Planning & Community Development Department
Call for Review
Hillside Development Permit #7134
1530 Scenic Drive
City Council
January 12, 2026
Planning & Community Development Department
Project Description
2 • Hillside Development Permit: To allow the construction of a new 4,280 square-foot, two-level single-family residence, built above a partially below grade 2,685 square-foot six-car garage.
• Variance: To allow 37.5 percent paving in the front setback area where a maximum 30 percent is allowed.
• Tree Removal Permits: To allow removal of two protected trees: One 11.5” DBH Coast Live Oak tree and one 18.7” DBH Olive tree.
Planning & Community Development Department
Hearing Officer Public Hearing
• April 16, 2025 – Hearing Officer Approved the HDP
• April 28, 2025 – Appeal application filed by Sharon Bober
1. Neighborhood Compatibility.
2. Biological Resources.
3. Excess Grading.
4. Trees.
5. CEQA Exemption.
6. Variance for Excess Hardscape.
7. Construction Management Plan.
3 Planning & Community Development Department
BZA Public Hearing
• October 23, 2025 – BZA Meeting
> Staff recommended approval of the project.
> 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.
> BZA approved the HDP with a vote of 5-0, with no modifications to the project or conditions.
4 Planning & Community Development Department
Call for Review
• November 3, 2025 – Request for Call for Review
> Councilmember Madison requested the HDP be called for review due to concerns related to:
• Size of the home;
• Neighborhood compatibility findings; and
• Removal of protected trees
> An application to appeal the BZA’s decision was also filed. • November 10, 2025 – Council voted to Call for Review
> The City Council voted to call the item for review by a vote of 6-2. 5 Planning & Community Development Department
Aerial Map
6 Planning & Community Development Department
Site Plan
7 Proposed Building Footprint
Planning & Community Development Department
Rendering – Street View
8 Proposed Residence
Adjacent Residence
Planning & Community Development Department
Rendering, Rear View
9 Planning & Community Development Department
HDP Review Process
10 Hillside
Development
Permit
• 8 findings
• Review of Hillside
Developement
Standards:
Floor Area Ratio
Height
Setbacks
Lot Coverage
View Protection
Color
Parking
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Analysis
• Homes within 500’ of site
• 35% above the median
is the standard
Request to Exceed
Neighborhood
Compatibility
• 2 additional findings
• Qualifying Criteria:
Lot over 20,000 sf
Below average FAR of
neighborhood
Complies with HD
standards
Planning & Community Development Department
Size of Residence
11 • There are two requirements that regulate floor area of proposed structures:
> Floor Area Ratio.
> Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis.
Planning & Community Development Department
Size of Residence-FAR
• Floor Area Ratio establishes max size of home and structures, including garage, relative to the lot size.
> Areas of the lot equal to or greater than 50 percent slope are removed. > Further reductions for lots that have an average slope greater than 15% 12 Lot Size Area Sloped >50% Average Slope Allowed FAR Proposed FAR 29,891 sq. ft. 2,556 sq. ft. 25.3% 6,966 sq. ft. 6,965 sq. ft.
Planning & Community Development Department
Size of Residence-Neighborhood Compatibility
• Neighborhood Compatibility analysis establishes max size of the home relative to the neighborhood (500 ft radius).
> Analysis does not include garages, accessory structures, basements. > Neighborhood Compatibility is 35 percent above the median floor area of the existing homes.
> The applicant requests to exceed neighborhood compatibility. 13 Neighborhood Compatibility Proposed Home Size
2,761 sq. ft. 4,280 sq. ft.
Planning & Community Development Department
Neighborhood Compatibility
• Lot Size
> The lot size must be a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. The project site is 29,891 square feet in size.
• Average FAR of the Neighborhood
> The project shall not exceed the average FAR (home/lot size) of the neighborhood. The average FAR of the neighborhood is 0.18. The project provides an FAR of 0.14. • Hillside District Compliance
> The project shall comply with the Hillside District standards. The project meets the standards. • Additional Findings
> No additional view impacts will occur to neighboring properties as a result of granting additional square footage.
> 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. 14 To exceed neighborhood combability, the project must comply with all the following requirements and two additional findings must be made:
Planning & Community Development Department
Neighborhood Compatibility Cont.
First finding to exceed Neighborhood Compatibility:
“No additional view impacts will occur to neighboring properties as a result of granting additional square footage.”
> New improvements shall not be centered directly in the view of any room of a primary structure on a neighboring property and shall avoid blocking the following protected views:
Culturally significant structures such as the Rose Bowl, Colorado Street Bridge, City Hall, etc.; Downslope views of the valley floor;
Prominent ridgelines; and/or
The horizon line
> Neighboring properties generally have views of existing structures, foliage, trees, and the open sky when looking toward and across the subject property. These views are not protected by the Zoning Code.
15 Planning & Community Development Department
Neighborhood Compatibility Cont.
16 Second finding to exceed Neighborhood Compatibility:
“The massing, scale, and building articulation of the proposed dwelling is compatible with the neighborhood as viewed from public or private streets.” > The proposed dwelling provides a two-story elevation at the street and is located at the required front setback, consistent with the adjacent development pattern. > The front building line of the residence is at an acute angle from street property line, which minimizes the massing and perceived height of the building from the street. The larger massing is visible from the rear elevation, not the street elevation. > The front elevation includes compatible building articulation such as windows, varying wall planes, step-backs and recessed entry, and a covered patio.
Planning & Community Development Department
Variance: Front Yard Paving
17 Applicant proposes a Variance to exceed
paving allowed in front yard.
> Maximum allowed paving is 30% of the front
yard (827 sf).
> The project proposes 37.5 % (1,036 sf) to allow a
front walkway and the minimum 15’ driveway
width.
> Unique conditions to support the Variance
include:
Shape of the lot
Narrow street frontage
Placement of the proposed residence
> Remaining areas of the front yard will be
landscaped with trees, shrubs, and
groundcover
Planning & Community Development Department
The property has a total of 65 trees.
34 are proposed for removal and 31 are proposed to remain. > Of the 34 trees to be removed, 20 require replacement. 25 replacement trees are provided:
> In addition, the applicant is proposing 7 additional trees.
Total proposed trees is 63, comprised of existing and proposed.
Trees
18 Protected trees proposed for removal
Number of Trees Species DBH Required Replacement Proposed Replacement 2 Trees Tree #8 - Coast Live Oak 11.5 DBH 3 x 24” box trees 3 x 72” box Coast Live Oaks Tree #17 - Olive 18.7 DBH 4 x 36” box trees 4 x 36” box Olive Trees Non-protected native trees proposed for removal
Number of Trees Species DBH Required Replacement Proposed Replacement 18 trees Coast Live Oak >4-inch caliper 1:1 18 Coast Live Oaks provided Non-protected non-native trees proposed for removal
Number of Trees Species DBH Required Replacement Proposed Replacement 14 trees Varies Varies None 7 Extra Trees
Planning & Community Development Department
Concerns and Staff Responses
1. Neighborhood Compatibility. The BZA was incorrect in approving additional square footage over the maximum allowed for neighborhood compatibility, and the house is not in scale or compatible with the neighborhood.
> After review of the evidence and information provided and given the applicable 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 and the City’s CEQA consultant reviewed the Constraints Analysis submitted by the applicant and determined it was adequate. The report was prepared by a Biologist with Bargas Environmental Consulting. The project is not within nor adjacent to conserved areas or Significant Ecological Areas as identified by LA County, the nearest is 3.5 miles away. No wildlife corridor crosses through the site.
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. > The project aims to preserve as many existing trees as feasible by only removing trees necessary to accommodate the building footprint and improvements. Grading is regulated by the Building Code and must meet all applicable code requirements.
19 Planning & Community Development Department
Appeal and Staff Responses cont.
4. Landscape Plan. Replacement trees are not sustainable over the long term. > The project includes a landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Conditions of approval 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. > 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 requiring that site grading, retaining walls, structural foundations, and all methods of retention shall comply with the requirements of the Building Code which includes preparation by licensed professionals.
6. Construction Plan. The project would result in excessive amount of grading which would impact the wildlife corridor and neighborhood.
> The design avoids steeply sloped areas to the maximum extent feasible while preserving a natural swale.
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. A Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan will be required.20
Planning & Community Development Department
Staff Recommendation
• Staff recommends 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
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.
21 Planning & Community Development Department
Call for Review
Hillside Development Permit #7134
1530 Scenic Drive
City Council
January 12, 2026
Front Yard: 2,759 SQ. FT.
Max Front Yard Paving: 827 SQ. FT. (30%)
Proposed Paving: 1,036 SQ. FT. (37.5%)
209 SQ. FT over the max.
• Driveway: 865 SQ. FT. (31.3%)
• Walkway: 171 SQ. FT. (6.2%)
Planning & Community Development Department
Site Visit Photos
29 View looking south on Scenic Drive
PROJECT SITE
Planning & Community Development Department
Site Visit Photos
30View looking north on Scenic Drive
PROJECT SITE
Planning & Community Development Department
Site Visit Photos
31 Viewed from Scenic Drive Viewed from Scenic Drive
Planning & Community Development Department
Site Visit Photos
32 Photo looking into the property Photo looking into the property Planning & Community Development Department
Site Visit Photos
33 Photo looking into the property Photo looking into the property Planning & Community Development Department
Site Visit Photos
34 On-site photo looking to the southerly neighbor On-site photo looking to the northerly neighbor Planning & Community Development Department
Site Visit Photos
35 Existing on-site walls
On-site photo looking towards the street
Planning & Community Development Department
Renderings
36 Planning & Community Development Department
Renderings
37 Planning & Community Development Department
Renderings
38 Planning & Community Development Department
Colors and Materials
Planning & Community Development Department
Elevations
40 South Elevation (Front) North Elevation (Rear)
Existing Grade
Height Limit
Planning & Community Development Department
Elevations
41 East Elevation (Side) West Elevation (Side)
Existing Grade
Height Limit
Planning & Community Development Department
Tree Removal
42 Protected trees proposed for removal
Tree # Species DBH Required
Replacement
Proposed
Replacement
Tree #8 Coast
Live Oak
11.5 DBH
3 x 24” box
trees
3 x 72” box
Coast Live Oaks
Tree #17 Olive 18.7
DBH
4 x 36” box
trees
4 x 36” box
Olive Trees
Non-protected native trees proposed for removal
Tree # Species DBH Required
Replacement
Proposed
Replacement
18 trees Coast
Live Oak
>4-
inch
caliper
1:1 18 Coast Live
Oaks providedTree Removal and
Protection Plan
Non-protected native trees proposed for
Removal
Protected trees proposed for Removal
Planning & Community Development Department
Tree Replacement Plan
43 Tree Planting
Plan
Landscape
Plan
Proposed tree
Planning & Community Development Department
Neighborhood Compatibility Cont.
44 Existing Grade
Height Limit
1550 Scenic Drive
1508 Scenic Drive
Front elevation from the street
Rendered view from the street
Planning & Community Development Department
Development Standards
45 Planning & Community Development Department
Neighborhood Compatibility
46 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.