TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Isidro Figueroa, Community Development Director
Camillia Martinez, Associate Planner
DATE: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW
CASE NO. 21-25 & 21-73 AT 1408 WILSON AVENUE FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY 418 SQUARE-FOOT
ADDITION (SIGO GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC)
STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Neighborhoods
Well-Maintained Infrastructure
BACKGROUND
The project involves the construction of a 287 square-foot one-story addition and a 131 square-foot second-story addition to an existing 2,522 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence. The project is located on a 13,657 squarefoot interior lot in the R-1 zone, Area District VII. The requires two design review actions pursuant to City Code Sections 23.15.03(A2)(A3). • DR 21-25
o An addition or alteration to an existing residential or commercial structure which: adds or expands a second story
• DR 21-73
o An addition or alteration to an existing residential or commercial structure which: Extends the length of any side of the primary residential structure or commercial structure by the greater of twenty five percent (25%) or ten feet (10').
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
The proposed exterior modifications include the introduction of a new doublegable perpendicular to the existing gable roof of the home, a new shed dormer, and the replacement of wood-siding with natural wood shingle cladding in a Mist Gray color.
The project includes the following proposal not subject to design review:
• An attached covered patio to the rear of the home;
• The replacement of an existing composition shingle roof with CertainTeed Landmark TL composition shingle roofing material in the Shenandoah color; and
• A 74 square-foot addition to the existing 525 square-foot 2-car garage for extra storage.
PROJECT HISTORY
On November 17, 2021, the DRC reviewed and continued the proposed project to a date uncertain so the applicant could address comments made by the DRC. At the public hearing, the DRC requested the following changes (a response as to how the applicant addressed the DRC comments is provided below the comments).
• More appropriate front window placement
o The proposed double hung window at the top of the proposed new gable was relocated to be in the center of the gable.
• Provide the parkway width on the plans
o The parkway is shown on the site plan as 12 feet.
• Oak Tree concerns with the proposed construction
o The arborist report was updated on May 16, 2022, and the licensed arborist's conclusion and recommendations found that the listed tree protection measures be implemented to minimize the impacts of the proposed construction.
• The proposed detached garage become an additional DRC action o The project incorporates a DRC action, DR 22-43 for an accessory structure visible from public view which exceeds six hundred (600) square feet in total lot coverage
• Consistent and accurate scope of work on the plans
o The project description has been updated to accurately reflect the scope of work
• Scale and massing
o The applicant has decided not to reduce the square footage of the proposal as they feel the proposed addition is not increasing the height of the existing structure and not increasing the width of the existing structure. Additionally, with the proposed additions, the total livable area will be smaller than the adjacent neighbors existing residences.
On September 7, 2022, the DRC reviewed the project plans which indicated that the proposed garage addition was reduced to total 599 square feet. By reducing the garage addition to total 599 sqaure feet, the previous design review action associated with the garage addition was no longer required and is subject to an administrative review. DRC reviewed the amended plans and continued the proposed project to a date uncertain in order for the applicant to address comments made by the DRC. At the public hearing, the DRC requested the following changes (a response as to how the applicant addressed the DRC comments is provided below the comments). • Concerns about the proposed size of the 3-car garage. o The garage addition has been reduced to only add 74 square feet for storage.
• The removal of the proposed awning design.
o The proposed awning has been removed and new wood trim around the door is being proposed.
• Eliminate one or both windows next to the chimney.
o The applicant has decided to keep both windows.
• Provide a change in the window type and style of the front windows to simulate an elongated design.
o The windows have been changed from double-hung to casement to provide an elongated design.
On October 19, 2022, DRC approved the project during a public hearing with an added condition that the tree preservation plan must be strictly enforced with the supervision of the City's Urban Forester. On November 3, 2023, the project was appealed by Ming Chung Cheng, Rebecca Hu, Kenneth & Beatrice Li, and Shirley Jagels (“appellants”).
On January 25, 2023, the Planning Commission (Commission) reviewed and continued the proposed project to a date uncertain. At the public hearing, the PC requested the following changes (a response as to how the applicant addressed the PC comments is provided below).
• The project is not a Cape Cod style on the front façade. Cape Cod style needs to be more simplistic and not feature a double gable roof, as the current roof plan is too chaotic.
o The front roof design has been changed from a double gable to a single gable.
• Large shed dormers are found on Cape Cod styles. The proposed dormers should be broken up into 3 smaller dormers. There should not be a long stretch of windows in the dormers. You would typically see 3 separate shed dormers with the window frame being the exact size of the dormer shed. You would only have siding on the sides of the dormer, and there would be even spacing in between the dormers. Or you might see a single shed dormer as shown on the plans with windows evenly spaced across the shed.
o As proposed, the applicant has decided to keep the single dormer to the front facade. The applicant did change the window to be evenly spaced and added wood singles to the sides.
• The other windows are odd shaped horizontal little windows that you would not see on a Cape Cod.
o The applicant has decided to keep the horizontal windows next to the chimney because they add to the interior design element of a bookcase/curio cases located next to the chimney. The proposed shutters are removed to provide a more simplistic appearance. • The exterior light fixtures are unsuitable for Cape Code and unshielded, creating a nuisance for the neighbors. The lights on the front façade serve no purpose and should be under the porch entry.
o The exterior light fixtures have been removed from the plans. • There is an inconsistency where the arborist report states no turf should be planted under the Oak tree, and the Landscape plan shows turf under the Oak Tree.
o The landscape plan under page L-2.01A has been updated to show bark under the Oak Tree.
• The side-facing elevations have no articulation and have too much solid massing.
o The proposal is to add 11 feet to the rear of the existing residence.
The applicant believes adding 11 feet to the existing structure and adding a wood shingle façade does not create a massing problem. • The wood shingle siding should be throughout the home and not only on the front elevation.
o The applicant is now proposing to include wood shingles throughout the residence and detached garage.
• Story poles should be placed and that the rear yard can be available to be accessed.
o Staff previously stated to PC that story poles were not installed on the property. The applicant brought to our attention that they had previously installed story poles for the first DRC meeting on November 17, 2021. The applicant provided photos, as shown in attachment #11, and indicated that the previous story poles were up for one year.
o The applicant will arrange times for PC to visit the project site.
On November 21, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 23-19 (Attachment 1) upholding the DRC’s approval with the incorporation of the aforementioned changes. On December 5, 2023, the appellants filed an appeal for DR 21-25 (second-story addition) and DR 21-73 (side extension of more than 10 feet) for the following reasons:
1. The addition of the enclosed living space on the west side (the new family room) would protrude and extend from the existing footprint of the house and will directly block the view of the house at 1406 Wilson Avenue. Also, the rear addition will block access to light, air, openness, and ambiance for the house at 1410 Wilson Avenue.
2. The appellant cites that allowing the rear family room addition with an attached patio will directly reduce the space between the main house and the detached garage. Additionally, reducing the separation between the structures will increase the hardship of having to deal with the nuisance of car noise, vibration, and exhaust fumes on a daily basis.
3. The appellant contends the proposed addition to the rear of the home will disturb the root system of the oak tree on the adjacent property of 1406 Wilson Avenue and is likely to result in a decline in health.
4. The appellant states that the proposed 74 square foot addition to the existing 2-car garage is a loophole to have a 3-car garage. Also, the addition will increase air pollution and noise for the neighbors.
5. The appellant cites that all of the proposed construction will be a significant detriment to the air quality, noise, and unobscured view of each of the neighboring properties.
6. The appellant contends that the applicant, SIGO GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC is a developer who will adversely and significantly affect the status quo and the enjoyment of their homes as neighbors.
7. The appellant states the applicant failed to communicate with the neighbors regarding their plans and failed to make the proposed design more amenable to the neighborhood concerns. They also feel railroaded by the applicant and City Staff on their rights to enjoy their homes.
8. The appellant believes that there was a failure in due process for the public hearing noticing of the October 25, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting.
On February 14, 2024, the City Council conducted a review of the appeal and voted to hear the project de novo at a future meeting. The City Council directed the applicant to demonstrate how the rear yard oak tree would not be harmed as part of the proposal.
DISCUSSION
The applicant’s licensed arborist, under the direction of the City Urban Forester, excavated the project area to determine if any significant roots were present. Additionally, the applicant has changed the proposed foundation from a continuous raised foundation to three foundation piers.
The updated arborist report (Attachment #5) concludes the areas excavated for the three foundation piers did not have any significant roots. The City’s Urban Forester has reviewed the report and has also concluded the proposed three-pier foundation will not impact the existing oak tree. The applicant’s plan(Attachment #2) has been updated to include the foundation changes.
TREE PRESERVATION
There are no trees proposed to be removed as part of the scope of work. The Arborist Report (Attachment 5) recommends protective fencing around trees 777, 778, 783, 784, 785, 786, and OS-1 (located off-site) prior to the start of construction to remain in place for the duration of the construction.
HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
The subject property is not identified on the Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING
The project is for the construction of an approximately 418 square-foot, first and second-story addition to an existing approximately 2,522 square-foot, single-family home. Pursuant to Section 21084 of the California Public Resource Code, the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Sections 15301 and 15303, Class 1 and Class 3, and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.
NEIGHBOR APPROVAL/OBJECTION LETTERS
Approve – 3
Object – 2
No response – 6
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 23.15.08, the San Marino City Code states that the DRC shall approve the application if it finds all of the following to be true:
1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the
neighborhood.
The existing two-story residence closely resembles a Cape Cod style home. The legal neighborhood is composed primarily of two-story homes in a variety of architectural styles including Craftsman, Minimal Traditional, and Colonial Revival. The project proposes a 418 squarefoot addition to the first and second-story of the home and exterior modifications. The exterior modification to the street-facing façade of the home includes the introduction of a new front-facing single gable, shutters, casement windows, and wood singles. The new front-facing gable will project approximately 4 feet from the existing façade, and the shed dormer will be aligned with the windows found on the main body of the home. The proposed addition in the rear will create a new family room with 189 square feet of additional living area and a 319 squarefoot covered patio area.
The additions and introduction of the front-facing gable will maintain the architectural style of the home and break up the bulk of the steep roof that is currently visible. The new front-facing gable will articulate the façade while maintaining the overall massing of the home and will therefore be compatible with the neighborhood.
The existing wood siding is proposed to be removed and replaced with wood shingle cladding. Natural wood shingle is a common wall-cladding material found on Cape Cod style homes. The legal neighborhood exhibits a variety of natural wall cladding materials, including brick and wood-siding. The change from wood-siding to wood shingle will be compatible with the natural cladding materials found throughout the neighborhood.
As such, this project meets this finding.
2. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the
reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this code.
Based on the project plans, the proposed addition in the rear will extend the footprint of the existing home by approximately 11 feet to the rear and will continue the same plate height of 8 feet 4 inches as the existing first floor. The adjacent property (1406 Wilson Ave.), nearest to the proposed first-floor addition is improved with a second-story home that extends approximately the same footprint as the proposed addition.
There is an existing large oak tree canopy between both neighbors which provides an additional privacy buffer. Based on the adjacent building's configuration and the location of the existing oak tree canopy, the addition is not anticipated to impact any adjacent neighbors' privacy.
The second-floor addition is only to the front of the house and will not produce an impact on the privacy of any adjacent neighbors.
Therefore, this project meets this finding.
3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines.
The proposed front-facing gable will break up the expansive roof and maintain the same 12:12 roof pitch found along the front façade while the new gable dormer and rear yard addition will match the 3.75:12 roof pitch found on the back of the home. The rear elevation currently features a large second-story massing that appears top heavy. The proposed rear yard addition will provide balance to the rear façade and will be compatible with the existing building.
Therefore, this project meets this finding.
4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.
The project includes the removal of existing wood siding and installation of natural wood shingle in a Mist Gray color. This material will be applied consistently throughout the façade of the home. The proposed addition in the rear will feature La Habra stucco cladding, CertainTeed Landmark TL composition shingle roofing material in the Shenandoah color, and Pella Lifestyle aluminum-clad windows in a white color; these materials will be consistent and match the materials found on the home.
Therefore, this project meets this finding.
FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
None are associated with this action.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information submitted to the record, staff recommends that the City Council; (1) determine that based on the whole of the administrative record, that the proposed addition is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 & Class 3, and that there is no substantial evidence demonstrating an exception to the categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies; (2) find that the proposed project meets the required findings; and (3) approve the project.
If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the project as presented and find that the proposed project meets the required findings and determine that based on the whole of the administrative record, that the proposed addition is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 & Class 3, and that there is no substantial evidence demonstrating an exception to the categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution PCR 23-19
2. Project Plans
3. Neighborhood Map
4. Neighborhood Input Letters
5. Revised Arborist Report Dated April 8, 2024
6. Appeal Documentation
7. Story Pole Photos
8. City Council Resolution R-24-23
9. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 25, 2023