City of Glendale Community Development Department., Planning Division 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206 818.548.2140 www.glendaleca.gov/CDD 09/2023 Page 1 of 2
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
City of Glendale
print out given by Erik Kraus
9:00 am
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
City of Glendale Community Development Department., Planning Division 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206 818.548.2140 www.glendaleca.gov/CDD 09/2023 Page 2 of 2
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 e- mailed 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.
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
1066 Old Phillips is located more than 300 linear feet from the proposed project site:
Backyard photos: Privacy concerns
EXHIBIT 9
Kitchen breakfast area photos: Privacy concerns
EXHIBIT 9
Dinning and formal living room: Privacy concerns
Approximate location of proposed 6-foot windows that have visibility into my dining room and kitchen:
Proposed
windows
Proposed
windows
EXHIBIT 9
window
window
EXHIBIT 9
Master bedroom sitting area photo depicting busy and disproportionate roof form and monumental entry:
EXHIBIT 9
Close up photo of the master bedroom sitting area depicting a busy and disproportionate roof form and monumental entry:
EXHIBIT 9
Panoramic photo of two-story track homes located on Whitehaven terrace sloped hill:
EXHIBIT 9
Below are the figures referenced above (Michaelian):
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 9
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
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
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
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
Upstairs
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
Upstairs
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9
Approximate location
of 2nd story windows
EXHIBIT 9