P1. Other Identifier: None
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted
*a. County: Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: El Monte Date: 1994 T1S; R12W; of of Sec B.M. c. Address: 1469 Bradbury Road City: San Marino Zip: 91108 d. UTM (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone: , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate): APN 5332-015-016.
*P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries):
The single-story Minimal Traditional-style residence faces Bradbury Road, measures 1,944 square feet, and features an ‘L’-shaped footprint. The building has a low-pitched hip roof clad in shingles. Additional features include brick veneer and board and batten siding on the primary façade. The remaining facades are clad in stucco. The subject property features numerous casement and single-hung windows. The detached garage is located on the southwest corner of the lot and is clad in stucco to match the primary residence. (See Continuation Sheet page 4) *P3b. Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes): HP2 Single-Family Property *P4. Resources Present: ☒Building ☐Structure ☐Object ☐Site ☐District ☐Element of District ☐Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo (view, date, accession #):
Eastern Facade
View West
October 27, 2021
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
☒Historic ☐Prehistoric ☐Both
1951 LA County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:
Ms. Patty Chan
1469 Bradbury Road
San Marino, CA 91108
*P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address):
Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
430 N. Halstead Street
Pasadena, CA 91107
*P9. Date Recorded: October 27, 2021
*P10. Survey Type (Describe): Intensive
*P11. Report Citation (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none"): Sapphos Environmental, Inc. October 2021. Historical Resources Assessment Report for 1469 Bradbury Road, San Marino, California 91108 P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) PAGE 308 of 360
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): 1469 Bradbury Road *NRHP Status Code: 6Z
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
B1. Historic Name: 1469 Bradbury Road
B2. Common Name: 1469 Bradbury Road
B3. Original Use: Single-family residence B4. Present Use: Single-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The subject property is located within Tract No. 11360. The tract consisted of 55 lots relatively similar in size, with rectangular footprints. The tract was surveyed by Chalmers and Barnett in November 1938. The tract is located within San Marino Highlands. The highlands were advertised in the Los Angeles Times: Realty Activities. The advertisements highlighted model homes in a new sub-division in 1940. Aerial photographs indicate that by 1948, the majority of lots on the 1400 block of Bradbury Rd. were completely developed with single-family residences. The subject property was constructed in 1951, indicating it remained part of the latter infill of properties on the tract. The City building permits did not identify an architect associated with the building project. The building contractor according to City building permits is Arcadia-based builder F.M. Hildebrandt. There is no additional information available regarding F.M.
Hildebrandt. (See Continuation Sheet page 8)
*B7. Moved? ☒ No ☐ Yes ☐ Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: F.M. Hilderbrandt
*B10. Significance: Theme: Minimal Traditional Area: San Marino Period of Significance: 1951 Property Type: Residence Applicable Criteria: N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The period of significance pertaining to Minimal Traditional buildings was 1935-1950. The subject property was constructed in 1951. The City of San Marino Postwar Residential Development, 1945- 1980. (See Continuation Sheet page 9)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes): N/A *B12. References: See Continuation Sheet page 11.
*B13. Remarks: N/A
*B14. Evaluator:
Scott Torres
Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
430 N. Halstead Street
Pasadena, CA 91107
*Date of Evaluation: October 27, 2021
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
(This space reserved for official comments.)
PAGE 309 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995) (Word 9/2013) * Required information
*Map Name: El Monte *Scale: 1: 24,000 *Date of map: 1994 PAGE 310 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
*P3a. Description: (Continued from Primary Record page 1) The primary façade is asymmetrical with a recessed entrance and long driveway extending from the street to the back yard. The primary facade is clad in wood board-and-batten siding. The primary façade contains five rectangular windows. Three extant windows are vinyl single-hung, one-overone windows. The window flanking the entry door is a rectangular fixed window, featuring two casement side-light windows. The extant windows on the southern and northern ends of the façade feature painted wood shutters. The entry door is a smooth-finished, painted wood door flanked by vertical sidelight. The entryway features a curved red-brick walkway that extends from the porch to the concrete driveway. The porch and entryway features red brick planter, and brick veneer framing one window and corner of the primary façade.
Primary Façade (view west)
Primary Façade (view southwest)
The western façade and barrier are clad in stucco. The façade is simple in design and features a horizontal roofline, three windows, one door, and a square concrete porch. Extant windows include a bay window that contains three, viny one-over-one, single-hung windows. The remaining extant windows are rectangular, one-over-one single-hung windows. The door on the façade is a wood, vision-lite door, covered buy a metal screen door. The door located on the western façade is accessed via a concrete step and a square concrete porch. Additional features include an air conditioning unit behind a two-walled concrete barrier that is matched to the building façade.
Various ventilation grilles are extant along the lower quarter of the façade alongside electrical boxes and rain gutter drainage.
PAGE 311 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
*P3a. Description: (Continued from Continuation Sheet page 4) Western Façade (view east)
The northern façade is clad in stucco and features a horizontal roof line, one window, and a door. The extant window on the façade is a vinyl fixed window, flanked by two vinyl casement windows. The door is a wood door, behind a wood-framed, screen door. The northern façade door provides egress to the property’s paved driveway and into the backyard. Extant features include gutter drainage, ventilation grilles, and a wall-mounted light fixture.
Northern façade (view southwest)
PAGE 312 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
*P3a. Description: (Continued from Continuation Sheet page 5) Northern Façade (view southeast)
The southern facade is clad in stucco, features a horizontal roofline, four windows, and contains various shrubs abutted to it. The extant windows are vinyl, and three of the four extant windows are fixed. The windows at each end of the façade contain one fixed window, flanked by casement windows. The southern façade features include rain gutter drainage, various bushes, shrubs, municipal gas meter, and a brick planter.
Southern Façade (view northwest)
The detached garage is clad in stucco and is simple in design. The building has a low-pitched, hipped roof clad in composition tiles. The garage door is a metal roll-up door and is trimmed in painted wood. The garage is accessible from the northern façade paved driveway. The garage features one vinyl one-over-one, single-hung window on the building’s eastern façade.
PAGE 313 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
*P3a. Description: (Continued from Continuation Sheet page 6) Detached Garage (view south)
Detached Garage (view southeast)
PAGE 314 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
*B6. Construction History: (Continuation from Building, Structure, Object Report page 2) The subject property is located within Tract No. 11360. The tract consisted of 55 lots relatively similar in size, with rectangular footprints. The tract was surveyed by Chalmers and Barnett in November 1938. The tract is located within San Marino Highlands. The highlands were advertised in the Los Angeles Times: Realty Activities. The advertisements highlighted model homes in a new sub-division in 1940. Aerial photographs indicate that by 1948, the majority of lots on the 1400 block of Bradbury Road were completely developed with single-family residences. The subject property was constructed in 1951, indicating it remained part of the latter infill of properties on the tract. The City building permits did not identify an architect associated with the building project. The building contractor according to City building permits is Arcadia-based builder F.M. Hildebrandt. There is no additional information available regarding F.M.
Hildebrandt.
The original building permits for the construction of the building were provided by the City.
TABLE 1
BUILDING PERMIT HISTORY
Date Permit No. Description of Work
July 1951 7848 Construction of a two-story 45×46 “California Traditional” single-family residence
7/30/1951 6826 Cut curb for concrete driveway
4/6/1961 12854 Chain link fence
10/2/1972 720792 Reroof house and garage
2/6/2004 B00-084-751 Reroof house and garage with cedarlite, ironwood The Los Angeles County Assessor’s parcel data was not available at the time this report was prepared and was not reviewed for the subject property. Based on the permit history, previous owners include:
TABLE 1
OWNERSHIP HISTORY
Year Name
1951 Mrs. Maude Flather
1961–1972 George Friese
1991–2021 Patty Chan
According to City building permits, Mrs. M.F. Flather was the first owner. An ancestry records search did not result in any information regarding the life of Flather or an association to known addresses within the City. George Friese owned the property from 1961 to 1972. Ancestry records indicate Friese was born on September 4, 1886, and passed away in May 1983. Friese was featured in numerous Southern California newspaper articles over the course of his life. Friese, in 1909, was a member of the Los Angeles Turner Verein Germania (gymnastic club) that took part in the quadrennial tournament of the North American Turnerbund, held in Cincinnati, Ohio. Additionally, Friese was an avid outdoorsman; he enjoyed hunting and fishing. Friese was featured in the Los Angeles Express article “George Friese Gets 100-Pound Trophy,” regarding a large deer he shot while hunting in Calabasas. Finally, Friese, late in life, was highlighted in a 1982 Los Angeles Times article “Friese Retains Vivid Memory of Golden Age Outdoors” regarding his time as a young man hunting in Southern California cities that were once pastoral and rural settings. The article also indicates Friese suffered from blindness late in life. Patty Chan has owned the subject property since 1991. City building permits, ancestry.com database searches, newspapers.com, and ProQuest were utilized to compile the ownership history specific to the subject property.
PAGE 315 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
*B10. Significance: (Continuation from Building, Structure, Object Report page 2) The subject property was developed as part of a residential Tract No. 11360 which was recorded in 1938. A high volume of residential tracts was established throughout the City in the late 1800s and early 1900s as suburban development increased with the blooming streetcar system and because of the abundance of water found in this area. Postwar residential development resumed in 1947. According to ARG’s 2020 resource survey, in January 1947, due to labor and material shortages, over 128 unfinished residential properties were in need of completion. The situation soon improved, as evidenced by the near‐total filling of vacant lots in existing small‐lot, FHA‐ compliant subdivisions like San Marino Highlands, San Marino Oaks, Gainsborough Heath, and San Marino‐Patton Estates by 1949. The houses built in these subdivisions between 1946 and 1949 were nearly identical to those built right before the war, designed in Ranch and Minimal Traditional styles with low‐slung profiles and built by developers. The few remaining lots in those subdivisions were filled in the 1950s, again with houses in the same styles. The subject property, though constructed during the period of significance for residential development between 1946 and 1980, conveys an association with postwar residential development and infill taking place within the City and throughout Southern California. The subject property does not represent rare larger-scale development that was less common during this time. Therefore, the subject property is ineligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A/1/1.
There is no information available to suggest that any of the previous owners or residents were historic personages that made demonstrably significant contributions to the history of the nation, state, or region, or that any other individuals of historical significance were associated with the property. Therefore, the subject property is ineligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B/2/2.
The subject property permits do not identify an architect associated with the design. Permits do identify the builder/contractor, F.M. Hildebrant. A search of ancestry databases and historic issues of the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Sentinel do not identify Hildebrandt as a master builder or to be associated with notable building projects.
The subject property is a modest example of a Minimal Traditional-style single-family residence yet conveys common character-defining features of the type. The building does not possess high artistic value and does not embody distinctive features of a type, period, or method of construction. The property was not designed by a master architect and was not built by a master builder. The property is not one of the last, best remaining examples of a type or style the City and is not increasingly rare. The subject property is not the high-style example of the type or a best remaining example and therefore, the subject property is ineligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C/3/3.
Criterion D is not considered in this report as it generally applies to archaeological resources.
Additionally, there is no reason to believe the property has the potential to yield important information regarding prehistory or history.
The California Register eligibility criteria mirror those of the National Register. Therefore, the subject property is eligible for listing in the California Register for the same reasons outlined above.
Similarly, the San Marino Historic Landmark eligibility criteria mirror those of the National Register and California Register criteria. Therefore, the subject property is eligible for designation as an Historic Landmark for the same reasons outlined above.
PAGE 316 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
*B10. Significance: (Continuation from Continuation Sheet page 9) The subject property was evaluated as a potential contributor to the potential San Marino Highlands Residential Historic District identified by ARG in the Citywide Survey. The potential district features small-scale residential homes. The 1400 block of Bradbury Road was developed between the late 1930s and 1950s and has a mixed collection of modest Ranch and Minimal Traditional homes. The homes convey an association with the postwar development and infill within the City during this time. Development in this period, late 1930s–1950s, saw modest housing associated with the FHA and then post-World War II housing tracts as the most significant development within the City. The subject property was identified as a contributor to the potential eligible San Marino Highlands Residential District. The subject property is a common example of the Minimal Traditional style of architecture, is not designed by a master architect, and not built for a prominent resident. According to the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor, similar homes on the 1400 block of Bradbury Road were built within the postwar development period. To determine the significance and eligibility, the entire district would need to be evaluated. A complete evaluation of each property within the district is beyond the scope of this evaluation but is assumed to qualify for designation as a historic district for the purposes of this study. Therefore, the proposed project was reviewed against the Standards to determine if it would result in an indirect visual impact to the potential historic district.
Impact Analysis
The proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) – Rehabilitation, No. 9.
Standard No. 9 states:
“New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment” The proposed new construction of a 2,995-square-foot residence would not result in a substantial adverse change to the potentially eligible San Marino Highlands Historic District. The proposed project was preliminarily reviewed by the City of San Marino. The proposed new construction of a 2,995-square-foot residence would not result in a substantial adverse change to the potentially eligible San Marino Highlands Historic District. The district is comprised of 160 district contributors; the loss of this one subject property would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the district because a sufficient percentage of contributors would be retained. The proposed project does not aim to create a false sense of history by recreating building features found on neighboring buildings. The project will not obscure the visibility of neighboring buildings to the north and south. The newly constructed building will be erected below the allowable maximum building height requirements. Therefore, the project will not be out of scale with extant buildings on the west side of Bradbury Road and will not alter the linear massing of the block. The proposed project will include building materials that are complimentary and compatible to extant buildings within San Marino Highlands. Building materials and features include a low-pitched hip roof, second-level dormers, painted brick façades, front porch columns, and cedar shake type cement roof tiles. Based on the compatibility of scale, massing, design, and materials, the proposed project meets the Standards.
Based on research and analysis, the subject property located at 1469 Bradbury Road does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or for designation as an Historic Landmark. The building was constructed in 1951 and remains a later building within the postwar development of the San Marino Highlands. The subject property’s construction is not associated with any persons of particular importance to local, state, or national history. The subject property is not designed by a master architect or constructed by a master builder and is a common example of the Minimal Traditional style. The subject property does not appear to be eligible as contributor to a potentially eligible district. Therefore, the subject property is not a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project complies with the Standards and would not result in a substantial adverse change to a potential historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
PAGE 317 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
*B12. References: (Continued from Building, Structure, Object Report page 2) Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland. 2022. “National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 49.
Ancestry. 2014. “U.S., Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014 [database on-line].” Provo, UT:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
Ancestry. 2020. “U.S., Index to Public Records, 1994-2019 [database on-line].” Lehi, UT:
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
Architectural Resources Group. 2020. “City of San Marino Historic Citywide Survey Map.” City of San Marino. Available at: https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4570/SanMarino-Recon-Map-61319 Architectural Resources Group. April 2019. “San Marino Historic Context Statement Draft.” City of San Marino. Available at: https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4569/SanMarino-Historic-Context-Statement-Draft-4119 Architectural Resources Group. October 2020. “San Marino Historic Context Statement Draft.” City San Marino. Available at: https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4569/SanMarino-Historic-Context-Statement-Draft-4119 Baker, Christina Bake, City of San Marino Planning Department October 2021. Permit records. “Building Inspector’s Report,” in the William Hertrich Papers, 1904–1966. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library; “Data Show Growth.”
“Building Permits Show Big Gain Over Last Year.” 2 January 1947. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA).
“Building Shows Big Decrease.” 6 January 1944. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA). “Building Two Million During 1941.” 8 January 1942. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA).
California Office of Historic Preservation. 1999. California State Law and Historic Preservation, 4853 (c), 66.
City of Los Angeles. 2016. “SurveyLA Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context:
Jewish History.” Prepared by: GPA Consulting and Becky Nicolaides for the City of Los Angeles, 13.
City of San Marino. 11 April 2018. City Council Agenda. Accessed May 16, 2018. Available at:
http://www.ci.san-marino.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04112018-1034 City of San Marino. 6 October 2020 (working document). “San Marino Historical Resources Survey ‐ Preliminary List Final.” Available at:
https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/planning/Historic%20Survey/San%20Marino%20Property%20List %20-%20Districts%20-%205.15.20.pdf
City of San Marino. Updated 06 November 2020 (working document). “San Marino Historical Resources Survey ‐ Preliminary List of Properties to be Surveyed ‐ DISTRICTS.” Available at:
https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/planning/Historic%20Survey/San%20Marino%20Property%20List %20-%20Districts%20-%205.15.20.pdf
“County Vacancy Ratio Now Lowest Since 1924.” 23 February 1941. Los Angeles Times. “Development Plans Prepared for New San Marino Tract.” 22 January 1939. Los Angeles Times. “Development Plans Prepared.” 23 October 1938. Los Angeles Times.
PAGE 318 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information
*B12. References: (Continued from Building, Structure, Object Report page 2) Hescher, Uri and Pete McCloskey cited in “Courage and Cowardice in San Marino,” Matt Hormann, Hometown Pasadena. Accessed March 2019. Available at: http://hometownpasadena.com/history/courage-and-cowardice-in-sanmarino/97684 HOLC Area Description Files, Areas A-14 and A-17. April 1939. “T-RACES.” Accessed March 2019.
Available at: http://salt.umd.edu/T-RACES/demo/demo.html “Homesites Bought; Residences to Rise.” 23 October 1938. Los Angeles Times.
Lipsitz, George. 1998. “The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics.” Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Cited in “T-Races.” Accessed March 2019. Available at: http://salt.umd.edu/T-RACES/holc.html Los Angeles Evening Express. 14 January 1909. Los Angeles, CA, 16.
Los Angeles Evening Express. 28 September 1915. Los Angeles, CA, 14.
Los Angeles Times. 17 April 1938. Display ad.
Los Angeles Times. 25 June 1982. Los Angeles, CA, 18.
Los Angeles Times. September 29, 1940. Los Angeles, CA, 69.
Marciano, R., D. Goldberg, and C. Hou. “T-RACES: a Testbed for the Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces: Beyond HOLC.” Accessed March 2019. Available at:
http://salt.umd.edu/T-RACES/fha.html
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2017. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” National Register Bulletin. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/
National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm “New Street Expands Tract.” 14 January 1940. Los Angeles Times.
Rodman, Edmon J. 9 April 2014. “Let My People Go…to Hancock Park.” Jewish Journal. “S.M. Building Shows Increase Over Last Year.” 8 February 1945. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA).
“San Marino Model to Open.” 29 September 1940. Los Angeles Times. “Steady Influx of Families into San Marino Shown by Report.” 17 April 1938. Los Angeles Times.
PAGE 319 of 360
PAGE 320 of 360
Summary Statement of Significance:
Residential Development and Architecture:
The Blue Boy
Los Angeles Times
(continued on page 3)
Los Angeles Times PAGE 321 of 360
(continued from page 2): Planning Neighborhoods for Small Houses Evaluation of Significance:
Evaluation of Integrity:
(continued from page 2): National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places.
City of San Marino Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report.
SurveyLA Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Architecture and Engineering, 1850-1980. (continued on page 4)
Los Angeles Times
National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places Hometown Pasadena
Los Angeles Times PAGE 322 of 360
(continued from page 2): Residential Period Revival Architecture and Development in Pasadena from 1915-1942.
Hometown Pasadena
Los Angeles Times
A Field Guide to American Houses
Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles Times
Henry Edwards Huntington: A Biography
Los Angeles Times
PAGE 323 of 360
PAGE 324 of 360
PAGE 325 of 360
1469 Bradbury Rd
3.26.26 Addendum Tree Report
SUBMITTED TO:
Patrick Szurpicki
Studio Build California
206 Winchester Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91801
PREPARED BY:
Cris Falco
(619) 313-3939
1318 E Walnut Creek Pkwy
West Covina, CA 91790
Board Certified Master Arborist WE-7490B
Registered Consulting Arborist #557
Pest Control Adviser #128017
Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
MARCH 26, 2026
PAGE 326 of 360
Table of Contents
Background and Assignment ..............................................................................................1
Project Description...............................................................................................................2 Tree Map..............................................................................................................................3 Tree Data..............................................................................................................................4 Mitigation Planting ..............................................................................................................5 Recommendations and Construction Impact Guidelines.....................................................6 Photos...................................................................................................................................9 Assumptions & Limiting Conditions.................................................................................18 Tree Map PDF is separately attached
PAGE 327 of 360
1 BACKGROUND AND ASSIGNMENT
In December of 2024, I submitted a Protected Tree Report to Studio Build California for a single-family residential property located at 1469 Bradbury Rd, San Marino, CA 91108. It was subsequently requested that Tree 2, a crape myrtle Heritage Tree, be removed as part of the proposed development, and that this addendum report be generated to reflect this change. In addition to this report, I updated the Tree Map, which is a separately attached PDF.
A formal risk assessment1 was not included within the scope of this assignment, and I do not guarantee the safety, health, or condition of any tree on the subject property, or in the vicinity of the subject property. My expertise in this matter is limited to arboriculture, and this report is not intended to be legal advice. This report is intended to be used by Studio Build California and the property owner to assist in obtaining the necessary permits to perform the desired construction. 1 For more information on tree risk assessment, visit https://www.isa-arbor.com/Credentials/ISA-Tree-RiskAssessment-Qualification PAGE 328 of 360
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is proposing to tear down and rebuild the existing house, build a new covered patio, and expand the existing garage. I inventoried 9 trees for this report:
− Of the 9 trees, 1 is in the parkway, 5 are on neighboring properties, and 3 are on-site. − Of the 9 trees, there are 5 “Oak Trees,” “1 Established Tree,” and 3 “Heritage Trees.” − The canopy of Tree 4 (Established Tree) will be encroached upon by the western section of the proposed house. The canopy will need to be pruned on its eastern side for construction clearance, which is not a significant encroachment. − The root systems of Trees 7-9 (Oak Trees) will be encroached upon by the footing for the new expanded garage. The digging will be near the edges of the trees' canopies, away from the trunks, and will not constitute a significant encroachment. − One Heritage Tree, Tree 2, is proposed for removal for landscape design purposes. − Tree Protection Fencing is recommended for Trees 1 and 4, as detailed in the Tree Map below.
PAGE 329 of 360
3 TREE MAP
PAGE 330 of 360
4 TREE DATA
Tree # Tag # Common Name Scientific Name Location Trunk Diameters
Total DSH
(inches)
Height
(feet)
Spread
(feet)
Oak
Tree
Established
Tree
Heritage
Tree Removal Encroachment / Notes
1 None Camphor Camphora officinarum Parkway 38 38 50 60 Yes No Street Tree 2 939 Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica On-site 1,1,2,2 6 15 10 Yes Yes Proposed for removal due to landscape design purposes 3 None American Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Neighboring property 18 (estimated) 18 40 25 Yes No None 4 940 Brazilian Pepper Schinus terebinthifolia On-site 4, 5, 8, 8 25 22 30 Yes No Minor canopy encroahcment by house expanison; Trim eastern canopy for construction clerance
5 None Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Neighboring property 6 (estimated) 6 15 12 Yes No Tree is under transmission line 6 None Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Neighboring property 6 (estimated) 6 15 12 Yes No Tree is under transmission line 7 None Southern Live Oak Quercus virginiana Neighboring property 16 (estimated) 16 28 25 Yes No Minor canopy encroahcment by garage footing; Tree is under transmission line
8 None Southern Live Oak Quercus virginiana Neighboring property 14 (estimated) 14 25 20 Yes No Minor canopy encroahcment by garage footing; Tree is under transmission line
9 941 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia On-site 8 8 22 15 Yes No Minor canopy encroahcment by garage footing PAGE 331 of 360
5 MITIGATION PLANTING
Mitigation tree planting will be required for the removal of Tree 2 (crape myrtle), which is a Heritage Tree. It is recommended that the city arborist be consulted to determine the required location, size, and species to be planted.
PAGE 332 of 360
6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACT GUIDELINES
Pre-Construction
These recommendations should be implemented prior to the start of construction:
- Erect tree protection fencing around Trees 1 and 4g per the Tree Map:
o No construction activity, heavy equipment access, or material storage should occur within the tree protection fencing during construction without the direct supervision and approval of a qualified arborist. o Tree protection zone fencing should be a temporary chain-link fence of at least 5-ft. height, and fencing should be supported by steel stakes driven directly into the ground. Fencing should have no gate or easy entry. - Pruning
o If pruning is desired, make sure that all required permits are obtained prior to work.
o Only prune when deemed necessary by the project arborist; as much live foliage as possible should be preserved through the construction process to give the trees the best opportunity to thrive after construction is complete. o Hire a crew directly supervised by a Certified Arborist on-site to ensure the pruning cuts are made to branch unions and do not remove an excessive amount of foliage.
o Pruning cuts should leave the minimum cross-sectional area of exposed woundwood after each final finish cut is made.
o Remove dead branches from the trees as they appear. Retain living branches unless they conflict with the infrastructure or are diseased or defective.
- Supplemental Irrigation
o Consider supplemental irrigation for all subject trees to be retained. o If soil conditions are found to be dry, apply a deep-soak irrigation to the soil within the dripline of the trees once per month from March through October. The goal of the irrigation is to moisten the soil to a depth of 12 inches while minimizing runoff.
PAGE 333 of 360
7 During Construction
This is the stage where mechanical injury is the most likely to occur. By following these recommendations, the likelihood of accidental damage will be reduced:
- General Recommendations
o Inform all construction personnel of the intention to preserve the trees.
Many times damage occurs because workers are not aware of the importance of preserving the trees on site. This includes contractors and their respective subcontractors as well.
o If any changes are made to the plans resulting in any excavation or equipment access within the dripline of a protected tree, the project arborist should be informed. Additional protection measures may need to be discussed.
o No construction activity should occur within the tree protection fencing without first consulting an arborist. This includes construction worker access, materials storage, materials disposal, and equipment access. No construction materials should cross the tree protection fencing, be leaned against any protected tree, or affixed to their trunks. o If any injury should occur to a tree during construction, the project arborist should be informed promptly so that the tree may be evaluated and treated as soon as possible.
- Construction Phase
o If during any part of the construction phase there is a significant amount of particulates in the air (from cutting materials or any other activity), a shop vacuum or equivalent should be used during the cutting or other activity to reduce the amount of particulates that are deposited on the foliage. If despite a good faith effort to reduce particulates, a layer is still deposited on the foliage, wash it off with a jet of water at the end of each construction day where particulates are deposited.
o During the painting phase, if spray-application of paint is used within proximity of a protected tree, cover the windward side of the trunk and scaffold branches of the tree with plastic at the beginning of each painting day to avoid paint drifting onto the tree. Remove the plastic at the end of each day to allow for air circulation.
PAGE 334 of 360
8 - Clean-Up and Landscaping Phase
o Retain the tree protection fencing until construction activity has been completed or until the landscape installation phase begins. Even when landscapers are permitted near the trees, make sure they are aware of the intention to preserve the trees and the roots if any digging is performed for irrigation lines or plant installation.
o All irrigation line trenches within the dripline of any protected tree should be hand-dug. If significant roots measuring one inch in diameter or larger are encountered, the project arborist should be consulted. If practical, tunnel underneath the roots to preserve them.
Post-Construction Care
The most stressful time of year for the subject trees will be the summer immediately following construction. The following management practices are recommended:
- Retain the leaf drop around the root zone of the subject trees where practical. The best ground cover for a tree is its own leaf mulch. Leaf mulch will continue to reduce soil evaporation and mitigate soil temperature changes. If leaf drop is not practical for use, apply a layer of coarse mulch 2-4 inches thick around the bases of the trees.
- The subject trees can be monitored annually by a qualified arborist for the development of disease, decay, or other symptoms of stress due to construction activity. Deadwood may be removed as it appears, and as much live wood as possible should be retained on the trees, provided that it doesn’t come into conflict with the infrastructure.
- If the soil is dry, continue applying deep-soak irrigation within the dripline of all subject trees from March through October until canopy density is adequate, as determined by a qualified arborist.
PAGE 335 of 360
9 PHOTOS
Tree 1
PAGE 336 of 360
10 Tree 2
PAGE 337 of 360
11 Tree 3
PAGE 338 of 360
12 Tree 4
PAGE 339 of 360
13 Tree 5
PAGE 340 of 360
14 Tree 6
PAGE 341 of 360
15 Tree 7
PAGE 342 of 360
16 Tree 8
PAGE 343 of 360
17 Tree 9
PAGE 344 of 360
18 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the Consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. Standard of Care has been met with regards to this project within reasonable and normal conditions.
2. The Consultant will not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual agreements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.
3. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
4. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior written consent of the Consultant.
5. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the Consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a stipulated result, a specified value, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.
6. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, or coring, unless otherwise stated. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the tree(s) or property in question may not arise in the future.
7. Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. It is highly recommended that you follow the arborist recommendations; however, you may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations and/or seek additional advice.
8. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specific period of time.
PAGE 345 of 360
19 9. Any recommendation and/or performed treatments (including, but not limited to, pruning or removal) of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services, such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and any other related issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist can then be expected to consider and reasonably rely on the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
10. The author has no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this report or the parties involved. He/she has inspected the subject tree(s) and to the best of their knowledge and belief, all statements and information presented in the report are true and correct.
11. Unless otherwise stated, trees were examined using the risk assessment criteria detailed by the International Society of Arboriculture’s publications Best Management Practices – Tree Risk Assessment and the Tree Risk Assessment Manual (Second Edition).
PAGE 346 of 360
PAGE 347 of 360
PAGE 348 of 360
SP#17 EL:585.66 FILL:11'-8" SP#16 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#15 EL:585.66 FILL:11'-8" SP#14 EL:596.91 FILL:22'-11'" SP#13 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#12 EL:583.08 FILL:9'-1" SP#1 EL:583.16 FILL:9'-2" SP#2 EL:583.16 FILL:9'-2" SP#3 EL:597.75 FILL:23'-9" SP#4 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#5 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#6 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#7 EL:583.08 FILL:9'-1" SP#25 EL:586.16 FILL:12'-2" SP#22 EL:585.66 FILL:11'-8" SP#21 EL:595.08 FILL:21'-1" SP#19 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#8 EL:596.83 FILL:22'-10" SP#9 EL:598.75 FILL:24'-9" SP#11 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#10 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#24 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#23 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#20 EL:593.92 FILL:19'-11" SP#18 EL:588.67 FILL:14'-8" SP#26 EL:596.91 FILL:22'-11'" BOT STORY POLE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1469 BRADBURY RD
SAN MARINO, CA
ALL AMERICAN STORY POLES
(310) 980 - 2543
[email protected]
WWW.ALLAMERICANSTORYPOLES.COM 1 DATE 05.02.26 SHEET SP1
STAKING PLAN
PAGE 349 of 360
PAGE 350 of 360
1 RESOLUTION NO. R-26-33__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-25, TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,944 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED
STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,810 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A 520 SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE; LOCATED AT 1469 BRADBURY ROAD, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 5332-015-016, CITY OF
SAN MARINO
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, an application to demolish an existing 1,944 square-foot (sq ft) single-family residence and associated buildings and construct a 2,810 sq ft twostory residence with a detached 520 sq ft 2-car garage with a variance to allow the residence to encroach 2-feet 4-inches within the front yard setback has been duly filed by (or on behalf of) Patty Chan (Property Owner), for the property located at 1469 Bradbury Road, San Marino, CA, 91108 (the Property),
WHEREAS, the Property is Zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential (Area District VI) and WHEREAS, the Property in question is legally described as follows:
TRACT # 11360 LOT 13
WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said application was set and held before the Planning Commission on May 27, 2026, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record.
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2026, the Planning Commission also reviewed all of the information provided in the staff report and considered the testimony given at the public hearing, including all written communications to the Planning Commission, as well as other pertinent information; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2026, pursuant to the findings, the Planning Commission denied DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-25; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 26-06 denying Design Review No. 22-25; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2026, an application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission was duly filed by Patty Chan; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2026, a public hearing to consider said de novo was set and held before the City Council of the City of San Marino, and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record; and PAGE 351 of 360
2 WHEREAS, on September 25, 2026, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino reviewed all of the information provided in the staff reports and considered the testimony given, including all written communications to the Planning Commission, as well as other pertinent information; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2026, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino denied the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 25-17; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2026, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino deliberated the merits of the project, and adopted Resolution No. R 26- 21; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO does hereby find, determine and declare:
SECTION 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as part of this decision by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of San Marino makes the following findings for an application to demolish an existing 1,751 sq ft single-family residence and associated buildings and construct a 2,690 sq ft two-story residence with a detached 552 sq ft 2-car garage for DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-26:
1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, The project encompasses the construction of a new 2,810 sq ft two-story Prairie style single-family residence with a detached 520 sq ft 2-car garage.
The proposed Prairie home is compatible with the legal neighborhood and with Prairie residences found in San Marino. The legal neighborhood is comprised of homes that display Minimal Traditional and American Colonial Revival architecturally styled homes.
The height of the proposed residence is 26 feet-4 inches. The proposed structure is compatible with the height of the adjacent neighbor’s home at 1459 Bradbury Road, which has a height of 21 feet – 6 inches and with other residences in the legal neighborhood such as 1500 Mirasol Drive, at 29 feet in height.
The proposed massing of the residence is compatible with the surrounding residences located within the neighborhood. Compatible residences within the legal neighborhood include 1500 Mirasol Drive with a livable area of 2,992 sq ft, and 1459 Bradbury Road with a livable area of 2,990 sq ft.
As such, this project meets this finding.
PAGE 352 of 360
3 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, The two-story design of the home is compatible with the residences found in the legal neighborhood which are designed as two-story residences.
The proposed side setback to the north neighboring property is 10 feet, which is equal to the existing setback. The proposed side setback to the south neighboring property is 5 feet, which is equal to the existing setback.
The property features an existing 6-foot-tall composite white fence that wraps around the entire perimeter of the property from the side yards to the rear property line. The applicant proposes to increase the lenge of the fence on both the north and south property lines to reduce impact on privacy. There are existing trees at the rear yard and as the property abuts the rear yard of 1490 Mirasol Drive, the side yard impact is decreased. There is significant landscaping and no structure directly behind the rear property line of 1490 Mirasol Drive. Therefore, the visibility and privacy of either adjacent or rear neighbor would be minimally impacted, and there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The windows facing the adjoining properties are reasonably sized and do not create excessive visibility into neighboring properties.
The proposal is developed in a manner that 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.
As such, 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 project is proposing to demolish the existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence. Consequently, this finding is not applicable to this project.
As such, this project meets this finding.
4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.
The project is proposing to demolish the existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence. Consequently, this finding is not applicable to this project.
As such, this project meets this finding.
PAGE 353 of 360
4 SECTION 3. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, IT IS RESOLVED that City Council of the City of San Marino hereby approve DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-25.
SECTION 4. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15303 (Class 3) and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.
CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 25th day of September, 2026.
TONY CHOU, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NIA CALISTRO
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SAN MARINO )
I, NIA CALISTRO, City Clerk of the City of San Marino, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. R-26-21 was adopted by the City Council of the City of San Marino at a Regular Adjourned Meeting held on the 25th day of September, 2026, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
________________________
NIA CALISTRO
CITY CLERK
PAGE 354 of 360
5 EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Design Review No. DR 22-25
SUBJECT: Demolish an existing 1,944 sf residence and construct a 2,810 sf twostory residence with a detached 520 sf 2-car garage.
APPLICANT: Patty Chan
LOCATION: 1469 Bradbury Road
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (626) 300- 0718, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceeding against the City and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City, Planning Commission or City Council concerning this permit and the project. Such indemnification shall include damages, judgments, settlements, penalties, fines, defensive costs or expenses, including, but not limited to, interest, attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind related to or arising from such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit City from participating in a defense of any claim, action or proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating the defense, including, but not limited to, choosing counsel for the defense at applicant’s expense. ___/___/__
2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
___/___/__
PAGE 355 of 360
6 B. Time Limits
1. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within one year from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
___/___/__
C. Site Development
1. Prior to any use of the project site being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
2. The applicant will consult with City Staff to confirm an appropriate landscape plan to maintain the health of the existing oak trees to the rear of the Property.
3. Occupancy of the structures shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to commencement of occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the San Marino Fire Department and the Building Department to show compliance. The structure shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to start of occupancy.
D. Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to any use of the project site being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
2. The homeowner and homeowner’s representative can decide their preference for the board and batten siding on the gable at the front façade of the residence
___/___/___
___/___/___
___/___/___
___/___/___
___/___/___
PAGE 356 of 360
1 RESOLUTION NO. R-26-33__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PCR 26-06, WHICH DENIED DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-25, TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,944 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED
STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,810 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A 520 SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE; LOCATED AT 1469 BRADBURY ROAD, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 5332-015-016, CITY OF
SAN MARINO
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, an application to demolish an existing 1,944 square-foot (sq ft) single-family residence and associated buildings and construct a 2,810 sq ft twostory residence with a detached 520 sq ft 2-car garage with a variance to allow the residence to encroach 2-feet 4-inches within the front yard setback has been duly filed by (or on behalf of) Patty Chan (Property Owner), for the property located at 1469 Bradbury Road, San Marino, CA, 91108 (the Property),
WHEREAS, the Property is Zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential (Area District VI) and WHEREAS, the Property in question is legally described as follows:
TRACT # 11360 LOT 13
WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said application was set and held before the Planning Commission on May 27, 2026, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record.
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2026, the Planning Commission also reviewed all of the information provided in the staff report and considered the testimony given at the public hearing, including all written communications to the Planning Commission, as well as other pertinent information; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2026, pursuant to the findings, the Planning Commission denied DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-25; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 26-06 denying Design Review No. 22-25; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2026, an application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission was duly filed by Patty Chan; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2026, a public hearing to consider said de novo was set and held before the City Council of the City of San Marino, and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record; and PAGE 357 of 360
2 WHEREAS, on September 25, 2026, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino reviewed all of the information provided in the staff reports and considered the testimony given, including all written communications to the Planning Commission, as well as other pertinent information; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2026, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino upheld the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 25-17; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2026, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino deliberated the merits of the project, and adopted Resolution No. R 26- 21; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO does hereby find, determine and declare:
SECTION 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as part of this decision by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of San Marino makes the following findings for an application to demolish an existing 1,751 sq ft single-family residence and associated buildings and construct a 2,690 sq ft two-story residence with a detached 552 sq ft 2-car garage for DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-26:
1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, The project encompasses the construction of a new 2,810 sq ft two-story Prairie style single-family residence with a detached 520 sq ft 2-car garage on an 8,100 square-foot parcel.
The architectural design of the proposed Prairie home is incompatible with the architectural styles of the legal neighborhood. The Commission finds that the proposed residence incorporates architectural features, proportions, and design elements that are not compatible with the prevailing Minimal Traditional and American Colonial Revival character of the legal neighborhood.
The proposed massing, scale, and proportion of the residence is incompatible with the surrounding residences located within the neighborhood. The proposed residence is on a 8,100 square-foot lot and the proposed livable area is 2,810 square-feet. The residence would occupy approximately 35 percent of the lot area, compared to an average of approximately 28 percent within the legal neighborhood, resulting in a PAGE 358 of 360
3 structure that appears substantially larger and more visually dominant than surrounding residences.
As such, this project does not meet 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, The two-story design of the home is incompatible with the residences found in the legal neighborhood which are primarily designed as single-story residences.
The proposed project negatively impacts the privacy for neighbors to the north and south due to the scale and size.
Notwithstanding the existing fencing and landscaping, the Commission finds that the second-story design, building mass, and elevated window locations create additional opportunities for views into adjoining side-yard and rear-yard areas that would not exist with a single-story structure. The Commission therefore finds that the project does not adequately balance the privacy expectations of adjacent property owners with the applicant's development expectations.
As such, this project does not meet this finding.
3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines,
The proposed project involves demolishing the existing single-family residence and constructing a new single-family residence. Consequently, this finding is not applicable to this project.
4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.
The project is proposing to demolish the existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence. Consequently, this finding is not applicable to this project.
SECTION 3. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, IT IS RESOLVED that City Council of the City of San Marino hereby denies DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-25.
SECTION 4. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15303 (Class 3) and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.
PAGE 359 of 360
4 CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 25th day of September, 2026.
TONY CHOU, MAYOR
ATTEST:
NIA CALISTRO
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SAN MARINO )
I, NIA CALISTRO, City Clerk of the City of San Marino, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. R-26-21 was adopted by the City Council of the City of San Marino at a Regular Adjourned Meeting held on the 25th day of September, 2026, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
________________________
NIA CALISTRO
CITY CLERK
PAGE 360 of 360