4 PA^b^0
^^^ ^.
-7 0
•d *
<0 z
co 0<» 0
-p>^ 0^ 0^ ?^rED
Agenda Report
January 12,2026
1 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning & Community Development Department
SUBJECT: CALL FOR REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS' QUASI-
JUDICIAL DECISION TO APPROVE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT #7134 TO ALLOW A NEW 4,280 SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-LEVEL
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ABOVE A PARTIALLY BELOW GRADE
2,685 SQUARE-FOOT SIX-CAR GARAGE AT 1530 SCENIC DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Find that the action proposed herein is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction), and there are no features that distinguish the project from others in the exempt classes, and therefore, there are no unusual circumstances; and
2. Adopt the findings in Attachment A to uphold the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision and approve Hillside Development Permit #7134, with the conditions in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND:
Existing Site Characteristics:
The subject property is located on the northeast side of Scenic Drive, west of Vista Lane. The 29,891 square-foot parcel is an irregular pentagon-shaped lot which is vacant and unimproved. The site is relatively flat near the street frontage, slopes down toward a natural swale at the center of the lot and slopes up toward the rear property line.
Vehicular access onto the site is from Scenic Drive. Developed properties surrounding the site consist ofsingle-family dwellings constructed during various decades, but predominantly in the 1950s. The site is the only undeveloped property on Scenic Drive, and adjoining neighboring streets Vista Lane and Lancashire Place.
MEFTiNr.nF 01/12/2026AGENDA ITEM NO.13
Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12, 2026
Adjacent Uses:
North - Single-Family Residential
South - Single-Family Residential
East - Single-Family Residential
West - Single-Family Residential
Adjacent Zoninq:
North - RS-2-HD (Single-Family Residential, 0-2 units per acre of site area, Hillside Development Overlay District)
South - RS-4 hlD (Single-Family Residential, 0-4 dwelling units per acre, Hillside Development Overlay District)
East - RS-4HD
West - RS-4HD
Previous Zoning Cases:
Hillside Development Permit #5107 - To allow the construction of a new 4,113 square- foot two-level single-family residence with a 533 square foot two-car attached garage and 1,057 square-foot basement and Tree Removal Permit to allow removal of one protected Coast Live Oak tree. Approved on October 7, 2009. Expired on October 20, 2011.
Project Description:
The application, Hillside Development Permit (HDP) #7134, is a request to allow a new 4,280 square-foot, two-level single-family residence above a partially below-grade 2,685 square-foot six-car garage, for a total of 6,965 square feet of floor area. An HDP is required for a new dwelling within the Hillside Overlay District. The first level includes a kitchen, dining room, living room, and half bathroom. The second level includes four bedrooms and four bathrooms. The residence would be built above a partially below- grade garage which, due to the topography, would not be visible from the street. The garage would provide six parking spaces for residents and guests. Other improvements include a 506 square-foot attached rear deck and a detached pool and spa.
A Variance is requested to allow paving across 37.5 percent of the front yard area, where a maximum of 30 percent is allowed. Two Private Tree Removal requests for the removal of one protected Coast Live Oak and one protected Olive tree are also requested.
Hearing Officer Public HearinQ:
The HDP was presented to the Hearing Officer on April 16, 2025. Staffs recommendation to the Hearing Officer was to approve the HDP. The project proposal and analysis are within the Hearing Officer Staff Report (Attachment D). At the Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12,2026
conclusion of the public hearing, and after public testimony, the Hearing Officer made the required findings in the affirmative and approved the HDP (Attachment E). On April 28, 2025, a request was filed by Sharon Bober to appeal the Hearing Officer's decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) (Attachment F). Following the appeal, a Hearing Officer addendum was submitted which provided responses to the appeal (Attachment G).
BZA Public Hearing:
On October 23, 2025, the BZA considered the appeal. Prior to the hearing, 10 public comments were received. During the public hearing, five people spoke on the item.
Concerns expressed during the hearing were primarily related to the size of the house and impacts on wildlife. Staff analysis and responses to the appeal are contained within the BZA staff report (Attachment H). At the conclusion of the public hearing, the BZA made a motion to uphold the Hearing Officer's decision, which resulted in a vote of 5-0, and approved HDP #7134 (Attachment I).
CalLfor Review:
Following the BZA hearing, on November 3, 2025 Councilmember Madison requested the HDP be called for review (Attachment J) and cited concerns related to the size of the project, neighborhood compatibility findings, and removal of protected trees. In addition, an appeal of the BZA's decision to approve the HDP was filed by John Callas, Sharon Bober, and Concerned Neighbors (Attachment K) and cited concerns related to the size of the project and environmental impacts. The appeal was submitted to preserve their appeal rights in the event that the call for review did not move forward.
On November 10, 2025, the City Council voted to call the item for review by a vote of 6-
2. Although the call for review moved forward, staff has also provided responses to the appeal points in this report.
ANALYSIS:
Hillside Development Permit: To allow the construction of a new single-familv residence The hearing before the City Council is a de novo hearing where the Council has the authority to make an entirely different decision. The City Council may approve an hlDP after making eight findings pursuant to Zoning Code Sections 17.61 .050 and 17.29.080 (Attachment A). With the exception of the requested paving Variance, the project complies with all applicable development standards. A detailed analysis of the project's applicable development standards, including the Variance, is contained within the BZA staff report (Attachment hi). A summary is provided in Table 1. This call for review report will provide detailed analysis on the size of the project (floor area and neighborhood compatibility) and tree removal applications.
Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12,2026
Table 1: Summary ofRS-4 and Hillside Overlay Development Standards Development StandardRequired/ AllowedProposedAnalysis
Maximum Gross Floor Area6,966 square feet6,965 square feetComplies Maximum Lot Coverage35% of lot size
(10,461 square feet)
13.4%
(4,003 square feet)Complies
Minimum Setbacks
Front (Scenic Drive)25'25'Complies
Side (East and West)8'-9"17'-7"'eastComplies
11'westComplies
Rear (North)25'102'-5"Complies
Maximum Height
hleight at any point28'28'Complies
Overall height35'3 r-3"Complies
Minimum ParkingTwo covered spaces [ Two spaces within garageComplies Minimum Guest ParkingTwo on-site spaces | Four spaces within garageComplies Neighborhood Compatibility | 2,761 square feet4,280 square feetRequested Average FAR18 percent14 percentComplies
Front Yard Paving30 percent37.5 percentVariance
Floor Area
In the RS-4 HD zoning district, the maximum allowable gross floor area is equal to 25 percent of the lot area plus 500 square feet. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet in size, portions of the lot equal to or greater than 50 percent slope are deducted from the lot area when calculating the maximum floor area. In addition, when the average slope of the lot exceeds 15 percent, the maximum allowable gross floor area is further reduced.
The lot area measures 29,891 square feet. 2,556 square feet of the site contains slopes equal to or are greater than 50 percent. The average slope is 25.3 percent (excluding areas sloping equal to or greater than 50 percent). Using the calculation applicable to the RS-4-HD zone, including the slope reductions, the maximum allowed floor area is 6,966 square feet. The applicant's proposal includes 6,965 square feet of floor area, which complies. This figure accounts for both floors of the dwelling and the partially below-grade garage.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Projects subject to an HDP are to consider the character and scale of existing development in the neighborhood through a neighborhood compatibility analysis. The neighborhood is comprised of lots located within a 500-foot radius of the site. The Zoning Code specifies that the allowable floor area of a proposed dwelling (excluding Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12, 2026
Page5 of 13
garages, other accessory structures, and basements) may not exceed the median floor area of existing dwellings within the 500-foot radius by more than 35 percent, unless a request is made to exceed it.
Within a 500-foot radius, there are 69 developed parcels with a median floor area of 2,045 square feet. Thirty-five percent above the median is 2,761 square feet, which is the maximum allowable house size for the site. Data obtained for the median calculation is included in Attachment C. The project includes a 4,280 square-foot dwelling and requests to exceeds neighborhood compatibility.
In 2017, the City Council approved amendments to neighborhood compatibility in response to public concerns about mansionization. The amendments introduced a minimum lot size threshold of 20,000 square feet to qualify and two additional findings to assist the decision maker in determining when it may be appropriate for a project to exceed the neighborhood compatibility standard. These new requirements were in addition to existing requirements. Prior to the amendment, any project, regardless of lot size, could request to exceed the neighborhood compatibility standard.
The project proposes a house size of 4,280 square feet where the maximum allowed, per the neighborhood compatibility analysis, is 2,761 square feet. In order to exceed neighborhood combability, the project must comply with the following requirements and two findings must be made in the affirmative:
Lot Size: The lot size must be a minimum size of 20,000 square feet.
The lot size of the proposed project is 29,891 square feet, greater than the minimum required, and complies with the requirement.
Average FAR of the Neighborhood: The project shall not exceed the average FAR of the neighborhood.
The average FAR of the neighborhood is 0.18. The average of lots within the 500-foot radius are currently developed with a floor area (excluding garages, accessory structures, basements, etc.) equal to 18 percent of a site's area. The applicant's proposal results in an FAR of 0.14, which does not exceed the average of the neighborhood, and complies with the requirement. A table demonstrating the average FAR of the neighborhood is contained within Attachment C.
Hillside District Compliance: The project shall comply with the Hillside District standards.
The project is designed to comply with applicable development standards of the Hillside District in that the project does not exceed the maximum for gross floor area, lot coverage, height, and complies with parking and setback requirements, view protection, color and architectural features. For a complete analysis on the project's compliance with the hlillside District standards, refer to Attachment H.
Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12, 2026
Additional Findings:
a. No additional view impacts will occur to neighboring properties as a result of granting additional square footage.
The project is designed so no view impact will occur. The Zoning Code requires that new improvements not be centered directly in the view of any room of a primary structure on a neighboring property (abutting properties and those directly across the street) and shall avoid blocking the following protected views:
1. Culturally significant structures such as the Rose Bowl, Colorado Street Bridge, City Hall, etc.;
2. Downslope views of the valley floor;
3. Prominent ridgelines; and/or
4. The horizon line.
Views of the open sky, existing foliage, private yards, and existing structures on surrounding properties shall not be taken into consideration by the review authority.
The proposed residence would be sited at the required front setback, in line with the established setbacks on the street and, due to topography, maintains a similar roofline height as the abutting sites. Neighboring properties generally have views of existing off-site structures, foliage, trees, and the open sky when looking toward and across the subject property. While the proposed dwelling may be in view from these properties, the surrounding properties do not have protected views that would be affected by the project. As such, no additional view impacts would occur to neighboring properties as a result of granting additional square footage.
b. The massing, scale, and building articulation of the proposed dwelling or other structure is compatible with the neighborhood as viewed from public or private streets.
The project is designed to be compatible with the massing, scale and articulation of the residences found in the neighborhood as viewed from the street. The neighborhood consists of one- and two-story dwellings which are generally located at the front setback. Architectural styles and elements vary within the neighborhood, consisting of an eclectic mix including California Ranch, Mid-century Modern, and Modern Contemporary. Many dwellings in the neighborhood feature elements such as two-story facades, second-story overhangs, covered entries, flat or slightly sloping roofs, clean lines, and expansive windows.
The proposed dwelling would have varied heights as viewed from the street due to it being set into the sloping grade, and is sited with the majority of the building massing behind the front setback, with two corners of the building near the entry being set on the front setback line. The front building line of the Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12, 2026
proposed residence is at an acute angle from street property line, which minimizes the massing and perceived height of the building from the street by placing the tallest portion of the fagade further away from the street than the shortest portion. The front elevation includes building articulation such as windows, varying wall planes, including a stepped-back portion of the fa?ade near the entry and closest to the street and a recessed covered patio with a second story overhang above, and the residence features a flat roof with clean lines, which is consistent with other dwellings in the neighborhood.
While the building does not mimic the architectural style of other buildings in the neighborhood, it incorporates common features seen within the context in a contemporary interpretation, and is designed to ensure that it will not overwhelm adjacent buildings. As such, the massing, scale, and building articulation of the proposed dwelling is compatible with that of neighboring properties as viewed from the street.
Tree Protection Ordinance and Landscaping
Carlberg Associates completed an arborist report identifying 65 on-site trees, one off- site tree, and one right-of-way tree in front of the property. Of the 65 on-site trees, 13 are protected. Of the 65 on-site trees, 34 trees (two protected, 18 non-protected native trees, and 14 non-protected non-native trees) are proposed for removal and 31 trees are proposed to remain.
The Zoning Code requires that non-protected native trees with a caliper greater than four inches be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. The project proposes to remove 18 non-protected native oak trees, and 18 new oak trees would be planted to satisfy this replacement requirement.
Maximum effort has been exercised to retain existing trees in place. Only trees which exist within the proposed building, driveway, or pool footprint or that would be impacted by grading are proposed to be removed. Existing trees beyond these areas, particularly near the center, rear and side portions of the lot are remaining.
A preliminary landscape plan identifies a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover that are proposed throughout the project site. A total of 32 trees are proposed to be planted across the site in addition to the existing 31 trees to remain. One street tree would also be planted. As such, the project would result in a total of 63 on-site trees and two right-of-way trees. Proposed trees, shrubs, and ground cover would be planted within the front, side, and rear setback areas which aid in screening the residence from the street and adjacent properties.
Tree Removal Permit: To allow removal of two protected trees As noted, the applicant proposes the removal of two protected trees including one 11.5" DBH Coast Live Oak tree (Tree #8) and one 18.7" DBH Olive tree (Tree #17). As such, a tree removal permit is requested for each tree. Each application is utilizing Finding #6 Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12, 2026
for removal, which requires that the project include a landscape design plan that emphasizes a tree canopy that is sustainable over the long term by adhering to the replacement matrix prepared by the city manager and included in the associated administrative guidelines (Attachment A).
Tree #8-11.5" DBH Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia) tree The subject Coast Live Oak tree is located within the front setback of the property and is proposed for removal due to proposed grading associated with the project. For the removal the City's Tree Replacement Matrix requires the planting of a minimum of six 15-gallon or three 24-inch box trees. Additionally, replacement trees shall be native trees. The proposed landscape plan includes the planting of three 72-inch box Coast Live Oak trees (identified as Replacement Tree 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3) which would be planted within the front yard.
Tree #17- 18.7" DBH Olive (Olea Europaea) tree
The subject Olive tree is located within the east side setback of the property and is proposed for removal as it conflicts with the location of the proposed driveway. For the removal the City's Tree Replacement Matrix requires the planting of a minimum of eight 24-inch box or four 36-inch box trees. The proposed landscape plan includes the planting of four 36-inch box Olive trees (identified as Replacement Tree 17.1, 17.2,
17.3, and 17.4) which would be planted between the proposed residence and pool near the east side setback.
Including the replacement trees for Tree #8 and Tree #17, a total of 32 on-site trees would be planted as part of the project in addition to the existing 31 on-site trees proposed to remain. Therefore, the project includes a landscape plan which emphasizes a tree canopy and satisfies the replacement requirements for Finding #6 to allow for the removal of the protected trees.
Variance: To exceed the maximum front yard paving permitted The Zoning Code requires that not more than 30 percent of the front setback area, between the street property line and building line, shall be paved. The project proposes a 15-foot-wide driveway which leads to a below-grade garage and a six-foot-wide walkway which connects the sidewalk to the front door of the residence, resulting in
37.5 percent paving in the front setback area. The shape of the lot, narrow street frontage, and the placement of the proposed residence creates a unique condition at the subject site that does not apply generally to sites in the same zoning district. Without a Variance, the subject site could not accommodate the required driveway or the proposed walkway to the front door. The remaining areas of front yard would be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and groundcovers, thus maintaining a landscaped front setback compatible with properties in the vicinity.
Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12, 2026
Submitted Appeal and Staff Responses:
On November 3, 2025, a request was filed by John Callas, Sharon Bober, and Concerned Neighbors to appeal the BZA's decision to approve the HDP to the City Council (Attachment K). The appeal was submitted to preserve their appeal rights in the event that a call for review did not move forward. Although this is a Call for Review, a summary of the appeal points and staff's responses are provided below:
1. Neighborhood Compatibility. The BZA was incorrect in approving additional square footage over the maximum allowed for neighborhood compatibility, and that the house is not in scale or compatible with the neighborhood.
Staff's Response: The Zoning Code states that for lots larger than 20,000 square feet the review authority may approve additional floor area if the standards are met for allowing the additional square footage and the two required findings can be met. After review of the evidence and information provided and given the standards can be met that allow the additional square footage, the Board of Zoning Appeals made the findings to approve the request to exceed neighborhood compatibility.
2. Biological Resources. The Constraints Analysis and Biological Resources report are inadequate and incomplete.
Staff's Response: The applicant submitted a Biological Resources Report prepared by Bargas Environmental Consulting evaluating potential for sensitive environmental resources including endangered plants or animals, trees protected by the City's Tree Protection Ordinance, riparian areas, or a wildlife corridor (Attachment M). The report indicates that due to significant existing human site disturbances and residential development in the area, the site is unlikely to be of importance to wildlife movement and the project would not significantly affect wildlife movement. Further, the applicant's biologist (England Ecology, LLC) provided a letter indicating that the project site is within a developed residential neighborhood and not part of a wildlife movement corridor (Attachment N). The letter notes that the presence of wildlife in an area is not an indicator of a movement corridor, and that development of the site could not feasibly impact wildlife movement corridors.
Staff reviewed the Biological Resources Report and determined it was adequate, as it discusses project location, special status species, and wildlife movement.
The report concludes that the project is in an established residential neighborhood, no special status biological resources were observed on or in the vicinity of the property and none have more than a low potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the site, and that the project is unlikely to have an effect on wildlife movement and is not located near preserved areas or significant ecological areas identified by the County of Los Angeles. The site is a vacant lot in an established and developed neighborhood between two abutting developed lots. To ensure the project is consistent with regulations protecting biological resources, a condition of approval is included requiring a nesting bird survey to be conducted Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12, 2026
if construction occurs during bird season.
3. Environmental Impact. The project would result in excessive amounts of grading which would impact the on-site existing trees, the neighborhood, and the overall environment.
Staff's Response: The proposed project aims to preserve as many existing trees as feasible by only removing those trees necessary to accommodate the building footprint and improvements. The proposed dwelling would utilize a relatively sma// footprint as the floors have a stacked design, minimizing the building footprint and overall alteration to the hillside topography.
The project includes a landscape plan with replacement trees and therefore, the tree canopy of the site and character of the neighborhood would be maintained.
Of the 65 existing on-site trees, 34 trees (two protected, 18 nonprotected native trees, and 14 nonprotected nonnative trees) are proposed for removal to accommodate the project and 31 trees are proposed to remain. 32 new trees would be planted on-site. Conditions of approval #12 through #16 are included to ensure a tree protection plan is provided for existing trees to remain, that the project provide the required replacement trees, and that the trees are planted in a manner that ensures survival. The lot is in a developed neighborhood where many other homes have been constructed, During construction, any vehicles associated with grading are subject to conditions of approval from the Department of Public Works that require a lead pilot vehicle and flag person for large construction vehicles and additional approval for vehicles over 35 feet long, regulated hours when large vehicles can be operated, the prohibition of construction activities from obstructing access to driveways of adjacent properties, and approval of a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan.
4. Landscape Plan. Replacement trees are not sustainable over the long term.
Staff's Response: The project includes a landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Conditions of approval #12 through #16 are included to ensure a tree protection plan is provided for existing trees to remain, that the project provide the required replacement trees, and that the trees are planted in a manner that ensures survival.
5. Excavation and Grading. Proposed retaining walls exceed allowable heights.
Staff's Response: The retaining walls mentioned in the Geotechnical Report are referring to interior walls of the partially below-grade garage which would be retaining adjacent dirt. Retaining portions of these walls would not be visible, being below grade and part of the proposed structure. The driveway and associated retaining wall would be below existing grade. The height of the driveway retaining walls shall not exceed eight feet in height as viewed in the vertical plane, in compliance with Building and Safety requirements. Conditions of approval are included from the Building and Safety Division related to retaining iva//s. S/'te grading, retaining walls, structural foundations, and all methods of Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12, 2026
retention shall comply with the requirements of the Building Code.
6. Construction Plan. The project would result in excessive amount of grading which would impact the wildlife corridor and neighborhood.
Staff's Response: An objective of the Hillside Overlay is to preserve significant natural topographic features, including swales, canyons, knolls, ridgelines, and rock outcrops, riparian vegetation, natural streambeds, and woodlands to the maximum extent feasible. While it is recognized that development may necessarily affect natural features, a major design objective shall be to minimize these impacts. To minimize disturbance to existing features, the proposed dwelling would be sited at the 25-foot front setback, primarily within areas with 0 to 15 percent slope. In general, areas of the lot with slopes 15 to 50 percent and greater are located to the center and rear of the lot along with a natural swale. As such, the design avoids steeply sloped areas to the maximum extent feasible while preserving a natural swale. Additionally, the proposed dwelling would utilize a relatively small footprint as the floors have a stacked design, minimizing the building footprint and overall alteration to the hillside topography.
Siting the residence on other portions of the lot would require additional grading, and disturbance of steep sloped areas and an existing swale at the center of the lot. As such, the project is designed to minimize alteration to natural topographic features to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the Hillside Overlay.
Any vehicles associated with grading and construction are subject to conditions of approval from Public Works. Also see response to #2 above.
COUNCIL POLICY CONSIDERATION:
General Plan Consistency:
The subject property is designated Low Density Residential in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This designation corresponds to lots that are characterized by a variety of single-family dwellings, ample open space, extensive landscaping, and separations between single-family dwellings and/or accessory buildings. The proposed single-famity dwelling is consistent with the applicable designation, would maintain ample open space, and include extensive landscaping. Separation to neighboring single-family dwellings would be maintained.
The project would maintain consistency with General Plan Land Use Element Policies
21.9 (Hillside hlousing) and 22.2 (Garages and Accessory Structures). Policy 21.9 requires housing to maintain appropriate scale, massing and access to residential structures located in hillside areas. The proposal complies with applicable development standards in the City's Zoning Code. The proposed dwelling would have a two-story appearance as viewed from the street and is sited at the front setback. The front building line of the proposed residence at an acute angle from street property line, which minimizes the massing and perceived height of the building from the street.
Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12,2026
The front elevation includes building articulation such as windows, varying wall planes, including a stepped-back portion of the facade near the entry and closest to the street and a recessed covered patio with a second story overhang above, and the residence features a flat roof with clean lines, which is consistent with other dwellings in the neighborhood. In addition, access would be provided by a driveway off Scenic Drive, consistent with properties in the neighborhood. Policy 22.2 emphasizes locating and designing garages and accessory structures, so they do not dominate the appearance of the dwelling from the street. The project has located the garage below grade, beneath the dwelling, which minimizes its appearance. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element.
E NVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
This project has been determined to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21080(b)(9); Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3, §15303, Class 3, New Construction) and there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class; therefore, there are no unusual circumstances. Section 15303 exempts the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, which include, but are not limited to, one single-family residence in a residential zone.
The site is a vacant lot in a developed neighborhood, with abutting residences on both sides and existing streets and infrastructure to service the site. The proposal is exempt from environmental review.
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes that the findings necessary for approving the Hillside Development Permit, Variance, and Tree Removal Permit can be made (Attachment A). With the exception of the requested Variance for front yard paving, the proposed project meets all applicable development standards of the Zoning Code. Existing views and privacy would be maintained as the house is located closer to the street with the massing behind the street view. There are no protected views from adjacent sites or ridgeline impacts. The site is an in-fill lot in a developed neighborhood and is not an established wildlife corridor.
The request for additional floor area above the maximum permitted by Neighborhood Compatibility would be below the average FAR of the neighborhood and would be consistent with the neighborhood as viewed from the street while minimizing view impacts to adjacent residences. The two protected trees proposed for removal would be replaced as part of a comprehensive landscape plan that meets all requirements of the Zoning Code. Staff recommends the City Council uphold the BZA's decision and approve HDP #7134 with the findings in Attachment A and recommended conditions of approval in Attachment B.
Hillside Development Permit #7134
January 12, 2026
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of this action.
Respectfully submitted,
Prepared by:
6^fo^<^-^'-
JENNIFER'PAIGE,
Director of Planning & Community
Development Department
Concurred by:
lAltMH^\
Weaverse
Planner
Luiocha
Plningnager
Approved by:
^'^D ^==-
^RQUEZ
City Manager
Attachments (14):
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
Attachment K:
Attachment L:
Attachment M:
Attachment N:
Specific Findings
Conditions of Approval
Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis
Hearing Officer Staff Report (dated April 16, 2025, without attachments) Hearing Officer Decision Letter (dated April 22, 2025)
hiearing Officer Appeal Application (dated April 28, 2025) Hearing Officer Addendum (dated August 27,2025)
BZA Staff Report (dated October 23, 2025, without attachments) BZA Decision Letter (dated October 27,2025)
Request for Call for Review (dated November 3, 2025)
BZA Appeal Application (dated November 3,2025)
Project Plans
Biological Resources Report
Biologist Letter (dated October 20, 2025)