1 10a
6 2
2 5
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appeal of Design Review Board’s approval of DRB Case No. PDR-004219-2024 located at 906 Whitehaven Terrace 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).
1. Motion to Sustain Design Review Board’s Decision to Approve the Project with Conditions of Approval
2. Motion to Continue the Matter, Directing the City Attorney to Draft Findings Reversing the Design Review Board’s Decision and Denying the Project.
COUNCIL ACTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made by the Design Review Board (DRB) on February 13, 2025, to approve the Design Review Case with conditions for the project located at 906 Whitehaven Terrace. The DRB approved the project with five conditions for an 1,865 square foot (SF) two-story addition to the existing 1,938 SF, one-story single-family house and extension of the rear deck (“Project”).
The DRB’s decision was made in accordance with Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) Design Review, of which the purpose is to promote high-quality development that enhances the beauty, livability, and prosperity of the community while preventing poor design that could negatively impact surrounding properties. The Design Review chapter encourages originality and diversity in architectural styles and ensures that new construction and renovations are compatible with existing neighborhood character.
The appellant (subject property’s neighbor) is requesting that the City Council reverse the DRB’s decision approving the Project and for them to return the project to the DRB for redesign. The appellant contends that in rendering its decision to approve the Project with conditions, the DRB violated specific provisions of law and exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law. The appellant also claims that staff and DRB failed to fulfill its mandatory duty and that the evidence before the board was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. The appellant further claims to have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the decision.
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for September 9, 2025 Calendar
2 10a
6 2
2 5
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council sustain the DRB’s decision to approve the Project with conditions of Design Review Case No. PDR-004219-2024 with the original DRB-imposed conditions based on all of the evidence, reasoning and findings that the DRB articulated at the February 13, 2025, hearing and set forth in the DRB’s Record of Decision for the project, dated February 13, 2025 and included as Exhibit 4.
BACKGROUND
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made by the DRB on February 13, 2025, to approve the Design Review Board Case No. PDR-004219-2024 with conditions to add a new two-story 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).
GENERAL INFORMATION
Appellants: Argineh D. Galstyan
900 Whitehaven Terrace
Glendale, CA 91207
Michael Michaelian
849 Moorside Drive
Glendale, CA 91207
Status of Appellants: Neighboring property owners
Project Applicant: Harry Akopian
Ecumena Design Studio (Project Architect)
635 West Colorado Street
Glendale, CA 91204
Property Owner:Michael Mazmanian
906 Whitehaven Terrace
Glendale, CA 91207
Requested Action: The appellant is requesting that the City Council reverse the DRB’s Decision to approve Design Review Case No. PDR-004219-2024 by having the project returned to the DRB for redesign.
Legal Description: Lot 48, Tract Number 21941
3 10a
6 2
2 5
APN: 5649-006-014
Zone: R1R (Restricted Residential), Floor Area Ratio District III Land Use Element: Low Density Residential
Circulation: Whitehaven Terrace is classified as a local street in the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Lot Size and Frontage: The Project site is approximately 11,770 SF and has a frontage of approximately 90 feet and 6 inches along Whitehaven Terrace.
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: The subject property is surrounded by single-family residences in the R1R (Restricted Residential) Zone, Floor Area Ratio District III.
Properties within 300 linear feet of the site have average lot size of 14,427 SF.
Utilities and Public Services: All municipal and private utilities are in place serving the neighborhood and other public services are currently provided in the vicinity.
Site Description: The Project site is an 11,770 SF interior lot with frontage on Whitehaven Terrace. The site was previously graded with initial development of the site. It is predominantly flat adjacent to the street, but slopes down in the southern one-third of the property. The site was originally developed in 1973 with a 1,938 SF one-story single-family residence with an attached 3-car garage. The project site is accessed via an existing driveway from Whitehaven Terrace which will be maintained.
RELEVANT PROJECT HISTORY
December 6, 2024 – Design Review Case No. PDR-004219-2024 was submitted by the Project applicant, Harry Akopian, for the proposed 2-story addition.
February 13, 2025 –Design Review Case No. PDR-004219-2024 was presented to the DRB with a staff recommendation to approve the Project with conditions. The DRB voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the Project with five conditions (Exhibit 4):
1. Restudy the design to reduce the massing and scale of the second-story volume, ensuring it followings the topography and eliminates the cantilevered portion of the addition, while extending the volume towards the street front.
2. Remove the second-story balcony.
3. Plant live vegetation of appropriate height along the rear and side of the property for privacy screening.
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 4 10a
6 2
2 5
proportional look in harmony with the overall home.
February 26, 2025 – The appellant submitted their appeal of the DRB’s approval – Case No. PAPP-004609-2025 (Exhibit 9).
SUMMARY OF DRB’S DISCUSSION OF CASE NO. PDR-004219-2024 Generally, the DRB was in favor of the Project and the discussion of the Project was limited.
Three DRB members, Lockareff, Kaskanian, and Welch, were present at the February 13, 2025, meeting at which the Project was discussed. Board member Simonian was absent.
Board member Welch stated that while adding a second story is a property right, the DRB's role is to ensure thoughtful design that respects neighboring properties and complies with the City’s Design Guidelines. He shared public concerns about massing and felt the addition did not follow the site’s topography. While he did not view the main entry as overly monumental, he found the roof forms overly complex.
His main concern was the cantilevered rear portion of the second story, which he believed conflicted with the Design Guidelines and could negatively impact downhill neighbors. He recommended redesigning this element and questioned the need for the second-story balcony due to privacy concerns. He considered the first-story deck extension to be a minor change.
Mr. Welch also felt the overall scale was too large, with an FAR above the neighborhood average, and suggested reducing the size of the master bedroom and bathroom. Noting the area’s varied architecture, he did not believe a specific style could be imposed.
Board member Lockareff agreed with the comments made by Board member Welch. She did not oppose the second-story addition but emphasized the need for conditions to remove the balcony, reduce the overall massing, and shift the structure towards the street to mitigate privacy impacts. She found the rooflines to be overly complex and recommended simplifying them in conjunction with the reduced massing to better follow the topography. Additionally, Ms. Lockareff felt that the entry was too monumental.
Chair Kaskanian expressed his support for the second-story addition, noting that there is nothing in the Design Guidelines that prohibits new two-story additions.
He agreed with the proposed conditions to reduce the height and simplify the rooflines, and he also felt that the front entry was too monumental and needed to be reworked. Furthermore, Chair Kaskanian suggested adding a condition to require the planting of privacy hedges to mitigate privacy concerns. Board member Welch questioned whether the project should be approved with 5 10a
6 2
2 5
conditions or returned for redesign. Board member Lockareff stated she was comfortable approving the project with conditions.
Staff received four letters from the public prior to the hearing and seven members of the public spoke at the hearing in opposition to the Project, including both appellants. Two people spoke in favor. Concerns from the public were in regard to the privacy impacts, incompatibility of the massing and architecture. A copy of the comment letters is attached as Exhibit 8.
Following review of the staff report and attachments, including the submitted correspondence, and having heard all testimony at the public hearing, Board member Lockareff made a motion to approve the Project with conditions. The motion was seconded by Board member Welch. The Record of Decision is attached as Exhibit 4.
The applicant has incorporated most of the required modifications in the draft revision of the proposed plans (Exhibit 11), including the removal of the second- story balcony, reduction in overall massing and scale, simplification of rooflines, refinement of the monumental entry, and enhancement of privacy screening with additional landscaping along the property boundary. The plans do not address the conditions for the removal of the cantilevered portion and the relocation of the second-story volume toward the street front.
SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT’S BASIS FOR APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSES In the appeal application, the appellants state that the conditions of approval imposed by the DRB violated specific provisions of law and exceeded its authority; and that staff and DRB failed to fulfill their mandatory duty. Furthermore, the appellants believe that the evidence before the DRB was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. The appellants have new evidence not previously presented, which if considered should change the approval decision. Below is a summary of the statements made by the appellants in their appeal application (Exhibit 9), as well as staff’s responses to the statement.
Part 4A (DRB Violated Specific Provisions of Law):
The appellants contend that the DRB violated a specific provision of law because the Project fails to comply with multiple Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) standards, particularly those outlined in GMC 30.47.040 (Design Review Standards) Sections (B)(3) (relationships to adjacent buildings), & (D) (compatibility with surrounding neighborhood character), and GMC 30.11.040(D) (Density).
The appellants state that the Project does not follow the natural slope of the street. The existing one-story homes were designed to step down with the topography to minimize their impact on neighboring properties. The appellant claims the Project will intrude on their privacy, as the balcony and large windows will overlook their dining room, kitchen, and backyard, affecting the use of their property and leading to loss of natural light.
Additionally, the appellants assert that the scale of the Project, with a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 32.3%, is disproportionate to the lot size and out of character with the 6 10a
6 2
2 5
predominantly one-story homes in the neighborhood. The modern farmhouse design is also seen as incompatible with the surrounding homes.
The appellants further object to the inclusion of properties 1066 Old Phillips and 1060 Old Phillips in the neighborhood survey, as they are not within the required 300 linear feet of the Project. The appellant believes their inclusion distorted the analysis of the project’s FAR and misrepresented the neighborhood characteristics. Based on these concerns, the appellant argues that the DRB’s approval of the Project overlooked key aspects of the design standards.
Staff Response:
Related to the appellant’s privacy concerns, GMC Section 30.47.040(B)(3) requires that new two-story developments in single-family zones provide reasonable access to natural light and not unreasonably impact the privacy of adjacent buildings and outdoor spaces.
Privacy is evaluated based on views from “public rooms” such as dining rooms and living rooms, as well as balconies over 25 square feet. In response to the appellant’s privacy concerns, the DRB conditioned the Project to remove the second-story balcony, which had the greatest potential for overlooking adjacent properties. Additionally, the DRB required the installation of vegetation along the rear and side property lines to provide screening. Although the Project’s first floor “public rooms” face 900 Whitehaven Terrace, the proposed home is situated approximately seven feet below its neighbor and is set back approximately 14 feet from the common property line. These site characteristics mitigate potential privacy intrusions and ensure access to natural light. The proposed second-story only includes bedrooms and bathrooms, which are not classified as “public rooms” under the code and, therefore, do not raise privacy concerns.
Second, regarding the appellant’s concern that the Project fails to follow the natural topography of the street, GMC Section 30.47.040(D) requires that new development maintain compatibility with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and consider topographic conditions. In response, the DRB conditioned the Project to remove the cantilevered rear portion of the second story, reduce the massing and scale of the upper level, and restudy the second-story volume to be closer to the front of the residence as opposed to the rear. These changes are intended to help the design better follow the natural slope of the site, ensuring a smoother transition with the neighboring homes that step down with the terrain.
Third, as the Project pertains to the scale and size of the house, the appellants argue that the Project’s floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 32.3% is excessive and inconsistent with the surrounding one-story neighborhood. GMC Section 30.47.040(D) requires that new single-family homes be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of massing, scale, height, and other design factors. While the proposed FAR is higher than the neighborhood average, the DRB imposed conditions to reduce the overall scale and bulk of the house. These included simplifying roof forms, eliminating a monumental front entry feature, and restudying the second story. These revisions help align the Project more closely with the eclectic but generally lower-scale character of the area. Neither the GMC nor the City’s Design Guidelines prohibit two-story homes in this neighborhood; rather, projects must comply with applicable development and design standards, which this Project does, as conditioned.
7 10a
6 2
2 5
With respect to the neighborhood survey, the appellant correctly notes that two properties—1066 Old Phillips and 1060 Old Phillips—were mistakenly included in the applicant’s neighborhood analysis, even though they fall outside the 300 linear feet radius required by GMC Section 30.47.040(D). This error occurred due to a mapping error that did not properly account for the slope. However, excluding these two properties only slightly reduces the average neighborhood FAR from 0.18 to 0.17 and does not materially affect the DRB’s analysis or findings. Moreover, there are still three two-story properties within the accurate 300-foot survey radius, which supports the conclusion that the proposed two-story design is not inconsistent with the character of the area.
Finally, in response to the appellant’s claim that the Project violates GMC Section
30.11.040(D) regarding density, staff notes that this section governs density for residential subdivisions and applies only when a property is being subdivided. The Project does not propose any subdivision and, therefore, this section is not applicable.
The Project is subject instead to development standards for the R1R zone, which include limits on floor-area, height, setbacks, and lot coverage, all of which are met or conditioned to comply through DRB review.
Part 4B (DRB exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of the law) The appellant contends that the DRB exceeded its authority by approving the Project with substantial conditions imposed on the design. These conditions included reducing the second-story volume, ensuring the design followed the topography, eliminating cantilevered portion of the addition, and simplifying the roof form. The appellant believes that given the many concerns raised by neighbors, the DRB should have returned the project for redesign. Additionally, the appellant believes that the DRB failed to give sufficient attention to the relationship between the placement of windows in the new development and adjacent properties. They assert that incorrect information was presented to the DRB regarding line of sight from the new design, which impacts the privacy of neighboring properties. Furthermore, the appellants claim that the conditions placed on privacy protection, such as planting vegetation, as vague and lacking enforcement measures to ensure they would effectively maintain privacy.
Staff Response:
Regarding the authority of the DRB to impose conditions rather than require redesign, GMC 30.47.030(J) outlines the purpose and authority of the DRB, which includes ensuring that buildings and structures are designed and located in a manner that satisfies the intent of design review and meets established standards. The DRB is authorized to impose conditions related to site planning, design, and appearance, and may require changes to ensure compatibility with surrounding development.
Pursuant to GMC 30.47.075(D), the DRB has the discretion to determine whether a project should be returned for redesign, approved with conditions, or approved without conditions. During the February 13, 2025 hearing, the DRB discussed the possibility of returning the Project for redesign but ultimately concluded during deliberations that the conditions imposed on the approval were sufficient to bring the Project into compliance with the City’s Design Guidelines. Therefore, the DRB did not exceed its authority by approving the Project with conditions. The conditions imposed—including reducing the 8 10a
6 2
2 5
scale and massing, eliminating the cantilevered portion, pushing the second floor toward the front of the house, simplifying the roof forms, and requiring privacy landscaping—are within the scope of DRB authority and were aimed at ensuring compatibility with surrounding development and mitigating privacy impacts.
Secondly, in response to the appellant’s claim that the DRB failed to adequately consider the relationship between window placement and adjacent properties, the DRB specifically addressed these issues through the imposition of conditions. As discussed in the previous response, the second story includes only bedrooms and bathrooms. These rooms are not considered “public rooms” under GMC 30.47.040(B)(3). The first-story windows that face the neighboring residence are located at a lower elevation are set back 14 feet from the property line. In addition, the DRB required the installation of landscaping along the side and rear property lines to provide privacy screening.
Landscape installation will be checked at the DRB final inspection to determine compliance with the approved plans. These combined measures mitigate potential privacy concerns related to window placement.
Third, in regard to the appellant’s claim that incorrect information was presented to the DRB regarding line of sight, staff reviewed the plan site section submitted by the applicant (Sheet A101 of Exhibit 3), which illustrates the line of sight from the proposed second-story balcony. The appellant’s submission—a photo with a hand-drawn line— was not to scale or professionally verified. With the DRB’s conditions to eliminate the balcony and remove the cantilevered portion, the second story will be further set back, further reducing potential line of sight impacts.
Lastly, regarding the appellant’s claim that the condition requiring privacy landscaping is vague or unenforceable, the DRB required the use of vegetation of appropriate height and density along the side and rear property lines specifically to address privacy screening. Compliance with these conditions will be confirmed at the time of plan check and during the final DRB inspection. Any failure to implement or maintain the required landscaping would be a violation of the conditions of approval and subject to enforcement by the City. Further, per GMC 30.47.050, the landscaping must be maintained for a period of five years.
Part 4C (DRB failed to fulfill a mandatory duty)
The appellants contend that staff and the DRB failed to fulfill a mandatory duty when it did not inform them that a final decision had been rendered and that an appeal could be filed within 15 days. They claim that after the hearing adjourned, City staff and DRB members did not convey this information, leading them to believe the project would be redesigned and returned to the DRB, with an opportunity for the public to review. After the hearing and before the appellant received the Record of Decision, the appellants inquired about how they could be kept informed about the Project revisions to address the DRB’s comment. They were then informed by staff that the decision was final and the only recourse was an appeal.
The appellants also assert that despite multiple contact with staff, they were unable to obtain the Design Review Board Record of Decision until seven days after the hearing.
This delay, they argue, undermined their confidence in the procedural process and in 9 10a
6 2
2 5
staff's ability to follow guidelines.
Additionally, the appellants claim they had insufficient time to review the project and present their concerns. The appellants claim to have received notification about the Project six days before the DRB meeting, and due to their work schedule, they were unable to fully review the plans or attend the meeting together. The appellants also state their concerns about privacy and inaccuracies in the staff report were not adequately addressed. Specifically, that the staff report incorrectly marked “Yes” under the “Privacy” section, even though the Project would directly affect their privacy. The appellants also pointed out that the staff report failed to discuss two important issues: "consideration of views from public rooms and balconies/decks" and "avoiding windows facing adjacent windows," both of which applied to their situation.
Staff Response:
First, as it relates to the noticing and appeal process, Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) Chapter 30.61 requires that public notices be mailed and posted at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing date. In compliance with this requirement, the public noticing for the Project was mailed and posted on the City’s website on January 31, 2025—thirteen (13) days prior to the scheduled February 13, 2025 Design Review Board (DRB) meeting—to property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the Project site. Staff also verified that the required physical noticing was installed at the Project site at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing date.
Additionally, the temporary framing poles outlining the project scope were installed on January 15, 2025, which was confirmed by staff to meet the City’s noticing requirements.
Mailed public notices included information on how to file an appeal, and staff provided instructions on the appeal process at the beginning of the DRB hearing, which the appellants attended. During the hearing, the public was given additional time to speak, and the DRB deliberated on whether the Project should come back to them for redesign or be approved with conditions. After deliberation, the Board unanimously voted to approve the project with conditions. Therefore, the Board made it clear that the project would not be returned for redesign. Both appellants were present until the end of the meeting.
Regarding the tardy availability and the Record of Decision (ROD), staff acknowledges an error in not sending out this document to those who spoke at the public meeting or who submitted written comments. However, the appellants had access to the video recording of the hearing, as mentioned in their appeal, and this did not prevent them from filing a timely appeal. The ROD was posted online on February 14, 2025, the day after the hearing, and staff responded to all inquiries about the project from the appellants via email, including information about the appeal, on February 14, 2025 (Exhibit 8). While the appellants’ concerns regarding communication delays are noted, the appeal process was not compromised, and staff asserts that the DRB properly followed procedures and provided opportunities for public input.
In response to the appellants’ claim that they had insufficient time to review the Project and present their concerns, staff notes that the required 10-day public notice was met, and documents were available online during that period. The DRB also allowed for an 10 10a
6 2
2 5
additional 2-minutes for the appellants to speak during their 3-minute public comment portion of the hearing. Staff believes the public had sufficient time and opportunity to participate, and the noticing process was conducted in accordance with all applicable GMC requirements.
Finally, regarding the staff report and privacy impacts, staff reviewed privacy impacts as required by GMC 30.47.040(B)(3), which specifies that privacy is judged from “public rooms” such as living rooms, dining rooms, and family rooms, and from balconies larger than 25 square feet. Staff did not find that the second-story windows would impact the privacy of adjacent properties given the intervening topography and distance between the subject site and the abutting properties. Additionally, the proposed second story includes only bedrooms and bathrooms, which are not considered “public rooms” under the code. Conditions of approval, which include the removal of the balcony, a further setback of the second story at the rear, and the installation of privacy landscaping along the borders of the subject property, directly address and mitigate any remaining privacy concerns.
Part 4E (The evidence before the DRB was insufficient or inadequate to support its action)
The appellant contends that the evidence before the DRB was inaccurate and inadequate to supports its decision to approve the project with conditions. The appellant claims that the applicant submitted false information concerning the neighborhood survey. They assert that two properties, 1066 Old Phillips and 1060 Old Phillips, should not have been included in the survey list as they are not within the required 300-foot lineal feet of the project site, as confirmed by Glendale Public Works, Engineering. The appellant contends that the inclusion of these properties skewed the statistical analysis of the FAR to make the Project appear more consistent with surrounding properties.
Despite raising this issue with staff, the information was not updated before the DRB hearing and inaccurate information was presented to the Board. The appellant further emphasizes that the architect provided inaccurate 3D renderings, which omitted details such as the outdoor shower located on the west elevation of the house facing the appellant’s property. This omission, according to the applicant, concealed the design’s impact on privacy.
Additionally, the appellant asserts that the DRB did not adequately address the privacy impacts of the Project. The conditions of approval provided by the Board to mitigate these impacts were vague and insufficient. Planting vegetation was deemed by the appellant to be unclear and lacking enforceable measures to ensure the vegetation will provide meaningful privacy protection. Moreover, according to the appellant, the instructions to “consider” reducing the mass of the upstairs portion of the addition or shifting it toward the street were similarly imprecise and did not adequately address the privacy concerns raised. As a result, the appellant believes the DRB was unable to properly assess and adjust the design to minimize privacy violations, ultimately leading to an approval that does not sufficiently protect the surrounding neighbors’ privacy.
Staff Response:
As discussed above, staff acknowledges that the properties located at 1066 Old Phillips and 1060 Old Phillips were mistakenly included in the neighborhood survey. Despite this 11 10a
6 2
2 5
error, staff maintains that the exclusion of these two properties does not significantly impact the neighborhood average FAR, reducing it from 0.18 to 0.17 (Exhibit 6). The appellant submitted written comments via email (Exhibit 8) regarding their concerns about the potential impacts to privacy, the massing and scale, and design of the Project on February 12, 2025, and these comments were forwarded to the DRB the same day.
Additionally, staff provided copies of written comments to the DRB at the hearing, and the appellant also presented this information during the public comment portion of the hearing.
The appellants are correct that the outdoor shower was not identified in the 3D renderings, elevations, and site plan of the Project, but it was shown on the landscape plans. However, the location of the outdoor shower does not affect privacy impacts because it is located outside of the setback and screened from the public view by a six foot tall fence and gate.
The DRB’s approval included conditions to eliminate the second-story balcony, reduce the mass and scale of the second-story addition by relocating this square footage toward Whitehaven Terrace, and planting vegetation for privacy screening along the rear and side property lines. These conditions, in part, were incorporated into project approval to address privacy concerns. Prior to plan check, staff will evaluate revised plans to ensure that all conditions have been addressed. This review will include revised landscape plans to ensure that the plants proposed will provide for privacy screening. Once plans are approved, the landscaping must be installed pursuant to those plans and maintained for a minimum of five years per GMC 30.47.050. Additionally, reducing the mass of the second floor and moving it closer to the street were conditions, not “considerations” as the appellant claims and revised plans must demonstrate compliance with all conditions in order for staff to approve them. As such, the conditions imposed by the DRB adequately address the concerns raised by the appellant.
Part 4F (The appellant has new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination, or ruling) The appellant asserts new facts, which were not previously presented, and if considered, should change the approval decision. These facts include the statements provided for the reasons of appeal and insufficient speaking time. They also included letters that were sent via email to staff on February 12, 2025, which include map verification showing the properties, 1060 Old Phillips and 1066 Old Phillips, located outside the 300-feet radius from the Project property, photos showing the project site from different areas from the appellant properties, and the appellant’s version of line of sight drawing.
Staff Response:
The facts presented by the appellant were not new as these materials were submitted to staff as public comment and provided to the DRB prior to the hearing (Exhibit 8).
Furthermore, the DRB allowed each public speaker an additional 2 minutes to the allocated 3-minute time limit to express their concerns during the public comment section of the meeting.
The line-of-sight drawing that the appellants provided consists of a photo with a drawn-in sight line between the Project framing poles and the appellant’s property. This image 12 10a
6 2
2 5
was not professionally verified as opposed to the line-of-sight drawing provided by the Project architect.
SUMMARY
Based on the analysis of the appeal and the reasoning above, staff recommends that the City Council sustain the DRB’s decision to approve the Project with the original DRB- imposed conditions. The Board members considered not only the site planning, but also the Project’s massing, scale, height, setback, landscaping, window placement, use of materials and colors and other architectural design elements and privacy in determining compatibility and consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines.
The basis of the DRB’s decision (the Record of Decision, Exhibit 4) includes the following:
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 push 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 feature landscaping to minimize the visual impact of the retaining walls.
The project plan extends the existing deck towards the rear, bringing it more in line with the neighboring deck.
The existing driveway is 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.
13 10a
6 2
2 5
The condition to reduce the massing and scale of the second-story volume, eliminate the second-story balcony, and cantilever the design creates a proportional massing that visually fits into the surrounding context. The condition to redesign the roof plan to reduce the variations creates 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:
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 features 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 helps to mitigate privacy impacts to the adjacent properties.
The condition to redesign the entry eliminates the monumental entry design.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires public notice when the Council considers approval of entitlements such as design review. Staff has published all required notices and has mailed copies of the notice to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project. A public notice has also been posted on-site.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project is the construction of a new single-family house. The property does not appear eligible for historic designation at the federal, state or local levels and is, therefore, not considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act.
14 10a
6 2
2 5
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 10, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
ALTERNATIVE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Continue the Appeal and direct the City Attorney to return with draft findings reversing the DRB’s decision and denying the Project. If the Council wishes to reverse the Design Review Board’s decision, a second alternate motion is included to continue the matter for three weeks, without further public notice, and direct the City Attorney to prepare written findings in support of denying the Project.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Eric Ji, Planning Associate
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Photos of Existing Property
Exhibit 3: DRB Staff Report and Reduced Plans for Current Design Review Application (PDR-004219-2024) from February 13, 2025
Exhibit 4: DRB Record of Decision for Current Design Review Application (PDR-004219- 2024) from February 13, 2025
Exhibit 5: Neighborhood Survey
Exhibit 6: Revised Neighborhood Survey
Exhibit 7: Interdepartmental Comments
Exhibit 8: Correspondence
Exhibit 9: Notice of Appeal of DRB’s Decision to City Council and supplemental documents.
Exhibit 10: Campaign Disclosure
Exhibit 11: Draft Revised Plan