHITE TOP SOIL COMPANY 'MIXTURE 76', A LIGHTWEIGHT BLENDED SOIL FOR ROOFTOP PLANTERS.
CONTACT: B.D. WHITE TOP SOIL CO., INC.
19205 SOUTH PRARIE AVENUE
TORRANCE, CA 90503
310.370.5511
A MINIMUM 3-INCH LAYER OF MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS
EXCEPT TURF AREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED.
CLASS 1 RECYCLED BARK MULCH IS REQUIRED WITHIN PLANTER AREAS AT A DEPTH OF 3" FOR SHRUB PLANTERS WHERE PLANTING CONSISTS OF 1 GAL. OR LARGER PLANTS. SOIL SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE THROUGH MULCH. KEEP MULCH 3" CLEAR OF TREE TRUNKS AND PLANT STEMS. PRIOR TO ORDERING MULCH, CONTRACTOR IS TO SUBMIT A SAMPLE TO OWNER FOR APPROVAL.
6. 7.
8. 9.
EXHIBIT 3
219 of 348
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CA.
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS.
THE LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION WILL BE INSPECTED AND CERTIFIED IN
WRITING, WITH A CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION, BY THE PROJECT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, RYAN DRNEK, THAT THE INSTALLATION SUBSTANTIALLY
CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED PLAN PRIOR TO A FINAL LANDSCAPE INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY BEING REQUESTED.
I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE
DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE.
12.17.2024
SIGNATURE DATE SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0” NORTH
0' 5' 10' 15’ 20'
12:36 PM 12/17/24
THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS,
DEPICTIONS, IDEAS AND OTHER INFORMATION
CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE UNPUBLISHED WORK OF
SODDER STUDIO AND SHALL REMAIN PROPERTY OF
SODDER STUDIO IN PERPETUITY. THIS DRAWING IS PART
OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE STATED
PROJECT AND SHALL BE USED ONLY AS SUCH. NO PART
THEREOF SHALL BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, DISCLOSED,
DISTRIBUTED, SOLD, PUBLISHED OR OTHERWISE USED IN
ANYWAY FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE
ADVANCED EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SODDER
STUDIO. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ABOVE DRAWINGS,
OR ANY PART THEREOF, SHALL CONSTITUE CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.
OWNER
SHEET TITLE
SHEET
SHEET LEGEND
L0.01 LANDSCAPE TITLE SHEET
L0.02 GENERAL NOTES
L1.00 CONSTRUCTION PLAN
L1.01 STAKING PLAN
L1.10 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L1.11 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L2.00 IRRIGATION PLAN
L2.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS
L2.11 IRRIGATION DETAILS
L3.00 PLANTING PLAN
L3.10 PLANTING NOTES & DETAILS
L4.00 LIGHTING PLAN
L5.00 WATER USE INFORMATION
THIRTEEN (13) SHEETS TOTAL
No. Description Date
1 75% C.D. SET 10.22.2024
REVISIONS
SHEET NO.
DATE
DRAWN BY
12.17.2024
RD
MAZMANIAN RESIDENCE
906 WHITEHAVEN TERRACE
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
LIC
E
N S E D L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E
C
T
S T A T E O F C AL I F O R N I A
R
Y
A
N
J . D R N E K
N o. 5170
Signature
11.30.25 Renewal Date
12.17.2024
Date
RYAN DRNEK, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
CALIFORNIA LIC. NO. 5170 EXP. 11/2025
[email protected]
landscape architecture + planning
Sodder
Studio
12405 Venice Blvd. #275
Los Angeles, Ca 90066
www.sodderstudio.com
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
BRYAN GARRENE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
MR. MIKE MAZMANIAN
906 WHITEHAVEN TERRACE
GLENDALE, CA 91207
P. 818.434.3414
E. [email protected]
2 100% C.D. SUBMITTAL 12.17.2024
WHITEHAVEN TERRACE
LIGHTING
PLAN
L4.00
12 OF 13
LIGHTING NOTES
1. ALL NEW PATHWAYS TO RECEIVE LOW VOLTAGE
PATH LIGHTING WITH SHIELDS ANGLED TOWARDS
PATH, TO BE LOW VOLTAGE AND INSTALLED 12"
FROM ANY HARDSCAPE.
2. ACCENT AND FOCAL TREES TO RECIEVE MINIMUM
ONE UPLIGHT, BUT MAXIMUM TWO. ANGLED
TOWARDS TREE TRUNK TO MINIMIZE LIGHT
POLLUTION.
3. ALL STEPS TO RECIEVE INTEGRATED LIGHTING.
4. ALL LIGHT SOURCES TO BE WARM-COLORED.
ALL LIGHTING TO BE COMPLIANT WITH CITY DARK SKY
REGULATIONS.
LIGHTING LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
‘FXL’ LED LANDSCAPE PATHLIGHT MODEL #FXL ‘M-PJ’
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
'FXL' LED LANDSCAPE UPLIGHT MODEL #FXL-XA-70
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
‘FXL’ LED WALL LIGHT MODEL #HS
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
LED ROPE LIGHT
TO BE SELECTED / APPROVED BY THE OWNER.
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
'FXL' LUXOR CONTROLLER
MODEL #LUX-300-SS
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY POWER SOURCE AND
MOUNTING LOCATION WITH THE OWNER PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION.
INSTALL PER THE MANUFACTURER’S SPECIFICATIONS.
FIXTURE NOTES:
THE CONTRACTOR IS TO SUPPLY THE OWNER WITH
SAMPLE FIXTURES AND FINISHES FOR APPROVAL
PRIOR TO PURCHASE OR INSTALLATION.
L
L
EXHIBIT 3
220 of 348
WHITEHAVEN TERRACE
F
C
01 02
03 08 07 06 05 04
10 11
12 14
09 13
187 S.F.
174 S.F.
517 S.F.
491 S.F.
329 S.F.
421 S.F.
1,881 S.F.
161 S.F.
307 S.F.
347 S.F.
184 S.F.
90 S.F.
245 S.F.
350 S.F.
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 5,672 S.F.
PLANT FACTOR HYDROZONE TYPE AREA
0.10 LOW SHRUBS DRIP 2,920 S.F
0.40 MODERATE SHRUBS DRIP 1,161 S.F.
0.80 HIGH TURF GRASS DRIP 1,170 S.F.
1.00 HIGH POOL & SPA N/A 421 S.F.
MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE = (ETO) (0.62) [0.55 X LA] MAWA = (43.7) (0.62) x [.55 x 5,672]+((1-0.55) x SLA)]
MAWA = (27.094) x (3,119.6)
MAWA = 84,522 GALLONS PER YEAR
ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE = (ETO x 0.62) [PF x HA)/IE + SLA] = (43.7 x 0.62) [PF x HA)/IE + SLA]
0.10 LOW USE SHRUBS
ETWU = (27.094)[2,920 x .10)/.81] = 9,767 GALLONS PER YEAR
0.40 MODERATE USE SHRUBS
ETWU = (27.094)[1,161 x .40)/.81] = 15,533 GALLONS PER YEAR
0.60 HIGH USE TURF
ETWU = (27.094)[1,170 x .80)/.81] = 31,308 GALLONS PER YEAR
1.00 WATER FEATURES
ETWU = (27.094)[421 x 1.00) = 11,406 GALLONS PER YEAR
ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE = 68,014 GALLONS PER YEAR
SUMMARY
THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE STATE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (MWELO) AS REQUIRED FOR NEW LANDSCAPING.
EXISTING SITE IRRIGATION AND PLANTINGS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT ARE TO REMAIN IN PLACE.
WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CA.
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS.
THE LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION WILL BE INSPECTED AND CERTIFIED IN
WRITING, WITH A CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION, BY THE PROJECT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, RYAN DRNEK, THAT THE INSTALLATION SUBSTANTIALLY
CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED PLAN PRIOR TO A FINAL LANDSCAPE INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY BEING REQUESTED.
I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE
DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE.
12.17.2024
SIGNATURE DATE SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0” NORTH
0' 5' 10' 15’ 20'
12:37 PM 12/17/24
THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGNS, ARRANGEMENTS,
DEPICTIONS, IDEAS AND OTHER INFORMATION
CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE UNPUBLISHED WORK OF
SODDER STUDIO AND SHALL REMAIN PROPERTY OF
SODDER STUDIO IN PERPETUITY. THIS DRAWING IS PART
OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE STATED
PROJECT AND SHALL BE USED ONLY AS SUCH. NO PART
THEREOF SHALL BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, DISCLOSED,
DISTRIBUTED, SOLD, PUBLISHED OR OTHERWISE USED IN
ANYWAY FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE
ADVANCED EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SODDER
STUDIO. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ABOVE DRAWINGS,
OR ANY PART THEREOF, SHALL CONSTITUE CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.
OWNER
SHEET TITLE
SHEET
SHEET LEGEND
L0.01 LANDSCAPE TITLE SHEET
L0.02 GENERAL NOTES
L1.00 CONSTRUCTION PLAN
L1.01 STAKING PLAN
L1.10 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L1.11 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
L2.00 IRRIGATION PLAN
L2.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS
L2.11 IRRIGATION DETAILS
L3.00 PLANTING PLAN
L3.10 PLANTING NOTES & DETAILS
L4.00 LIGHTING PLAN
L5.00 WATER USE INFORMATION
THIRTEEN (13) SHEETS TOTAL
No. Description Date
1 75% C.D. SET 10.22.2024
REVISIONS
SHEET NO.
DATE
DRAWN BY
12.17.2024
RD
MAZMANIAN RESIDENCE
906 WHITEHAVEN TERRACE
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
LIC
E
N S E D L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E
C
T
S T A T E O F C AL I F O R N I A
R
Y
A
N
J . D R N E K
N o. 5170
Signature
11.30.25 Renewal Date
12.17.2024
Date
RYAN DRNEK, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
CALIFORNIA LIC. NO. 5170 EXP. 11/2025
[email protected]
landscape architecture + planning
Sodder
Studio
12405 Venice Blvd. #275
Los Angeles, Ca 90066
www.sodderstudio.com
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
BRYAN GARRENE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
MR. MIKE MAZMANIAN
906 WHITEHAVEN TERRACE
GLENDALE, CA 91207
P. 818.434.3414
E. [email protected]
2 100% C.D. SUBMITTAL 12.17.2024
City of Rolling Hills Estates
Planning Department
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 377-1577
Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
This worksheet is filled out by the project applicant and it is a required element of the Landscape Documentation Package.
Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) ____________
ETAF Calculations
Regular Landscape Areas All Landscape Areas
Hydrozone #
/Planting
Descriptiona
Plant
Factor (PF)
Irrigation
Methodb
Irrigation
Efficiency
(IE)c
ETAF
(PF/IE)
Landscape
Area (sq, ft,)
ETAF x Area Estimated Total
Water Use
(ETWU)e
Regular Landscape Areas
Totals (A) (B)
Special Landscape Areas
1 1
1 Totals (C) (D)
ETWU Total
Maximum Allowed Water Allowance (MAWA)e
Total ETAF x Area (B)
Total Area (A)
Average ETAF B ÷ A
Total ETAF x Area (B+D)
Total Area (A+C)
Sitewide ETAF (B+D) ÷ (A+C)
aHydrozone #/Planting Description
E.g
1.) front lawn
2.) low water use plantings
3.) medium water use planting
bIrrigation Method cIrrigation Efficiency
overhead spray 0.75 for spray head
or drip 0.81 for drip
dETWU (Annual Gallons Required) =
Eto x 0.62 x ETAF x Area
where 0.62 is a conversion
factor that converts acreinches per acre per year to
gallons per square foot per
year.
Average ETAF for Regular Landscape Areas must
be 0.55 or below for residential areas, and 0.45 or
below for non-residential areas.
eMAWA (Annual Gallons Allowed) = (Eto) ( 0.62) [ (ETAF x LA) + ((1-ETAF) x SLA)]
where 0.62 is a conversion factor that converts acreinches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year, LA is the total landscape area in square feet, SLA is the total special landscape area in square feet,
and ETAF is .55 for residential areas and 0.45 for nonresidential areas.
LOW 0.10
MODERATE
HIGH
DRIP
DRIP
DRIP
0.81 0.81
0.81 0.40
0.80 WATER FEATURES 1.00 421
0.987 1,170 1,154.79
N/A N/A 421
2,920
1,161
42.6 0.123
0.493
359.16
572.373
9,767
15,533
31,308
11,406
68,014
84,522
1,575.79
5,762 1,575.79
5,762
0.273
1,575.79
5,762
0.273
SYMBOL HYDROZONE WATER USE TYPE AREA
LOW 0.10 DRIP 2,920 S.F.
SHRUBS
MODERATE 0.40 DRIP 1,161 S.F.
SHRUBS
HIGH 0.80 DRIP 1,170 S.F.
TURF
HIGH 1.00 N/A 421 S.F.
WATER FEATURES
TOTAL AREA 5,672 S.F.
HYDROZONE SUMMARY
WATER USE
PLAN
L5.00
13 OF 13
EXHIBIT 3
221 of 348
design studio
ecumena
EXHIBIT 3
222 of 348
design studio
ecumena
EXHIBIT 3
223 of 348
design studio
ecumena
EXHIBIT 3
224 of 348
design studio
ecumena
EXHIBIT 3
225 of 348
EXHIBIT 3
226 of 348
EXHIBIT 3
227 of 348
EXHIBIT 3
228 of 348
EXHIBIT 3
229 of 348
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
RECORD OF DECISION
Meeting Date February 13, 2025 DRB Case No. PDR-004219-2024 Address 906 Whitehaven Terrace
Applicant Harry Akopian
Project Summary:
The applicant is requesting approval to add an 1,865 square-foot (SF) two-story addition and change the architectural style of the existing 1,938 SF single-story single-family residence with an attached 3-car garage constructed in 1973 on a 11,770 SF interior lot in the R1R-III (Restricted Residential Zone, Floor Area District III).
Design Review:
Board Member Motion Second Yes No Absent Abstain
Lockareff X X
Kaskanian X
Simonian
Welch X X
Totals 3 0
DRB Decision Approve with conditions.
Conditions:
1. Restudy the design to reduce the massing and scale of the second-story volume, ensuring it follows the topography and eliminates the cantilevered structure, while extending the volume toward the street frontage.
2. Remove the second story balcony.
3. Plant live vegetation of appropriate height along the rear and side of the property for privacy screening.
EXHIBIT 4
230 of 348
906 Whitehaven Terrace
PDR-004219-2024
4. Modify the design of the second-story volume to create better proportions and reduce the prominence of the entryway.
5. Simplify the roof design by reducing the variation of roof forms to achieve a more proportional look in harmony with the overall home.
Determination of Compatibility: Site Planning
The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The condition to eliminate the cantilevered design and pushing the second-story volume towards the street will take the site’s topography into consideration by restricting the addition to follow the topography.
• Mechanical equipment and trash enclosure areas are screened behind the fence and gate on the eastern side yard of the residence.
• The new retaining walls will feature landscaping to minimize the visual impact of the retaining walls.
• The project plan proposes to extend the existing deck towards the rear which will be closer in line with the neighboring deck.
• The existing driveway will be replaced with a new decorative permeable paving in the same footprint and slope.
Determination of Compatibility: Mass and Scale
The proposed massing and scale are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The neighborhood consists of both one and two-story residences. The immediate west adjacent neighbor’s two-story residence is compatible with the proposed two-story addition.
• The proposed design change from the existing Ranch style to contemporary farmhouse design features variations of roof forms and breaks in the facade to minimize the visual impact from the street.
• The condition to reduce the massing and scale of the second story volume, eliminating the second story balcony, and cantilevering design will create a proportional massing that visually fits into the surrounding context.
• The condition to redesign the roof plan to reduce the variations will create a proportional roof form for the structure.
Determination of Compatibility: Design and Detailing
The proposed design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
EXHIBIT 4
231 of 348
906 Whitehaven Terrace
PDR-004219-2024
• The project incorporates design details that are complementary to the contemporary farmhouse style of the single-family dwelling, such as limestone veneer, board and batten siding, and smooth stucco finish throughout the house.
• The project proposes to utilize high-quality materials that reinforces the design of the home such as the aluminum clad wood windows, multi-width slate tile roof, stainless steel chimney cap, wooden door, ornamental wooden moldings, trims, corbels, and fascia, and lantern sconces.
• The new driveway will feature cobblestone paving and concrete paving with turf and limestone paving for the walkway to enhance the curb appeal of the property. • The condition to eliminate the second story balcony and planting of live plant materials along the rear and side property will help mitigate privacy impacts to the adjacent properties. • The condition to redesign the entry will eliminate the monumental entry design.
DRB Staff Member Eric Ji, Planning Associate
Notes:
Contact the case planner for an appointment for a DRB stamp. DRB stamps will no longer be stamped over the counter without an appointment.
The Design Review Board approves the design of project only. Approval of a project by the Design Review Board does not constitute an approval of compliance with the Zoning Code and/or Building Code requirements.
If an appeal is not filed within the 15-day appeal period of the Design Review Board decision, plans may be approved for Building Division plan check. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, Design Review Board approved plans must be stamped approved by the Design Review staff.
Any changes to the approved plans may constitute returning to the Design Review Board for approval. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, all changes in substantial conformance with approved plans by the Design Review Board must be on file with the Planning Division.
EXHIBIT 4
232 of 348
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, To 00 5500 1110000fftt 1 fftt
-118.243 34.176 Degrees
+
–
City of Glendale Zoning Map
10/21/24, 5:43 PM City of Glendale Zoning Map
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=79315f9193f8454ba277ca12019d3226 1/1 SUBJECT 1
PROPERTY
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 EXHIBIT 5 233 of 348
NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY LIST 1 of 1
KEY ADDRESS LOT AREA HOUSE AREA FAR% STORIES SETBACK ROOF Subject 906 WHITEHAVEN TER 11,770 1,938 16.0 1 20 SHK
1 900 WHITEHAVENT TER 13,650 3,918 28.0 2 16 SHK
2 901 WHITEHAVEN TER 26,100 2,008 7.0 1 18 ST
3 907 WHITEHAVEN TER 12,705 2,639 20.0 1 20 COMP
4 915 WHITEHAVEN TER 15,015 2,448 16.0 2 25 CT
5 921 WHITEHAVENT TER 16,665 2,262 13.0 1 17 SHK
6 1071 OLD PHILLIPS RD 16,830 3,163 18.0 2 20 CT
7 1066 OLD PHILLIPS RD 9,492 2,448 25.0 2 30 SHK
8 1060 OLD PHILLIPS RD 12,096 2,448 20.0 2 29 CT
9 930 WHITEHAVEN TER 10,179 1,950 19.0 1 15 COMP
10 920 WHITEHAVEN TER 10,560 2,079 19.0 1 15 CY
11 914 WHITEHAVEN TER 10,800 2,038 18.0 1 15 ST
Neighborhood Average 13,822 2,445 18.3 1 20
ABBREVIATIONS: COMP. - COMPOSITION SHINGLES
S.T. - SPANISH TILE
SHK - WOOD SHAKE
F - FLAT BUILD-UP ROOF
C.T. - CONCRETE TILE
EXHIBIT 5
234 of 348
design studio
ecumena
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1 - 900 WHITEHAVEN TER 2 - 901 WHITEHAVEN TER EXHIBIT 5
235 of 348
design studio
ecumena
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY 3 - 907 WHITEHAVEN TER 4 - 915 WHITEHAVEN TER EXHIBIT 5
236 of 348
design studio
ecumena
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY 5 - 921 WHITEHAVEN TER 6 - 1071 OLD PHILLIPS RD EXHIBIT 5
237 of 348
design studio
ecumena
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY
7 - 1066 OLD PHILLPS RD
8 - 1060 OLD PHILLIPS RD
EXHIBIT 5
238 of 348
design studio
ecumena
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY 9 - 930 WHITEHAVEN TER 10 - 920 WHITEHAVEN TER EXHIBIT 5
239 of 348
design studio
ecumena
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY 11 - 914 WHITEHAVEN TER
EXHIBIT 5
240 of 348
KEY ADDRESS LOT AREA HOUSE AREA FAR% STORIES SETBACK ROOF Subject 906 WHITEHAVEN TER 11,770 1,938 16.0 1 20 SHK
1 900 WHITEHAVENT TER 13,650 3,918 28.0 2 16 SHK
2 901 WHITEHAVEN TER 26,100 2,008 7.0 1 18 ST
3 907 WHITEHAVEN TER 12,705 2,639 20.0 1 20 COMP
4 915 WHITEHAVEN TER 15,015 2,448 16.0 2 25 CT
5 921 WHITEHAVENT TER 16,665 2,262 13.0 1 17 SHK
6 1071 OLD PHILLIPS RD 16,830 3,163 18.0 2 20 CT
9 930 WHITEHAVEN TER 10,179 1,950 19.0 1 15 COMP
10 920 WHITEHAVEN TER 10,560 2,079 19.0 1 15 CY
11 914 WHITEHAVEN TER 10,800 2,038 18.0 1 15 ST
Neighborhood Average 14,427 2,444 17 1 18
EXHIBIT 6
241 of 348
24" 24"
(1110')
(1104')
(1106')
(1100')
(1096')
(1110')
(1112')
(110
8')
(1
11 0')
(1112')
(1
1 08')
(1114')
(1
1 18')
1 2
0 4 8 16
1/8"=1'-0"
ENTRY WALKWAY
(E)
LANDSCAPE
(E) DRIVEWAY
APRON
(E) PLANTERS
PROPERTY LINE N80°14'49"E 117.52'
(E) SIDEWALK
WHITEHAVEN TERR.
(E) DRIVEWAY
L= 45.20 R=35.00
D=073°59'46"
L= 33.69 R=35.00
D=073°59'46" N80°35'01"E 11.67'
PROPERTY LINE N09°24'59"W 136.13'
PROPERTY
LINE
N09°25'47"E
1 14.86'
PROPERTY LINE
BRICK PILLARS
ADJACENT
BUILDING
ADJACENT
BUILDING
W
E
G
W
1 2e 3e 4 5 6e 7 8 9e
Ae
Be
D
Fe
Ge
He
C
E
REAR SETBACK
10' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
FRONT SETBACK
15'-0"
(E) BLDG. SETBACK TO REMAIN
9'-1 1/4"
1 2
2 2
906 WHITEHAVEN TER.
PROPOSED 2-STORY
ADDITION TO EXISTING 1938
SF SINGLE FAMILY HOME
3 4' - 10"
19' - 10"
4 5
6 (N) BLDG. REAR SETBACK
42' - 10 1/2"
8 7
11' - 9 1/2" 10' - 6" 2' - 2 1/2" 15' - 9 1/2" 4' - 6" 10' - 9" 10' - 11" 3' - 11" 1' - 6" 3' - 4" 7' - 5" 4' - 1" 8' - 4" 11' - 1 1/4" 10' - 5 3/4" 13' - 5" I
(N) BLDG. SETBACK
14' - 9"
2% MIN
SLOPE
LANDSCAPING
2447 S.F.
HILLSIDE TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED
LANDSCAPING
934 S.F.
LANDSCAPING
LANDSCAPING
87 S.F.
LANDSCAPING
575 S.F.
LANDSCAPING
200 S.F.
LANDSCAPING
358 S.F.
LANDSCAPING
506 S.F.
TRASH ENCLOSURE
/POOL EQUIPEMTN
200 S.F.
LANDSCAPING
174 S.F.
2% MIN
SLOPE
2% MIN
SLOPE
CONC. LANDING
6"
DECK EXTENSION
6'-2"
SETBACK TO EDGE OF (N) DECK
21'-6 1/2"
22'-3 1/2"
(N) 2ND FLR BDLG. SETBACK
10'-1 1/4"
SIDE SETBACK
10'-0"
(N) BBQ
AREA
21'-8 1/4"
28'-5 1/4"
1 A101
SEE L SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE DESIGN
(N) RETAINING WALL
SEE LANDSCAPE DWG'S FOR FENCE
AND RET. WALL INFORMATION
9 10
11 12
2'-11"
(E) RET. WALL
= PROPERTY LINE
(N) = NEW CONSTRUCTION
(E) = EXISTING STRUCTURE
= NEW FIRST FLOOR AREA
3' - 0"
6' - 8"
3' - 0"
6' - 8"
= (E) WINDOW TAG
WIDTH
HEIGHT
= (E) DOOR TAG
WIDTH
HEIGHT
= SETBACK LINE
= EXISTING FLOOR AREA
= NEW SECOND FLOOR AREA
VIF = VERIFY IN FIELD
P.U.E. = PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
= REINFORCED CONCRETE
PIPE
RCP
W = WATER METER
E = ELECTRICAL METER
G = GAS METER
= COVERED AREA
= ADJACENT PROPERTIES
= LANDSCAPE AREA
= NEW SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
C
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, CONDITIONS, ETC., PRETAINING TO THE PROJECT AT THE SITE BEFORE PROCEEDING
AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ALL DESIGN, IDEAS AND
INFORMATION SHOW ON THESE DRAWINGS AREA AND SHALL
REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF ECUMENA DESIGN STUDIO. NO PART
THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED
IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN
THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN
PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF
ECUMENA DESIGN STUDIO VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE
DRAWINGS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.
3786 LA CRESCENTA AVE., SUITE 201
GLENDALE, CA 91208
TEL.: 818.507.6787
PROJECT TITLE :
JOB ADDRESS :
OWNER :
JOB NO. :
DRAWN BY :
CHECKED BY :
DATE :
SHEET DESCRIPTION :
SHEET NUMBER :
SHEETS OF
NO. ISSUED FOR: DATE:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
11/26/2024 10:19:03 AM
906 WHITEHAVEN 2ND
FLOOR ADDITION
906 Whitehaven Terrace,
Glendale, CA 91207
MR. MIKE MAZMANIAN
SITE PLAN
A100
CA
HA
PLANNING SUBMITTAL (DRAFT) 07/24/2024
1/8" = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
REV. NO. REVISION DATE
SITE PLAN NOTES
1. THERE ARE NO OAKS, BAY, OR SYCAMORE TREES (PROTECTED TREES) ON THE SITE OR WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE SITE.
2. NO ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THE ROS, R1R AND R1 ZONES
3. RETAINING WALLS, POOLS, SPAS, JACUZZIS, FENCES, AND PATIO COVERS REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT.
4. APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION
SHALL BE PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, ROAD, ALLEY, AND WALKWAYS GIVING ACCESS TO AND WITHIN THE PROPERTY. THESE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE ARABIC NUMERALS OR ALPHABET LETTERS. NUMBERS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES HIGH WITH A MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH OF 0.5 INCH AND SHALL BE ILLUMINATED IN AN APPROVD MANNER (IF NUMBERS ARE ON THE EXTERIOR). NUMBER HEIGHT AND STROKE WIDTH SHALL BE INCREASED AS NEEDED FOR LEGIBILITY BASED ON VISIBILITY DISTANCE.
5. SHALL PROVIDE RAIN GUTTERS AND CONVEY RAIN WATER TO THE STREET.
6. NO ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SHALL BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. ANY NEW ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW.
7. THERE SHALL BE NO EXTENSIVE GRADING (CUT&FILL) BEYOND TYPICAL FOOTING EXCAVATION.
8. SEE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ON SHEET A102 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
9. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND VERIFY WITH ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING.
SITE PLAN LEGEND
SITE PLAN KEYNOTES
NOTE NUMBER NOTE TEXT
1 573 SF 3 CAR GARAGE (TO BE RENOVATED)
2 (E) NON-PROTECTED TREES
3 BUILDING OVERHANG/AWNING 146 SF
4 1ST FLOOR ADDITION 312 SF
5 2ND FLOOR ADDITION 1381 SF
6 EDGE OF EXISTING BUILDING PAD
7 ENTRY COVERED AREA 14 SF
8 1ST FLOOR ADDITION 20 SF
9 (N) POOL LOCATION 370 SF (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)
10 (N) SPA LOCATION 47 SF (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)
11 (N) FIREPIT
12 (E) POOL TO DEMOLISHED
EXHIBIT 7 242 of 348
CITY OF GLENDALE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE: December 27, 2024
TO: Eric Ji, Community Development Department
FROM: Kevin Runzer, GWP Water Engineering
Catherine Babakhanlou, GWP Electric Engineering
SUBJECT: PDR-004219-2024
906 Whitehaven Terrace
Glendale Water & Power (GWP) Engineering has reviewed the plans.
Requirements are as follows:
Electric Engineering
Customer Service (818) 548-3921
Project to contact GWP Customer Service Engineering to determine electric service requirements before starting the permitting process. Final construction plans must incorporate the electric service plan information for GWP Electric Engineering to sign off the building plan application.
Project to provide electric service - size, single line diagram and electric load calculation per National Electric Code (NEC).
Additional comment(s) and/or attachment(s).
Current GWP Electric Service Spot is ONLY valid for a MAXIMUM 200A electric service. If a larger electric service is requested, customer will need to install a new 3 inch underground conduit at their expense. Electrical load calculations required because of new remodel with overall square footage at 3,803.
Fiber Optics (818) 548-3923
No conflict.
Street Lighting (818) 548-4877
No Conflict
Transmission & Distribution (818) 548-3923
No conflict.
Water Engineering
Recycled Water (818) 548-2062
No conflict.
Backflow Prevention (818) 548-2062
Additional comment(s) and/or attachment(s).
A Reduced Pressure Principle (RP) Backflow Prevention Assembly is required to be installed as close as practical to the potable service for multi-family (4 units +), commercial, pool/spa, pond, tank, and irrigation use. A RP Backflow Prevention Assembly is required to be installed as close as practical to the recycled water service for dual plumbed, commercial and irrigation use. Customer must submit plans to GWP Cross-Connection Control Program showing the location, size, manufacturer, and model number of the approved RP. Please refer to the City of Glendale’s Standard Detail Drawing 6528-A for installation requirements. Please contact GWP’s Cross1/10/25, 9:24 AM Plan Check 5111 https://gwpmappingprod2/Reports/PlanCheck/memopipprintable.cfm?planckno=5111&space=1 1/2 EXHIBIT 7
243 of 348
Catherine Babakhanlou
Principal Electrical Engineer
Kevin Runzer
Senior Civil Engineer
Connection Control Program (818)-937-8948 for approval of BFP installation location, questions and scheduling a final inspection. (PER CA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 17 & CITY OF GLENDALE ORD NO. 5678) Potable Water (818) 548-2062
Developer is responsible for the current cost of a water service or fire line installation in accordance with the current water fee schedule.
A complete set of plumbing plans and fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to GWP Water Engineering for review and approval prior to request of new domestic water service and new fire line respectively Add all existing facilities per attached drawing(s).
Please contact GWP Water Engineering at (818) 548-2062 prior to construction.
Please add the following to the General Notes: All water facilities shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project. All water valves, water meter boxes, water vaults and fire hydrants must be relocated and set to finished grade when necessary at project’s expense. Please contact GWP Water Engineering at (818) 548- 2062 prior to construction.
Additional comment(s) and/or attachment(s).
For additional questions please call (818) 548-2062 or email [email protected] TEMPORARY WATER METER: The Contractor shall obtain and install a temporary water meter from Glendale Water & Power, Water Services Division, (818) 548-2062, prior to drawing water from any City of Glendale hydrant. This applies to both potable water and recycled water. The meters for potable water and recycled water are different and shall not be interchanged (i.e., a recycled water meter shall not be installed on a potable water fire hydrant, and a potable water meter shall not be installed on a recycled water hydrant). The potable water meter requires a back-flow prevention device, which is provided by the City at the time that the temporary water meter is issued. The Contractor shall be responsible for paying a refundable deposit for each meter being used, a daily meter fee, as well as a consumption fee for the volume of water used. Information regarding the fee schedule for the temporary meters can be found on the GWP website, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-and-power/about-your-water/waterengineering-service-planning/temporary-construction-water-meter .Drawing of water from a hydrant without a temporary water meter is prohibited and the Contractor is subject to Police citation. All costs associated with the temporary water meter shall be borne by the Contractor.
CB/KR:sb/eh
1/10/25, 9:24 AM Plan Check 5111
https://gwpmappingprod2/Reports/PlanCheck/memopipprintable.cfm?planckno=5111&space=1 2/2 244 of 348
EXHIBIT 7
Revised 10 December 2024 –VE
To update department/division contacts, please email Vista Ezzati ([email protected])
1 CITY OF GLENDALE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
Community Development Department
Request for Comments Form (RFC)
DATE: December 19, 2024 DUE DATE: January 10, 2025
NOTE: If project comments are not received by the due date, it will be assumed that your department has no comments.
FROM: Planning Associate Eric Ji [email protected] Tel. # Ext. -8178 PROJECT ADDRESS: 906 Whitehaven Terrace, Glendale, CA 91207 Applicant: Harry Akopian, Ecumena Design Studio
Property Owner: Michael Mazmanian
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
To add 1,865 square-foot two-story (SF) addition to an existing two-story residence (built in 1973) with an attached garage located on 11,770 SF lot located in the RIR (Restricted Residential Zone Floor Area District III).
PLEASE CHECK:
A. CITY ATTORNEY
G. INFORMATION SERVICES
(Wireless Telecom)
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: H. PUBLIC WORKS (ADMINISTRATION):
X
• (1) Building & Safety • (1) Engineering & Land
Development
• (2) Neighborhood Services • (2) Traffic
• (3) Design Review & Historic • (3) Facilities (city projects only) • (4) Economic Development • (4) Integrated Waste
• (5) Housing • (5) Maintenance Services/Urban
Forester • (6) Urban Design & Mobility
• (7) Long Range Planning
D. COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS: J. GLENDALE POLICE
E. FIRE ENGINEERING (PSC) K. OTHER:
F. GLENDALE WATER & POWER:
• (1) STATE-Alcohol Beverage
Control (ABC)
X • (1) Water • (2) Tribal Consultations (EIFs)
X • (2) Electric • (3) City Clerk’s Office
ENTITLEMENT(S) REQUESTED
Variance Case No.: Tentative Tract/Parcel Map No.:
AUP/CUP Case No.: Zone Change/GPA:
ADR/DRB Case No.: PDR-004219-2024 Other:
EXHIBIT 7
245 of 348
Revised 10 December 2024 –VE
To update department/division contacts, please email Vista Ezzati ([email protected])
2 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
PROJECT CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS
Project Project
Address: 906 Whitehaven Terrace Case No.: PDR-004219-2024 If project comments are not received by the due date, it will be assumed that your department has no comments.
NOTE: Your comments should address, within your area of authority, concerns and potentially significant adverse physical changes to the environment regarding the project. You may also identify code requirements specific to the project, above and beyond your normal requirements. Applicant will be informed early in the development process.
You may review complete plans, maps and exhibits in our office, MSB Room 103. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your timely comments. Please do not recommend APPROVAL or DENIAL. For any questions, please contact the Case Planner ASAP, so as not to delay the case processing.
COMMENTS:
This office DOES NOT have any comment.
This office HAS the following comments/conditions. (See attached Dept. Master List) Date: 1/10/2025
Print Name: Celine Sarkisloo
Title: Building Code Specialist III Dept. Building and Safety Tel.: 818-937-8101 a. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
1. Separate Building permits are required for each structure:
a. Single family dwelling
b. Pool
c. Retaining wall
d. Demolition
2. The following documents/plans shall be submitted to building Safety for review (after initial plan check submittal, additional requirements may follow accordingly):
a. Soils/Geology report
b. Topo Survey map, including grade elevations around the perimeter of the building c. Architectural plans
d. Structural design calculations and plans
e. Roof/Site drainage to public right of way
f. Green Building Plans
g. Energy Code Compliance forms
3. An Automatic sprinkler system throughout existing and new sections of any existing building whenever alterations/additions exceed fifty percent (50%) of the replacement value. Alteration values shall be cumulative with each application for a building permit within the previous five (5) years. GBC 903.2.21.1.
4. Plans shall be in compliance with current edition of the City of Glendale Building and Safety Code (GBSC)
EXHIBIT 7
246 of 348
Revised 10 December 2024 –VE
To update department/division contacts, please email Vista Ezzati ([email protected])
3 b. CASE SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: (these are not standard code requirements) 1.
c. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: (may or may not be adopted by the Hearing Officer) 1.
EXHIBIT 7
247 of 348
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Ji, Eric
To: Argineh DerHartonian Galstyan
Subject: RE: 906 Whitehaven terrace
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:43:00 AM
Hello,
Thank you; your comments have been received and will be forwarded to the Design Review Board members for the upcoming February 13, 2025, Design Review Hearing.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
From: Argineh DerHartonian Galstyan <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:14 AM
To: Ji, Eric <[email protected]>
Subject: 906 Whitehaven terrace
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Good Morning Mr. Ji
Hope all is well. I am the homeowner of 900 Whitehaven terrace. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed second-story addition to 906 Whitehaven terrace.
This second-story addition will be encroaching on our privacy and will cause a nuisance to the use and enjoyment of our property. Specifically, the large second-story balcony will overlook our dining room, kitchen breakfast area and our backyard. Two of the three windows found on the west elevation will be looking into our dining room and kitchen.
Whitehaven terrace is a sloped street with primarily one-story track homes. 1066 Old Phillips and 1060 Old Phillips are included in the neighborhood survey list and should not be. These properties are not within 300 linear feet. This was confirmed with the Public Work Engineering Department and City Engineer Megin Razaei (please see attached).
Given this information, there are seven one-story homes and three two-story homes in the neighborhood. One of these two-story homes is a corner lot (1071 Old Phillips) and the other is my home (900 Whitehaven), which is a cul-da-sac lot. The west side of my home faces the hillside, which is owned by the City Glendale. Please note that my house was originally built as a two-story home in 1974. The only other two-story home in the neighborhood is 915 Whitehaven which is located across the street from 906 Whitehaven. Therefore, I kindly request that you update the neighborhood survey list to reflect this accurate information.
Furthermore, the proposed plans for the remodel seem to be more akin to a new construction project rather than a traditional remodel. The proposed home's mass and scale are EXHIBIT 8
248 of 348
disproportionate to the lot size. The proposed home is significantly larger than the one-story homes on the east side of the current residence. Also, there are no contemporary farm style homes in the immediate vicinity or within the surrounding area. The proposed second-story addition with its large balcony will also be intrusive to the homeowners residing below them on Moorside. It appears the homeowner is trying to mega size his home and views at the expense of his neighbor’s privacy.
Please relay my concerns to the Design Review board. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Respectfully,
Argineh Derhartonian Galstyan
EXHIBIT 8
249 of 348
EXHIBIT 8
250 of 348
EXHIBIT 8
251 of 348
EXHIBIT 8
252 of 348
EXHIBIT 8
253 of 348
EXHIBIT 8
254 of 348
EXHIBIT 8
255 of 348
EXHIBIT 8
256 of 348
EXHIBIT 8
257 of 348
EXHIBIT 8
258 of 348
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Ji, Eric
To: Argineh DerHartonian Galstyan
Subject: RE: 906 Whitehaven building footprints for hearing on 2/13/25 Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 3:39:00 PM
Hello,
Thank you; I will have the images ready and shared during your turn to speak on the project item.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
From: Argineh DerHartonian Galstyan <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 1:41 PM
To: Ji, Eric <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 906 Whitehaven building footprints for hearing on 2/13/25 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Good Afternoon Mr. Ji,
My apologies for the redundant email, it appeared one of the images were not attached. I will be attending the hearing and would like the attached building footprints of 1066 and 1060 Old Phillips to be presented during the time that I speak. Please confirm the receipt of this email.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
1066 Old Phillips
EXHIBIT 8
259 of 348
1060 Old Phillips
EXHIBIT 8
260 of 348
Kind Regards,
Argineh DerHartonian Galstyan
EXHIBIT 8
261 of 348
From: Argineh DerHartonian Galstyan
To: Ji, Eric
Subject: Re: 906 Whitehaven terrace/photos to be presented at hearing 2/13/25 Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025 11:20:48 AM
Attachments: glendaleca_logo.png
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Good Morning,
Thank you for response. During the time that I speak I will ask you to please pull up the images/maps. To efficiently use my speaking time, please arrange the photos and maps in the following order:
1st reference: Panoramic photo of two-story track homes located on the sloped hill of Whitehaven terrace.
2nd reference: 2 Backyard photos, kitchen photo, then dinning room photo (in this order please).
3rd reference: Building footprint maps of 1060 and 1066 Old Phillips. 4th reference: 2 Master bedroom sitting room photos. One picture shows an armchair and then next photo is the close up view of the proposed roof from the same master bedroom window.
In total there will be 7 images and 2 maps.
Once again, thank you for time, patience and assistance. Looking forward to meeting you this evening.
Kind Regards,
Argineh DerHartonian
On Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 09:20:15 AM PST, Ji, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
I will have the 7 photos, and 2 images of the map shared on the screen during your speaking turn.
Please let me know if you would like them to be presented in a certain order or if you have any other questions or concerns.
Best regards,
EXHIBIT 8
262 of 348
Eric Ji | Planning Associate
Community Development
633 E. Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, CA 91206
P: +1 (818) 937-8178
[email protected] | GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us!
From: Argineh DerHartonian <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 8:52 AM
To: Ji, Eric <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 906 Whitehaven terrace/photos to be presented at hearing 2/13/25 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Good Morning Mr. Ji,
Hope all is well. Please confirm that you will be able to show the 7 photos provided in the email sent yesterday at the hearing. If there are any restrictions please let me know asap. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Kind Regards,
Argineh DerHartonian
> On Feb 12, 2025, at 2:23 PM, Argineh DerHartonian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon Mr. Ji,
>
> Hope all is well. Please see attached photos depicting privacy concerns regarding the second-story addition with balcony.
>
> Please have these photos and the building foot print photos ready to be shown during the time that I speak. Thank you so much for your time and assistance. >
> Kind Regards,
>
> Argineh G.
>
>
> Backyard photos: Privacy concerns
EXHIBIT 8
263 of 348
From: Argineh DerHartonian
To: Ji, Eric
Subject: Re: Speaking time
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025 3:17:26 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Thank you for the information. I will ask for additional time.
Just a heads up, when I ask you to put up the photos, I will not stop to further discuss the photos and will continue to speak to make efficient use of my time. I am sure the staff can review the photos in depth at a later time if needed.
Thank you again for all your help.
Kind Regards,
Argineh DerHartonian
On Feb 13, 2025, at 1:58 PM, Ji, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
The speaking time is determined by the Chair of the Design Review Board - you may request for time extension at the hearing.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
<glendaleca_logo.png>
Eric Ji | Planning Associate
Community Development
633 E. Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, CA 91206
P: +1 (818) 937-8178
[email protected] | GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us!
-----Original Message-----
From: Argineh DerHartonian <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 11:44 AM
To: Ji, Eric <[email protected]>
Subject: Speaking time
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Hello Mr. Eric
EXHIBIT 8
264 of 348
My apologies for the additional email. Could you and the staff please allow me to speak for 5 minutes? With the multiple photos I am worried that I won’t be able to finish an addressing my concerns. Please advise. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind Regards,
Argineh DerHartonian
EXHIBIT 8
265 of 348
>
>
266 of 348
>
>
>
> Master bedroom sitting area photo depicting busy and disproportionate roof form and monumental entry.
267 of 348
268 of 348
>
>
> Kitchen breakfast area photos: Privacy concerns
269 of 348
>
>
> Dinning and formal living room: Privacy concerns
270 of 348
>
>
> Panoramic photo of two-story track homes located on Whitehaven terrace sloped hill 271 of 348
>
>
>
>
>
272 of 348
From: Ji, Eric
To: Argineh DerHartonian
Subject: RE: 906 Whitehaven terrace 2/13/25 hearing aftermath Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 1:12:00 PM
Hello,
As the decision in last night’s hearing was to approve the project with conditions, there will be no further hearing for the project. The applicant is to work with staff on addressing the conditions of approval provided by the Design Review Board prior to submitting their plans for Building plan check. If the conditions are not properly addressed, the project may go back the Design Review Board for further directions.
If you would like to stay informed about the project, please let me know and I will keep you informed if the project is ever required to go before the Design Review Board or to the City Council.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
From: Argineh DerHartonian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:19 AM
To: Ji, Eric <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 906 Whitehaven terrace 2/13/25 hearing aftermath CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Thank you for your response. When will the next DRB meeting be regarding the new revised plans? Several home owners in the area would like to know. Traditionally, there are cards given out at the end of the meeting to fill out, so residents can be kept in the loop regarding updates on the project.
Please let me know what needs to be filled out in order for us to be informed about the proposed project.
Thank you for your time.
Kind Regards,
Argineh DerHartonian Galstyan
On Feb 14, 2025, at 12:44 PM, Ji, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
273 of 348
Unfortunately, once the public comment portion is closed and a decision has been made, no further comments will be accepted by the Design Review Board.
If you wish to appeal the Design Review Board’s decision, you must submit an appeal application and pay the associated fee of $2,084.00 within 15 days of the decision date (from 2/13/2025 to 2/28/2025). The appeal will be reviewed by the City Council during a Council hearing. You may indicate the specific conditions you wish to appeal on the application form.
Please review the appeal application form and code section before proceeding:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/74238/638458280171970000 Chapter 30.62 APPEALS
If you require any consultation or assistance with filling out the application, please let me know.
To apply, please click the link below and enter in the search bar “Appeal of Planning Decision” and click on apply to proceed.
https://glendaleca-energovweb.tylerhost.net/apps/SelfService#/applicationAssistant? sectionName=All&showTemplates=false
<image001.png>
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
<glendaleca_logo.png>
Eric Ji | Planning Associate
Community Development
633 E. Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, CA 91206
P: +1 (818) 937-8178
[email protected] | GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us!
From: Argineh DerHartonian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 8:29 AM
To: Ji, Eric <[email protected]>
Cc: Martin Galstyan <[email protected]>
Subject: 906 Whitehaven terrace 2/13/25 hearing aftermath CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Good Morning Mr. Ji, 274 of 348
Hope all is well. Thank you again for all your help yesterday, I truly appreciate your continuous follow up and concern. The opposing party has a few questions as to what the next steps are. From my understanding, cards were suppose to be given to fill out in order to be kept in the loop for the next meeting. I know the agenda was approved with several conditions. However, can the approved agenda with those conditions be appealed? Or do we have to wait to see what the revision is going to look like? Do we have 15 days after yesterdays hearing to appeal? What are our rights as citizens? Also, my husband Martin Galstyan asked a question that was not addressed by the board. We kindly ask that the Design Review Board members provide clarity about what was conveyed by my husband yesterday.
The following was said:
Adding a second story to a home situated on the view side of a sloped street is not an easy task.
Many have tried on the same side of the street, but were unsuccessful.
The previous owner of this property (906 Whitehaven terrace) actually sold the home within 2 months of purchase at a loss due to the fact that they were unable to add a second story.
Another example is 914 Whitehaven that was purchased in August 2020 and sold September 2021 due to the fact that they were denied a second story addition. In fact the current homeowner of 914 also tried to add a second story and was rejected and had to settle on a facelift.
Such a large home on a lot this size is virtually non-existent. I tried to locate a home with a FAR of 32% and similar characteristics as the proposed home in the immediate area, but was not successful.
“ I respectfully ask you, what makes this project the exception? “ I know the board members are very busy, but we would appreciate an answer. Please forward this email to them. As always, thank you for your time and consideration.
With Gratitude,
Argineh DerHartonian
275 of 348
From: Ji, Eric
To: mike michaelian; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Letter and photos
Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 3:42:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Hello,
The fee is per application and not per person filing the fee.
Best regards,
From: mike michaelian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 3:40 PM
To: [email protected]; Ji, Eric <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Letter and photos
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Please clarify...
Does the $2084.00 fee per person filing appeals? Or if a group of neighbors appeal, does the $2084.00 cover the entire group making the appeal? On Friday, February 14, 2025 at 03:00:06 PM PST, Ji, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
If you wish to appeal the Design Review Board’s decision, you must submit an appeal application and pay the associated fee of $2,084.00 within 15 days of the decision date (from 2/13/2025 to 2/28/2025). The appeal will be reviewed by the City Council during a Council hearing. You may indicate the specific conditions you wish to appeal on the application form.
Please review the appeal application form and code section before proceeding:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/74238/638458280171970000 Chapter 30.62 APPEALS
If you require any consultation or assistance with filling out the application, please let me know.
To apply, please click the link below and enter in the search bar “Appeal of Planning Decision” and click on apply to proceed. https://glendaleca-energovweb.tylerhost.net/apps/SelfService#/applicationAssistant?sectionName=All&showTemplates=false Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
Eric Ji | Planning Associate
Community Development
633 E. Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, CA 91206
P: +1 (818) 937-8178
[email protected] | GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us!
From: mike michaelian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 2:55 PM
To: [email protected]; Ji, Eric <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Letter and photos
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
There has to be an appeals process. The information presented yesterday wasn't even correct, as I show in the attached document.
I want to know that my privacy concerns are properly addressed before the Board approves anything.
On Friday, February 14, 2025 at 02:51:53 PM PST, Ji, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
276 of 348
Hello,
As the decision was to approve the proposed addition with conditions, the revised plan will be reviewed under staff review and will not be going back to the Design Review Board. If the applicant and the owner refuses to comply in addressing any of the conditions of approval set by the Design Review Board, then staff will refer them back to the Board members for another hearing.
Best regards,
Eric Ji | Planning Associate
Community Development
633 E. Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, CA 91206
P: +1 (818) 937-8178
[email protected] | GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us!
From: mike michaelian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 2:48 PM
To: Ji, Eric <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: Letter and photos
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Then I would expect a follow up public hearing on the revised plan? Yahoo Mail - Email Simplified
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 2:39 PM, Ji, Eric
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
While I can confirm to have received the letter, the public comment session has been closed and the decision has already been made by the Design Review Board to approve the project with conditions during last night’s hearing. As such, no further comments will be received for the project at this point by the Design Review Board.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
Eric Ji | Planning Associate
Community Development
633 E. Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, CA 91206
P: +1 (818) 937-8178
[email protected] | GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us!
From: mike michaelian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 2:33 PM
To: [email protected]; Ji, Eric <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Letter and photos
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Hello Eric,
Please see attached. Can you please respond with verification that you received this. I want to have this entered into the record and used as criterion for the review Board to evaluate revisions to the proposal for 906 Whitehaven.
The applicants are not giving the Board the full story on privacy impacts to the neighbors, and in fact came off as very dismissive of the neighbors concerns yesterday.
Thanks,
-Mike Michaelian
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 08:27:33 PM PST, Ji, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you; your comments have been received and will be forwarded to the Design Review Board members for tomorrow’s Design Review hearing.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
Eric Ji | Planning Associate
Community Development
633 E. Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, CA 91206
P: +1 (818) 937-8178
[email protected] | GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us!
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:23 PM
To: Ji, Eric <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Michaelian <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter and photos
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Hi Eric, 277 of 348
I've attached a letter explaining our opposition to the project on 906 Whitehaven. My husband and I will also be there at the meeting tomorrow to voice our concerns, but please make sure the members making the decisions see this letter and photos before the meeting. Please confirm that the attached letter opens.
Thank you.
Susan and Mike
These are our trees I circled referred in the letter. The other tree is my neighbors as you can also see their fence behind it. He's claiming his property line comes down that far which it doesn't. If you follow the fence in a line it's clear where his property starts, which is well above the our large tree which I explain more in the attached letter.
278 of 348
279 of 348
> 280 of 348
281 of 348
282 of 348
283 of 348
284 of 348
285 of 348
286 of 348
287 of 348
288 of 348
289 of 348
290 of 348
291 of 348
We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed remodel of the property located at 906 Whitehaven. The owner is planning to add a second story, including windows and balconies, as well as extend his deck out six feet. While we understand the desire for homeowners to improve their property, we believe these changes will effectively eliminate our privacy and diminish the character of the neighborhood. We oppose a second story addition, balcony as well as a deck extension. It is intrusive to our privacy as well as the privacy of our neighbors.
Currently, the house is a single-story structure, and we have enjoyed a reasonable level of privacy in our own yard and from our bedroom and bathroom windows. The proposed remodel, however, would leave us exposed to direct sightlines from their new second-story windows and balconies, fundamentally changing the nature of our home environment and degrading the quality of our life. We would lose all privacy from both our bedroom and bathroom windows. Not only will our second story rooms be affected, but we would lose all privacy from our backyard, living room, family room, and kitchen. Our private and tranquil spaces will have no amount of privacy from their deck, second story rooms and balconies causing our family extreme stress and anxiety. Additionally, the deck extension could result in more noise and further disruption of our outdoor space and privacy. Furthermore, we are worried about the weight and size of the new planned pool that might compromise the hillside and cause great destruction if the new deck and pool fail to hold. These are very serious and valid concerns any homeowner would have.
There are mistakes also made in the Staff Report that was sent out for the meeting. Under Privacy it has been checkmarked “yes” when it should be “No”. Both “consideration of views from “public” rooms and balconies/decks” and “Avoid windows facing adjacent windows” should both be checked because they both clearly violate those issues. Our windows directly face their proposed plans, plus our views from our rooms even the ones downstairs will have no privacy.
292 of 348
We also wish to address an issue with the property line. The plans presented appear to show an incorrect property boundary, and the large pine tree in question is actually located on our side of the property as well as the small pine tree next to it that we have been growing for 4 years now. We have lived at this address since 2011, and the previous neighbor, before the current owner purchased the property at 906 Whitehaven in 2018, always asked for permission from us to trim our mature Pine tree. Furthermore, the original owner of the neighboring house, as well as the previous owner of when we purchased our property, both consistently referred to the tree as being mine and on my side of the property. This long-standing understanding between neighbors has not been reflected in the current plans, and we would appreciate this matter being clarified before any type of construction is even discussed.
Additionally, I would like to highlight a series of troubling incidents involving our tree and property. Around 2020, the neighbor, who now intends to build a second story, began cutting our large pine tree without permission.
At the time, this neighbor had three mature pine trees on his own property giving us full privacy, all of which were cut down, drastically degrading the character of the neighborhood. He then started cutting our pine tree on our side, and I had to immediately intervene and ask him to stop. Several healthy branches were removed, which severely impacted the privacy I had previously enjoyed and also disfigured the tree. When I confronted him, he claimed he was unaware that the tree was on my property. I informed him that the area starting right behind the tree, as well as the tree itself, was on my side of the property line and I have always had access through my gate on the hill into my yard.
A week later, his father came to our door and asked if they could trim some of my tall, healthy shrubs, which provide critical privacy for our yard. I refused, explaining the importance of these shrubs to my privacy. Despite this, he and his father proceeded to have their landscapers cut the shrubs, and I had to again intervene to stop the trimming. I was forced to call the police, 293 of 348
and after their investigation, the authorities instructed the neighbor to refrain from cutting any further vegetation on our side of the property. This series of their actions resulted in the destruction of several of my healthy green shrubs, as well as significant harm to the pine tree that once provided us with privacy.
Furthermore, we would like to note that the single-story house next door to the property in question previously tried to build a two-story house. The city did not approve that plan, and the owners ultimately sold the property and moved to a different location. I believe this further emphasizes that adding a second story to the current property would not be in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood.
Beyond our personal concerns, we also feel that this proposed remodel is out of scale with the surrounding homes. The size of the house, especially with the proposed second story, seems disproportionate for the neighborhood and lot size and may set a concerning precedent for future developments.
Additionally, my neighbor, who has experience in architecture, has pointed out an error in the plans. He states the following; Specifically, the line of sight shown on page A101, "site section" is misleading. When corrected and expanded, it becomes glaringly clear that the addition will provide a wide-open, unobstructed view of the downhill neighbor's backyards, pool areas, and even the interior rooms of the houses-including bedroom and bathroom. This only heightens the concerns regarding the loss of privacy, especially in such intimate areas of our homes.
We kindly ask that you take these points into consideration during your review of this proposal. We are hopeful that the city respects both our privacy, peace and the overall character of our community.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please feel free to reach out if you need any additional information from us.
Michael and Susan Michaelian
849 Moorside Drive, Glendale
294 of 348
310-977-7793
295 of 348
From: Syuzi Tovmassian
To: Ji, Eric
Subject: 906 Whitehaven Tr.
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025 9:34:15 AM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Hi Mr Eric Ji,
My name is Syuzi Tovmassian and I own the property on 855 Moorside Dr. in Glendale. I was recently notified of a proposed remodel plan of my neighbor’s property at 906 Whitehaven Terrace. This house is located directly above my property and I am very concerned about their plans to not only add a second story to their home, but also a 6ft deck extension. Their backyard currently faces directly into my backyard.
As it is, I have limited privacy in my backyard. With this extension and addition of a second story, I will have virtually no privacy in my backyard in addition to my family room and kitchen, which is directly facing this neighbor’s backyard. I have three young children so we spend a lot of time in our backyard and pool. With this extension and remodel, I will feel incredibly uncomfortable to be using our pool and even our family living room due to how much closer the neighbor’s visibility will be of my property and personal space.
I respect residents/homeowners looking to build and beautify Glendale, but not at the expense of our privacy.
Although I’m not sure either my husband or I can make it to the hearing tonight due to work (he is a physician and on call at the hospital) and childcare, I hope that you will take my concerns into consideration in disapproving this plan.
Thank you,
Syuzi Tovmassian
855 Moorside Dr
Glendale, CA 91207
Sent from my iPhone
296 of 348
From: Syuzi Tovmassian
To: Ji, Eric
Subject: Fwd: 906 Whitehaven Tr.
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025 6:57:07 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Syuzi Tovmassian <[email protected]>
Date: February 13, 2025 at 9:34:11 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: 906 Whitehaven Tr.
Hi Mr Eric Ji,
My name is Syuzi Tovmassian and I own the property on 855 Moorside Dr. in Glendale. I was recently notified of a proposed remodel plan of my neighbor’s property at 906 Whitehaven Terrace. This house is located directly above my property and I am very concerned about their plans to not only add a second story to their home, but also a 6ft deck extension. Their backyard currently faces directly into my backyard.
As it is, I have limited privacy in my backyard. With this extension and addition of a second story, I will have virtually no privacy in my backyard in addition to my family room and kitchen, which is directly facing this neighbor’s backyard. I have three young children so we spend a lot of time in our backyard and pool.
With this extension and remodel, I will feel incredibly uncomfortable to be using our pool and even our family living room due to how much closer the neighbor’s visibility will be of my property and personal space.
I respect residents/homeowners looking to build and beautify Glendale, but not at the expense of our privacy. Although I’m not sure either my husband or I can make it to the hearing tonight due to work (he is a physician and on call at the hospital) and childcare, I hope that you will take my concerns into consideration in disapproving this plan.
Thank you,
Syuzi Tovmassian
855 Moorside Dr
Glendale, CA 91207
Sent from my iPhone 297 of 348
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Thompson Company
To: Ji, Eric
Subject: Re: 906 Whitehaven Terrace Project
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025 7:03:54 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
I couldn’t get through the call. Would you please read the email I sent earlier On Feb 13, 2025, at 9:12 AM, Ji, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you; your comments have been received and will be forwarded to the Design Review Board members for tonight’s hearing.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
<glendaleca_logo.png>
Eric Ji | Planning Associate
Community Development
633 E. Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, CA 91206
P: +1 (818) 937-8178
[email protected] | GlendaleCA.gov | Follow us!
From: Thompson Company <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:54 PM
To: Ji, Eric <[email protected]>
Subject: 906 Whitehaven Terrace Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Mr. Ji,
My name is Aramais, and I have been residing at 1113 Kildonan Drive for the past 37 years. I originally built this house on the lot. I would like to voice my concern regarding the project located at 906 Whitehaven Terrace. First off, the mass and 298 of 348
scale of this property are not congruent with the surrounding homes located in this street. This is not a modest addition. The addition proposed is too large and overshadows the rest of the homes located around it. All the homes adjacent tend to be single-story and are located on generally smaller lot sizes.
In addition, the roof line is extremely busy and does not follow the natural topography of the slope of the street coming down from west to east. As you drive down Whitehaven Terrace, Old Philips Road, even Kildonan Drive, the highest point of the home is always towards the highest point of the street and continues to slope downward.
One of the beautiful things about our hillside neighborhood is that there is a sense of tranquility and proportionality as you drive through the streets because the homes are scaled in proportion to their location and lot size. If approved, 906 Whitehaven will disrupt that. I strongly oppose the addition of a second story and recommend a single-story redesign of the project to veer away from the modern farmhouse theme. I have yet to come across a modern farmhouse design in this area. The design is better suited for Encino and Studio City. Please present my email to the design review board at the hearing tomorrow at 5pm.
Thank you for your time.
299 of 348
From: Thompson Company
To: Ji, Eric
Subject: 906 Whitehaven Terrace Project
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:54:41 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Mr. Ji,
My name is Aramais, and I have been residing at 1113 Kildonan Drive for the past 37 years. I originally built this house on the lot. I would like to voice my concern regarding the project located at 906 Whitehaven Terrace. First off, the mass and scale of this property are not congruent with the surrounding homes located in this street. This is not a modest addition.
The addition proposed is too large and overshadows the rest of the homes located around it. All the homes adjacent tend to be single-story and are located on generally smaller lot sizes.
In addition, the roof line is extremely busy and does not follow the natural topography of the slope of the street coming down from west to east. As you drive down Whitehaven Terrace, Old Philips Road, even Kildonan Drive, the highest point of the home is always towards the highest point of the street and continues to slope downward.
One of the beautiful things about our hillside neighborhood is that there is a sense of tranquility and proportionality as you drive through the streets because the homes are scaled in proportion to their location and lot size. If approved, 906 Whitehaven will disrupt that. I strongly oppose the addition of a second story and recommend a single-story redesign of the project to veer away from the modern farmhouse theme. I have yet to come across a modern farmhouse design in this area. The design is better suited for Encino and Studio City. Please present my email to the design review board at the hearing tomorrow at 5pm.
Thank you for your time.
300 of 348
City ofGlendale CommunityDevelopmentDepartment., PlanningDivision 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206 818.548.2140 www.glendaleca.gov/CDD 09/2023 Page1of2
Case No. ________________ Date ____________________
Submit this form on the Glendale Permits site at www.glendaleca.gov/permits (Click “Apply,” “Skip…” and then search for “Appeal of Planning Decision”). For more information about this form and related fees, please call the Planning Division at (818) 548‐2115. Please complete (PRINT or TYPE) the following information:
PART 1 – NOTICE TO APPELLANT (please read carefully)
A. This form must be prepared and filed, within 15 days of the date of the decision being appealed. Sub-division applications must be appealed within 10 days of the date of decision.
B. Every question must be answered.
C. If a question does not apply, you must answer “does not apply” or words to that effect.
D. Failure to properly fill out this notice or failure to make a sufficient statement of a case in this notice, even if in fact you have valid and sound grounds for appeal, may cause your appeal to be dismissed forthwith.
E. Attach additional pages for long answers.
F. Prior to completing this form, read the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.88 Uniform Appeal Procedure on the City’s webpage at https://library.qcode.us/lib/glendale_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_2‐chapter_2_88 PART 2 – APPELLANT INFORMATION
A._______________________________________________________________________________________________________ First Name Last Name Email Address
B._______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Street Address City State Zip Code (Area Code) Phone Number PART 3 – APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. State the name or title of the board, commission, or officer from which this appeal is taken ____________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. Were you given written notice of the action, ruling or determination? Yes No If “Yes,” attach a copy of the written notice and write the date you received it here _____________________________________ If “No,” give the following information concerning your receipt of notice of the action, ruling or determination.
Date ___________________ Time ___________________ Location ____________________ Manner ______________________ C. State generally what kind of permit, variance, ruling, determination, or other action was the basis for the decision from which the appeal is taken ____________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D. State the specific permission or relief that was originally sought from the board, commission, or officer __________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Were you the party seeking the relief that was originally sought? Yes No If “No,” how are you involved with the permit, variance, ruling, determination, or other action referred to above? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. Does this matter involve real property? Yes No
If “Yes,” give the address, or describe the real property affected _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ project.
Argineh D. Galstyan and Michael Michaelian [email protected] [email protected] 849 Moorside Drive Glendale CA 91207 310-977-7793
PDR-004219-2024
Design Review Board
906 Whitehaven terrace Glendale, Ca 91207
9:00 am City of Glendale print out given by Erik Kraus
2/20/25 2/20/25 ✔
Design Review Board approval with many conditions of the proposed 906 Whitehaven terrace Does not apply
✔
✔
Members: Lockareff, Kaskanian and Welch
900 Whitehaven terrace Glendale Ca 91207 818-445-1731
EXHIBIT 9
301 of 348
City ofGlendale CommunityDevelopmentDepartment., PlanningDivision 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206 818.548.2140 www.glendaleca.gov/CDD 09/2023 Page2of2
Statement of additional facts related to the appeal: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The foregoing statements, contained in PARTS 2, 3 and 4 above, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. __________________________________________________
Appellant’s Name – Please Print
__________________________________________ _______________________________ Appellant’s Signature Date Signed
PART 4 – STATEMENT OF ERROR
A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of law, which forms the basis for this appeal? Yes No If “Yes”, state each specific provision of law that you contend was violated: ____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. Do you contend that the board, commission, or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law given in answer “A”? Yes No If “Yes”, state which provisions, and state specifically each act that was in excess of authority:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C. Do you contend that the board, commission, or officer failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in answer “A”? Yes No If “Yes”, state which provision, and the specific duty that it failed to exercise:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D. Do you contend that the board, commission, or officer refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? Yes No If “Yes”, state each such fact, and for each fact, state how it should have changed the act, determination, or ruling: ____________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board, commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling or any specific finding in support thereof? Yes No If “Yes”, state what evidence was necessary, but lacking: ______________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination or ruling? Yes No If “Yes”, state each new material fact not previously presented to the board, commission, or officer. For each fact, state why it was not available, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and previously presented by the appellant: _______________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Date Stamp
Date received in Permit Services Center _________________ Received by ___________________ Fee paid ________________________________________ Receipt No. _____________________________________ Argineh D.Galstyan Michael Michaelian
Please note due to time restriction of the appeal application, further information will be submitted Please refer to attachment.
Please refer to attachment.
at a later time well before the appeal hearing. Please see attachment for the information that we are able to provide currently. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Argineh D. Galstyan and Michael Michaelian
2/25/25
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Please refer to attachment.
Please refer to attachment.
Please refer to attachment.
EXHIBIT 9
302 of 348
Appellants:
1) Martin and Argineh Galstyan: 900 Whitehaven Terrace Glendale, Ca 91207 (email: [email protected]/ phone: 818-445-1731)
2) Michael and Susan Michaelian: 849 Moorside Drive Glendale, Ca 91207 (email: [email protected]/ phone: 310-977-7793)
Part 4A (Galstyan comments): The proposed 906 Whitehaven project fails many of the City of Glendale design standards. Whitehaven terrace is a sloped street with primarily one-story track homes that were built from 1971-1974. Going up Whitehaven on the left side, where the proposed residence is located, you will only find one-story homes situated on small lots.
Additionally, the form and profile of these homes follow the topography of the sloped hillside (please refer to photo of two-story track homes). These homes were built as “step downs” going down the hillside to not intrude on the adjacent neighbor and the residents below on Moorside. This proposed residence fails to meet Glendale design review standards since the form and profile do not follow the topography. The East side elevation of the home sits higher than the West elevation side (Please refer to the proposed 906 Whitehaven elevation plans).
Furthermore, the proposed second-story addition will be encroaching on our privacy and will cause a nuisance to the use and enjoyment of our property. The large second-story balcony will overlook our dining room, kitchen breakfast area and our backyard where our three young boys spend a fair amount of time playing and swimming (Please refer to photos of my backyard, kitchen, and dining room). The second-story addition will also affect our access to natural light in our kitchen and dining/living room. Since the sun rises on the East side and sets on the West side.
Additionally, the two of the three windows found on the west elevation will be looking into our dining room and kitchen. These 6’L x 3’W foot windows, starting at seven feet above ground are excessively large and pose privacy concerns. There is more than reasonable access to natural light with the current window size on the West side elevation of the proposed project (30.47.040 Standards Part B3). These excessively large sized windows should not be used as a reason to access natural light, since the sun rises on the East side and sets on the West side. The height of windows will allow visibility from their living room into my kitchen breakfast area and dinning/living room area (Please refer to photos). To make matters worse there is a provocative outdoor shower located on the West side elevation that can be seen from my kitchen window and dinning room window. The architect failed to include this in his 3D rendering and elevation plans as it would bring attention to the poorly planned location.
The second story addition will also violate the privacy of the homeowners residing below on Moorside. The windows and balcony look directly into their windows and backyard. Please keep in mind that the second story addition will violate the privacy of several surrounding neighbors and will interfere with the use of their homes, which will ultimately cause disharmony among the neighborhood. We strongly believe that the proposed plans fail to meet the Glendale Design review standards for privacy and therefore oppose the second-story addition.
EXHIBIT 9
303 of 348
If the second story addition is approved, you will set the precedence for second-story additions on Whitehaven and possible neighboring streets with similar topography. This once again will cause turmoil among the neighborhood. The second-story is impacting the privacy of all the surrounding neighbors on Whitehaven and Moorside.
I would also like to bring to your attention that 1066 Old Phillips and 1060 Old Phillips should not be included in the neighborhood survey list. These properties are not within 300 linear feet (30.47.040 Standards Part D). This was confirmed with the Public Work Engineering Department (Please refer to the building foot prints). The architect provided inaccurate information in order support his claim that there are several second story homes in the neighborhood and to manipulate statistical analysis of the floor to area ratio percentage (FAR%) to his favor. The proposed project currently has a FAR of 32.3%, which is the highest in the neighborhood. The proposed project site has one of the smallest lot sizes of 11,770 sqft and the homeowner is trying to build a monumental home of 3,803 sqft (1,865 sqft addition).
Given the provided information, the neighborhood comprises seven one-story homes and three two-story homes. One of these two-story homes is a corner lot (1071 Old Phillips) and the other is my home (900 Whitehaven), which is a cul-da-sac lot that was originally built as a two-story home. The only other two-story home is 915 Whitehaven, situated across the street from the proposed residence. All the homes on the proposed residence side are one-story. It is important to note that our home is situated at the end of a cul-de-sac that borders a hillside. Consequently, it should not be considered a comparable home due to the significant differences in lot size and location. Furthermore, the proposed second-story addition does not align with its surroundings or the prevailing one-story pattern on the street. The modern farmhouse design employed does not harmonize with the existing homes and fails to integrate with its surrounding context and therefore, does not meet the Glendale design standards.
Lastly, the proposed residence’s mass and scale are disproportionate to the lot size. The house is monumental and is not congruent in with the rest of the neighborhood. The proposed project is located on a steep slope and the architect did not take into account the visual impact on the surrounding properties (30.11.040 Residential district R1R development standards Part D).The proposed addition is too massive in size and overshadows the rest of the homes located around it. All the homes adjacent to the east side are one-story homes.
Also, the roof height and form are extremely busy and unsightly with 9 different peaks (refer to master bedroom sitting area photos). Moreover, the roof form does not follow the natural topography of the slope of the street. Once again, the architectural scale and proportion do not meet the Glendale design standards.
Adding a second story to a home situated on the view side of a sloped street is not an easy task. Many have tried on the same side of the street but were unsuccessful. The previous owner of this property (906 Whitehaven terrace) sold the home within two months of purchase at a loss because they were unable to add a second-story. Another example is 914 Whitehaven, that was purchased in August of 2020 and was sold September of 2021 because they were denied a second story addition. In fact, the current homeowner of 914 also tried to add a second-story and was rejected and had to settle on a facelift EXHIBIT 9 304 of 348
remodel. Such a large home on a lot size this small is virtually non-existent. We were unable to locate a home in the immediate neighborhood with a FAR of 32.3% with similar characteristics. Therefore, we respectfully ask what makes this project the exception? In conclusion, everyone has the right to construct their dream home. However, it should not come at the expense of violating your neighbor’s privacy. This is not a modest remodel, rather a new construction of a home. It appears the homeowner is trying to mega size his home and add every single amenity to a small lot at the expense of the neighbors.
Part 4A (Michaelian comments):
Per code 30.47.040, “For new development and remodeling in the R1, R1R and ROS zones, consideration shall be given to the placement of windows in the new development vis-a-vis the placement of windows in adjacent residential buildings.” Part 4B (Galstyan comments):
The proposed project was passed with many substantial conditions by the Design Review Board members Lockareff, Kaskanian and Welch. The proposed project should have been returned for re-design. Especially, since the design of the home and addition affected the privacy of so many neighbors. Four neighbors voiced their concerns in person at the DRB hearing and an additional four neighbors called opposing the proposed project. Not to mention several other neighbors e-mailed Mr. Eric Ji expressing their concerns. We believe that the Design Review Board did not properly exercise their powers to return the proposed project for re-design considering the alarming amount of conditions such as restudying the design to reduce the massing and sale of the second-story volume, ensuring it follows topography and eliminates the cantilevered structure, while extending the volume toward the street frontage. Not to mention modifying the design of the second-story volume, reducing the monumental entry way and simplifying the busy roof form.
With so many substantial conditions and concerned neighbors this project should have not been left to staff (Eric Ji and architect) to redesign the home behind closed doors. This has caused turmoil and a state of panic among the surrounding homeowners. Lastly, special attention was not placed on ensuring a positive design relationship with the adjacent developments and developments on the block on which the proposed project is located (30.47.040 Standards Part B).
Part 4B (Michaelian comments):
Sufficient consideration was not given to “placement of windows in the new development vis-a-vis the placement of windows in adjacent residential buildings.” The Review Board was not presented with correct information. The line of sight depicted in the applicant’s architectural drawings (Figures 1 and 2 below) is not correct. Line of sight actually does exist from proposed patio deck and upper story directly into our upstairs bedroom and bathroom windows (Figure 3), as well as from proposed patio deck and upper story into our downstairs living room, family room, and kitchen. These additional views are provided at the end of this EXHIBIT 9 305 of 348
document, showing each room in our house facing 906 Whitehaven above us.
Notwithstanding the incorrect information presented to the Review Board, the Review Board was not even specific enough regarding what steps the applicant is required to take to even generally maintain privacy of surrounding neighbors. For example, instructions regarding “planting vegetation” were vague and undefined, as well as lacked any mention of an enforcement mechanism such that the applicant could later negate the vegetation, or select vegetation that’s exceedingly slow-growing to where any semblance of privacy wouldn’t restored for years.
Part 4C (Galstyan comments):
At the ending of the hearing the board members approved the proposed project with many substantial conditions. When the hearing adjourned city Planner Eric Ji/ staff and DRB members did not convey that a final decision was rendered and that an appeal may be filed within in 15 days (Please refer to the DRB video). This was a massive procedural error. Since this information was not conveyed, we walked out thinking that the preposed project was going to be re-designed and returned to DRB. Which at that point “we” (neighborhood) would have a chance to see the new revisions of the proposed project.
I (Argineh Galstyan) immediately walked back because I remembered there should be hand out cards to fill out to be kept informed of the proposed project. Mr. Eric Ji had quickly left, so I asked Milca Toledo about the cards and she said, “I’m sorry, I’m busy with the next hearing please contact Eric tomorrow, he has already left.”
I contacted Eric Ji via email the next day and asked to be kept in touch with the 906 Whitehaven project. I also asked him what the next steps would be, when would we be able to see the revision and what my rights were as a citizen. I also shared my concern about how the DRB members did not answer a question that my husband Martin Galstyan had addressed at the hearing. At that point he said the decision was final and that we would have to appeal (e-mail trail can be shown).
At this point we felt very uneasy about not being conveyed the correct information. I (Argineh Galstyan) decided to meet with Deputy Direction Mr. Erik Kraus on 2/20/25 for clarification about the DRB process. At that meeting Mr. Kraus gave me a printout of the Design Review Board Record of Decision, which was 7 days after the hearing. City planner Eric Ji failed to provide us and other concerned neighbors with Design Review Board Record of Decision even though we reached out him multiple times via e-mail. This and several other incidents have caused us to have a lack of confidence in Mr. Eric Ji’s ability to follow procedural guidelines.
EXHIBIT 9
306 of 348
Part 4C (Michaelian comments): We were given insufficient time to review the proposed plans. Below is the sequence of events described by Susan. I (Susan) was informed about the proposed remodel in the mail on the evening of 2/7/2025 that the city sent out, which fell on a Friday (not even a week before the Review Board meeting). The city was closed on the weekend, so I decided to email the contact person listed on the green mailer on Monday to get further information. Michael (my husband) was out of town the entire week for work and was coming back Thursday evening, an hour before the Design Review Board meeting. When I contacted Eric Ji via email, I asked several questions about the project. I wanted to discuss this project further with him and Michael together in a call. He answered some questions and sent me the link to the plans and offered to speak with us on Tuesday the 11th, but I told him Michael was out of town and we wouldn’t be able to until he gets back on Friday, not realizing the board meeting was on Thursday which would be too late. I didn’t receive a response from him that day or the next. I called Eric Ji several times until I was able to get a hold of him on the next day which was the 11th. I asked him a few questions about the property line drawing from the architect, but he told me I would have to drive down to the city building dept to view it on their computer. After I realized the meeting was that Thursday, I went to the building department and met Eric so I could get further info. Not having enough time to really look at everything and Michael being away for work made it even more challenging since he was working constantly and didn’t have time to really look at the project and the adverse impacts it would have on us. I don’t think the process is fair to the neighbors since we didn’t really have enough time at the podium to present all the issues we wanted to at the meeting. The evening of the design review meeting Michael flew in an hour before the meeting and wasn’t able to convey all the points he would later discover and make in his letter attached to the appeal. I had to put together a speech on the impact of our privacy, but felt unheard from the board members. There were several issues that stood out, but since we only get a few minutes I was cut off and told my time was up. I didn’t have enough time to discuss the staff report that had flaws and incorrect information. For example, Under Privacy it has been check marked “yes” when it should be “No”. Both “consideration of views from “public” rooms and balconies/decks” and “Avoid windows facing adjacent windows” should both be checked because they both clearly violate those issues. Our windows directly face their proposed plans, plus our views from our rooms including the rooms downstairs will have no privacy. After the review board meeting we were not given any information regarding the appeals process. This is a huge violation and the only reason we found out about this appeal process was when my husband emailed Eric the next day asking him to submit some more information that my husband wanted included to be looked at by the board members. Since we didn’t have time to at the board meeting and we were cut off, my husband thought to email the valid points he wanted the board members to see. Eric Ji E-mailed back stating “the meeting was closed and the decision was to approve the proposed addition with conditions.
That the revised plans will be reviewed under staff review and will not be going back to the Design review board. If applicant and the owner refuses to comply addressing any of the conditions of approval set by the design review board, the staff will refer them back to the 307 of 348
Board members for another hearing.” Not once were we told we could appeal. My husband emailed back stating “there has to be an appeals process. The information presented yesterday wasn’t even correct, as I show in the attached document. I want to be sure my privacy concerns are properly addressed before the board approved anything”.
Part 4E (Galstyan comments): The applicant presented false information regarding the neighborhood survey. As mentioned in 4A ,1066 Old Phillips and 1060 Old Phillips should not be included in the neighborhood survey list. These properties are not within 300 linear feet (30.47.040 Standards Part D). This was confirmed with the Public Work Engineering Department. The architect provided inaccurate information in order support his claim that there are several second story homes in the neighborhood and to manipulate statistical analysis of the floor to area ratio percentage (FAR%) to his favor. This information was emailed to Mr. Eric Ji on 2/12/25. I asked him to please update the neighborhood survey before the hearing. His response was “your comments have been received and will be forwarded to the Design Review Board members.” (e-mail terrace can be shown). Luckily, I called the Planning Division for clarification and they informed me that once the staff report is published, it cannot be updated and therefore I should present the correct building foot print at the DRB hearing.
If this information was not provided by the Planning Division, I would have never presented the building footprints at the DRB hearing. Once again, Mr. Eric Ji failed to convey the correct information or provide clarification.
Additionally, the architect depicted an inaccurate 3D rendering of the home and elevation plans. The outdoor shower was deliberately omitted because it would bring attention to the poorly planned location. The unscreened outdoor shower is located on the West side elevation that can be seen from my kitchen and dining room windows.
Part 4E (Michaelian comments): The applicant did not correctly present the privacy impacts of proposed addition. Therefore, the Review Board was not able to properly give instructions on how to modify the design proposal to address those impacts. Again, instructions regarding “planting vegetation” were vague and undefined, as well as lacked any mention of an enforcement mechanism such that the applicant could later negate the vegetation, or select vegetation that’s exceedingly slow-growing to where any semblance of privacy wouldn’t restored for years. Other instructions given at the review board to “*consider* reducing the mass” of the upstairs and “move it toward the street” were also not specific enough, both of which contribute to privacy impacts.
Part 4F (Michaelian comments): Facts presented above in this appeal, regarding the true privacy impacts which not communicated by the applicant. Insufficient time was given to us to prepare for the Review Board meeting as Susan described in 4C. 308 of 348
Statement of additional facts related to the appeal (Michaelian comments):
At the end of this document is an addendum containing the letter Michael wrote to Eric Ji -the day after the Review Board meeting (we have email proof of the date/time the letter was sent). It conveys much of the same information in this appeal form, but also relates extremely disrespectful behavior by the applicant (in a public forum) during the Review Board meeting, suggesting a desire by the applicant to ramrod this process through regardless of any impacts to their neighbors. Lastly, at the Review Board meeting we were not informed of our right to appeal the decision, a major violation. In a follow up email conversation Michael had with Eric, Michael asked about the right to appeal, to which Eric replied we indeed have that right. Had Michael not asked the question, we would not have even known to file this appeal at all.
Below you will find building footprints and images that were mentioned above (Galstyan):
1060 Old Phillips is located more than 300 linear feet from the proposed project site:
EXHIBIT 9
309 of 348
1066 Old Phillips is located more than 300 linear feet from the proposed project site:
Backyard photos: Privacy concerns
EXHIBIT 9
310 of 348
Kitchen breakfast area photos: Privacy concerns
EXHIBIT 9
311 of 348
Dinning and formal living room: Privacy concerns
312 of 348
Approximate location of proposed 6-foot windows that have visibility into my dining room and kitchen:
Proposed
windows
Proposed
windows
EXHIBIT 9
313 of 348
window
window
EXHIBIT 9
314 of 348
Master bedroom sitting area photo depicting busy and disproportionate roof form and monumental entry:
EXHIBIT 9
315 of 348
Close up photo of the master bedroom sitting area depicting a busy and disproportionate roof form and monumental entry:
EXHIBIT 9
316 of 348
Panoramic photo of two-story track homes located on Whitehaven terrace sloped hill:
EXHIBIT 9
317 of 348
Below are the figures referenced above (Michaelian):
EXHIBIT 9
318 of 348
EXHIBIT 9
319 of 348
EXHIBIT 9
320 of 348
EXHIBIT 9
321 of 348
EXHIBIT 9
322 of 348
EXHIBIT 9
323 of 348
EXHIBIT 9
324 of 348
Hello Eric,
I want to follow up on yesterday’s (2/13) Design Review meeting with additional objections to what was stated by the applicant as well as additional information that needs to be entered into the proposal review.
Any additional submittals to the Board need to be judged against the details below, long before it even gets to the public hearing phase, where neighbors are reacting to short notice notifications and are given a few minutes after driving in pouring rain at rush hour in an attempt to mount a “last ditch” effort to stave off a horrendous invasion of privacy. This is exactly what it felt like at the meeting last night.
Regarding these privacy impacts, it was difficult to point out from the podium where I was standing (and due to very limited time), everything I was attempting to convey about lines of sight. My wife’s photos showing our views up the hill side from the various rooms in our house did give a very good sense of our concerns. But I believe the below information puts some additional quantifiable numbers to the deficiencies in their plan.
The architect’s drawing shown below (Figure 1) depicts their estimation of line of sight from the upper floor. This is completely inaccurate and bordering on deceptive. I am not using that word cavalierly either, as the architect’s demeanor and use of pejoratives during the meeting (referring to the rightfully concerned neighbors as “vindictive”) gives us the sense he’s attempting to rush through a project with woefully insufficient declarations of impacts to the neighborhood, hoping no one on the Board or any of the neighbors will notice until its too late.
Figure 1
EXHIBIT 9
325 of 348
In Figure 2, if I extrapolate their line of sight estimation following the hillside as it’s depicted, it will terminate at the ground in our backyard. However, this does not capture the full extent of the privacy impacts. I suspect the architect knows this, which makes this appear a bit sleight of hand. Figure 3 depicts the true privacy impact where the line of sight terminates at our upper windows, which are over 17 feet off the ground. In the appendix at the end of this document are additional photos showing the views from the various windows in our house vs the current roofline and the proposed 2nd story.
Figure 2
EXHIBIT 9
326 of 348
Figure 3
In addition, at the meeting they nonchalantly offered to “plant some vegetation” to “minimize” privacy impacts (almost as if they weren’t even originally planning to do even that much). The problem is if the project were to move forward, this gross underestimation on line of sight would allow them to plant some trivial amount of vegetation as a form of “low-side compliance” just to say they did something and skate by.
It’s patently obvious they want to maintain their city views on both the upper and lower floors. But given the true line of sight from their proposed upper floor to our upper windows, the vegetation they would be required to plant in order to block their view of our upper window would obstruct their current city views from the ground floor patio. Again, this is an inconvenient fact they are likely hoping no one will notice until it’s too late.
Furthermore, we do not want our privacy impacts “minimized”. We want them fully mitigated.
At the meeting, the architect (after calling the neighbors “vindictive” on live TV) flippantly stated that they can already see our yard from their patio. That is because upon moving in, the applicants promptly cut down all the beautiful trees and vegetation that had provided us privacy from the previous owner! So then their argument is just because they already ruined the privacy of our backyard they now have the right to completely obliterate the privacy on the rest of our property (and everyone else’s for that matter)?
Then at another point during the meeting, one of the callers who insufficiently identified himself voiced his support of the project, stating that the rest of the neighbors can “put up blinds or shades” to deal with the invasion of privacy. So then the applicant gets to enjoy his “million dollar” views (as the architect put it) while the rest of us can’t even see our own backyards anymore because we have to “put up blinds and shades” to keep them from peering into our house? The bottom line here is the onus is not on the neighbors to reduce their quality of life to mitigate the destruction of their own privacy resulting from the applicant’s proposal. The onus is on the applicant to ensure their project does not impact the neighbors’ quality of life to begin with. Particularly since we pre-date them in this neighborhood by almost ten years.
Again, please enter this into the record as I want future submittals graded against this information before it even comes before the Board in a public hearing again. What transpired on 2/13 was very unfair to the neighbors as we were given very little notice of this and very little time to prepare our arguments in defense of our own quality of life.
Thank you for your considerations.
Michael and Susan Michaelian
849 Moorside Drive
EXHIBIT 9
327 of 348
Appendix: Views of proposed 2nd story from affected rooms in our house Current roof line at 906
Whitehaven
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
328 of 348
Upstairs
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
329 of 348
Upstairs
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
330 of 348
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
331 of 348
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
332 of 348
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
333 of 348
EXHIBIT 10
334 of 348
EXHIBIT 10
335 of 348
EXHIBIT 10
336 of 348
EXHIBIT 10
337 of 348
EXHIBIT 10
338 of 348
339 of 348
340 of 348
341 of 348
342 of 348
343 of 348
344 of 348
345 of 348
346 of 348
347 of 348
348 of 348