Agenda packet — San Marino City Council, September 25, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

CITY OF SAN MARINO
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Mayor
Tony Chou, Vice Mayor
Hunter Chang, Council Member
John Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
www.SanMarinoCA.gov
(626) 3000700 Phone
City Hall Council Chamber
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 AT 8:30 AM
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2200 HUNTINGTON DRIVE
SAN MARINO, CA 91108
The City of San Marino appreciates your attendance. Citizens’ interest provides the Council with valuable information regarding issues of the community.

Regular meetings are held on the 2nd Wednesday of every month at 6:00 p.m.

Typically, adjourned meetings are held on the last Friday of every month at 8:30 a.m.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a reasonable modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk via email at [email protected] or by phone at (626) 3000705 48 hours prior to the meeting for assistance.

The public is welcome to attend the meeting in person or remotely via Zoom, however, the meeting will proceed as normal even if there are technical difficulties with Zoom. The City will do it’s best to resolve any technical issues as quickly as possible.

How to view or listen to the meeting from home:

Visit www.SanMarinoCA.gov/Zoom
How to offer public comment from home:

Public comment will be accepted by email to [email protected] until 3:00 p.m. the day before the meeting. Written public comment received by 3:00 p.m. will be distributed to City Council during the meeting. Any comments received after 3:00 p.m. will be included in the public comment record but not provided to City Council at the meeting.

Written public comment will be accepted electronically via the zoom.us teleconference module during the meeting. Written Zoom comments will be accepted after the inperson comments. Written Zoom comments will be read or summarized, then printed and made part of the public record for the meeting. To participate on an item, please use the “Raise Hand” function in Zoom and you will be called to speak at the appropriate time.

CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Council Member Chang, Council Member Chou, Council Member Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor Lo and Mayor Chou
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City welcomes public input. Members of the public may address the City Council by completing a public comment card and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, the public may address the City Council on items that are not on the agenda.

Pursuant to state law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on issues not on the meeting agenda (Government Code Section 54954.2). The Mayor reserves the right to place limits on duration of comments. Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000 TO LIFEASSIST, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF PARAMEDIC SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council approve a purchase order to LifeAssist, Inc. in the amount of $45,000 for the purchase of paramedic supplies and equipment.

If the Council agrees with Staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be, “I move to approve a purchase order to LifeAssist, Inc. in the amount of $45,000 for the purchase of paramedic supplies and equipment.”

2. APPROVAL TO WAIVE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT FEES FOR THE SAN MARINO HIGH SCHOOL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION GATHERING IN
LACY PARK
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council waive the Special Event Permit fees associated with the San Marino High School Alumni Association Gathering in November of 2026.

If the City Council agrees with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be: “I move to waive the Special Event Permit fees associated with the San Marino High School Alumni Association Gathering in November of 2026.” PAGE 2 of 360
for the purchase of paramedic supplies and equipment.”

3. APPROVAL OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND
RESTATED CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve a Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement. If the City Council agrees, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between the City of San Marino and Philippe Eskandar.”

4. REPORT ON EMERGENCY ACTIONS TAKEN TO REPAIR/REMEDIATE FIRE STATION 91 AND REQUEST TO EXTEND EMERGENCY
PROCUREMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC CONTRACTS CODE SECTION
22050 AND SAN MARINO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.06.05(A)
(8)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council receive the report of repair/remediation actions undertaken to date and extend the emergency by a 4/5 vote to facilitate expeditious restoration of Fire Station 91. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
"I move to 1) receive and file the report of repair/remediation actions undertaken to date and 2) extend the emergency action approved in Resolution No. R2608 to facilitate the expeditious restoration of Fire Station 91." PUBLIC HEARINGS

5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DR 2226 AT 535 OLD MILL ROAD TO THE DEMOLISH AN EXISTING
1,751 SQUAREFOOT RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW TWOSTORY 2,690 SQUAREFOOT RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED TWOCAR GARAGE (CHAN) 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 adopt City Council Resolution No. R2621 approving 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.”
PAGE 3 of 360
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 adopt City Council Resolution No. R2621 approving 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.”
If the City Council affirms the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 2617, the appropriate motion would be:
“I move to adopt City Council Resolution No. R2621 affirming the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 2617 to deny Design Review Case Number DR2226 at 535 Old Mill Road to demolish an existing 1,751 sq ft singlefamily residence and construct a 2,690 sq ft twostory residence with a detached 2car garage.”
NEW BUSINESS

6. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. DR 2225 AT 1469 BRADBURY ROAD TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,944 SQUAREFOOT RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW TWOSTORY 2,810 SQUAREFOOT RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED TWOCAR GARAGE (CHAN) 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 adopt City Council Resolution No. R2633 approving 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.”
If the City Council affirms the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 2606, the appropriate motion would be:
“I move to adopt City Council Resolution No. R2633 affirming the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 2606 to deny Design Review Case Number DR2225 at 1469 Bradbury Road to demolish an existing 1,944 sq ft singlefamily residence and construct a 2,810 sq ft twostory residence with a detached 2car garage.”
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTION
This is an opportunity to announce any written communications pertaining to the City received by members of the City Council. All public writings distributed by the City of San Marino to at least a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the Public Counter at City Hall located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108, and will also be included in the public agenda packet that will available for review at the City Council meeting.

PAGE 4 of 360
DR2225 at 1469 Bradbury Road to demolish an existing 1,944 sq ft singlefamily residence and construct a 2,810 sq ft twostory residence with a detached 2car garage.”
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTION
This is an opportunity to announce any written communications pertaining to the City received by members of the City Council. All public writings distributed by the City of San Marino to at least a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the Public Counter at City Hall located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108, and will also be included in the public agenda packet that will available for review at the City Council meeting.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
Posted: NIA CALISTRO
CITY CLERK
PAGE 5 of 360
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Mario Rueda, Fire Chief
DATE: September 25, 2026
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$45,000 TO LIFE-ASSIST, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF

PARAMEDIC SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government
Safe Community

BACKGROUND
The San Marino Fire Department operates a paramedic program that delivers emergency pre-hospital care to residents of the City of San Marino. To ensure continued and uninterrupted delivery of these life-saving services, the program requires the Fire Department maintain a sufficient inventory of essential paramedic supplies and equipment.

The Fire Department is requesting approval of a purchase order in the amount of $45,000 to Life-Assist, Inc. for the purchase of paramedic supplies.

DISCUSSION
In 2022, the City of Pasadena issued a Notice Inviting Bids for the purchase of emergency medical and paramedic field supplies. Of the six bids received, Life-Assist, Inc. was selected as the lowest, most responsive bidder that met all specified requirements. On August 1, 2022, the City of Pasadena awarded Life-Assist, Inc. a multi-year contract, commencing with an initial three-year term and including two optional one-year extensions.

Tony Chou, Mayor
Calvin Lo, Vice Mayor
Hunter Chang, Council Member
John Chou, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
PAGE 6 of 360
Under this agreement, the City of Pasadena authorized Life-Assist, Inc. to extend its contract pricing to other agencies and organizations for the purchase of medical supplies and equipment. Agencies participating in this cooperative agreement are guaranteed pricing equal to the rates offered to the Pasadena Fire Department for the same items.

The City of Pasadena’s agreement with Life-Assist, Inc. is utilized by many of the agencies within the Verdugo Fire Communications network, including South Pasadena, San Gabriel, and Arcadia. The San Marino Fire Department has purchased medical supplies through Life-Assist, Inc. utilizing cooperative agreements from the City of Pasadena for over 13 years, and has been satisfied with the products, pricing, and delivery.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The Fire Department budgeted $45,000 for the purchase of paramedic supplies and equipment as part of the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Adopted Operating & Capital Budget.

The bidding requirements for procurements have been waived in accordance with San Marino Municipal Code §02.06.05.B.6: Cooperative Purchasing:

Purchases of supplies, materials and equipment and sales of personal property made under a cooperative purchasing program utilizing purchasing agreements or bids received by the County, State, or other public agency are exempt from the requirements of this subsection.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council approve a purchase order to Life-Assist, Inc. in the amount of $45,000 for the purchase of paramedic supplies and equipment.

If the Council agrees with Staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be, “I move to approve a purchase order to Life-Assist, Inc. in the amount of $45,000 for the purchase of paramedic supplies and equipment.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. City of Pasadena Agreement with Life-Assist, Inc.

PAGE 7 of 360

CITY OF PASADENA
Purchase Order Contract Cover Page & Acceptance of Terms and Conditions CONTRACT NUMBER:

CONTRACTOR/VENDOR:

CONTRACT PURPOSE:

START DATE: EXPIRATION DATE:

TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER:

Project Manager:

Title/Role:

Phone/E-mail:

Please sign, date, and return
____________________________________ ________________________________________ Vendor Signature & Date Full Name & Title
FY:

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Contractor/Vendor acceptance of this Purchase Order or payment, or shipment of goods and/or provision of services, shall constitute Contractor/Vendor unqualified acceptance of the terms of this Purchase Order.

This document, in its entirety, does not constitute a firm offer by the City, and may be revoked at any time prior to acceptance. Pre-existing contract language, as agreed upon, shall prevail.

Attachments:

City of Pasadena Terms & Conditions of Purchase Order
32364 Life-Assist, Inc.

The purpose of this contract is for Life-Assist, inc. to furnish and deliver medical supplies as requested by the Pasadena Fire Department for pre-hospital emergency medical care.

The term of this multi-year purchase order contract is for an amount not to exceed $750,000 for an initial three-year term with two one-year optional extensions for an amount not to exceed $250,000 each. The initial $750,000 has been expended and the Department has exercised the first extension and would like to exercise the second extension. Contract extensions are subject to approval by the City Manager. 05/01/2026 04/30/2027 $250,000 Jennifer Do [email protected] Stephanie Chang Management Analyst 2026, FY 2027 Attachment A - IFB - Furnish & Deliver Medical Supplies Attachment B - Life-Assist Bid Response Attachment C - Purchase Order Terms and Conditions PAGE 8 of 360
PAGE 9 of 360
PAGE 10 of 360
PAGE 11 of 360
PAGE 12 of 360
PAGE 13 of 360
PAGE 14 of 360
Contract: PASADENA Compare Pricing From Version: 30469 - 8/11/2025 Report Version: 33004 - 7/8/2026
Item No New Price Old Price Pack Size Change % Change Description Vendor Item No Vendor Name AA1903 $ 0.30 0.31 $ ea-1 0.01 3.3 Color-Coded Berman Airway, Individually Packaged, 80mm 121903 Teleflex AA1904 $ 0.30 0.31 $ ea-1 0.01 3.3 Color-Coded Berman Airway, Individually Packaged, 90mm 121904 Teleflex AA1905 $ 0.30 0.31 $ ea-1 0.01 3.3 Color-Coded Berman Airway, Individually Packaged, 100mm 121905 Teleflex AA560 $ 0.74 0.76 $ ea-1 0.02 2.7 Guedel Airway, Black, 60mm 1-1505-60 AirLife AA570 $ 0.74 0.76 $ ea-1 0.02 2.7 Guedel Airway, White, 70mm 1-1505-70 AirLife AC8703 $ 20.90 21.61 $ ea-1 0.71 3.4 Intersurgical i-gel Supraglottic Airway,Resus Pack, Small Adult,Size 3 8703030 Intersurgical AC8704 $ 20.90 21.61 $ ea-1 0.71 3.4 Intersurgical i-gel Supraglottic Airway,O2 Resus Pack,Med Adult,Size 4 8704030 Intersurgical AC8705 $ 20.90 21.61 $ ea-1 0.71 3.4 Intersurgical i-gel Supraglottic Airway,Resus Pack,Large Adult,Size 5 8705030 Intersurgical BA6715 $ 1.58 1.64 $ ea-1 0.058 3.7 KERLIX Gauze Bandage, 4.5" x 4.1 yds, Sterile 6715- Cardinal Health BA7350 $ 30.51 31.64 $ ea-1 1.129 3.7 QuikClot Combat Gauze LE, 3" x 4 yds Z-fold 350 Teleflex EL7017 $ 32.58 33.79 $ ea-1 1.2054 3.7 Physio-Control EDGE Defib Electrode w/Preconnect Leads Out, Adult 11996-000017 Optimal EL7091 $ 40.10 41.51 $ ea-1 1.41 3.5 Physio-Control EDGE Defib Electrode, Adult 11996-000091 Optimal FB1465EMS $ 263.31 270.21 $ ea-1 6.9 2.6 Pelican Air 1465EMS EMS Case, Orange 014650-0050-150 Pelican Products FS805-BLU $ 12.50 12.96 $ ea-1 0.46 3.7 EMS Fanny Pack, Medium, Blue 43805BL Royal Case Company GL0104L $ 15.40 24.00 $ bx-100 8.6 55.8 LifeStar, Nitrile Exam Glove, Extended Cuff, White/Purple, LargeLSE-104-L Ansell Healthcare GL0104M $ 15.40 24.00 $ bx-100 8.6 55.8 LifeStar, Nitrile Exam Glove, Extended Cuff, White/Purple, MediumLSE-104-M Ansell Healthcare GL0104S $ 15.40 24.00 $ bx-100 8.6 55.8 LifeStar, Nitrile Exam Glove, Extended Cuff, White/Purple, SmallLSE-104-S Ansell Healthcare GL0104XL $ 15.40 24.00 $ bx-100 8.6 55.8 LifeStar, Nitrile Exam Glove, Extended Cuff, White/Purple , X-Large LSE-104-XL Ansell Healthcare GL775L $ 13.00 15.00 $ bx-50 2 15.4 Microflex Freeform, Nitrile Exam Glove, Extended Cuff, Blue, Large FFE-775-L Ansell Healthcare GL775M $ 13.00 15.00 $ bx-50 2 15.4 Microflex Freeform, Nitrile Exam Glove, Extended Cuff, Blue, Medium FFE-775-M Ansell Healthcare GL775S $ 13.00 15.00 $ bx-50 2 15.4 Microflex Freeform, Nitrile Exam Glove, Extended Cuff, Blue, Small FFE-775-S Ansell Healthcare GL775XL $ 13.00 15.00 $ bx-50 2 15.4 Microflex Freeform, Nitrile Exam Glove, Extended Cuff, Blue, X-Large FFE-775-XL Ansell Healthcare GL775XXL $ 13.00 15.00 $ bx-50 2 15.4 Microflex Freeform, Nitrile Exam Glove, Extended Cuff, Blue, XX-Large FFE-775-XXL Ansell Healthcare GL880L $ 10.78 16.00 $ bx-100 5.22 48.4 Microflex UltraSense EC, Nitrile Glove, Extended Cuff, Blue, LargeUSE-880-L Ansell Healthcare GL880S $ 10.78 16.00 $ bx-100 5.22 48.4 Microflex UltraSense EC, Nitrile Glove, Extended Cuff, Blue, Small USE-880-S Ansell Healthcare GL880XL $ 10.78 16.00 $ bx-100 5.22 48.4 Microflex UltraSense EC, Nitrile Glove, Extended Cuff, Blue, X-Large USE-880-XL Ansell Healthcare GL880XXL $ 10.78 16.00 $ bx-100 5.22 48.4 Microflex UltraSense EC, Nitrile Glove, Extended Cuff, Blue, XX-Large USE-880-XXL Ansell Healthcare GU6592 $ 50.00 51.85 $ bx-1 1.85 3.7 BD Microtainer Lancets, 30g / 1.5mm, Low Flow, Purple (Box Of 200) 366576 Becton Dickinson IV4001 $ 1.56 1.61 $ ea-1 0.05 3.2 MicroClave Clear Needleless Connector, 400 psi MR4001 Amsino International IV5100 $ 2.39 2.48 $ ea-1 0.0884 3.7 AMSAFE IV Set, MicroClave/Preslit, 15 drop MRA15-100 Amsino International LY1421 $ 9.64 9.99 $ ea-1 0.35 3.6 BriteView Laryngoscope Blade, Mac #1, Pink LB 51MAC1-DS Tri-Tech Forensics LY1423 $ 9.64 9.99 $ ea-1 0.35 3.6 BriteView Laryngoscope Blade, Mac #3, Orange LB 51MAC3-DS Tri-Tech Forensics LY1424 $ 9.64 9.99 $ ea-1 0.35 3.6 BriteView Laryngoscope Blade, Mac #4, Green LB 51MAC4-DS Tri-Tech Forensics OM1883 $ 0.75 0.78 $ ea-1 0.028 3.7 MICRO MIST Nebulizer with tee and mouthpiece HUDRHS883U Medline Industries PO2501 $ 150.00 155.50 $ ea-1 5.5 3.7 Masimo M-LNCS SpO2 Sensor, Reuseable, Adult, 3' 2501 Masimo Corporation SG2074 $ 56.17 58.25 $ ea-1 2.08 3.7 DIAGNOSTIX 703 Palm Style BP Unit, Adult, Navy Blue 703-11AN American Diagnostic SL5802-00 $ 3.10 3.22 $ ea-1 0.115 3.7 B Braun Sodium Chloride IV Solution, 0.9%,1000 ml Bag, Excel Plus Bag Q8000 B. Braun Medical SL7800-09 $ 3.10 3.22 $ ea-1 0.115 3.7 Sodium Chloride IV Solution, 0.9%, B Braun,1000 ml Bag, E3 E8000 B. Braun Medical SY975 $ 4.29 4.45 $ ea-1 0.1587 3.7 Laerdal Sta-Blok Head Immobilizer 700-00001 Laerdal Medical PAGE 15 of 360
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Nicole Tibbet, Community Engagement Manager
DATE: September 25, 2026
SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO WAIVE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT FEES FOR

THE SAN MARINO HIGH SCHOOL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

GATHERING IN LACY PARK

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
Engaged and Connected Residents
Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government

BACKGROUND
The City of San Marino is well-renowned for its safety, beautifully maintained public amenities, and, of course, its schools. In strong support of the schools and their ancillary support groups and associations, the City is asked from time to time to host events that support the schools and the overall community in City owned facilities at a free or reduced rate. The San Marino High School Alumni Association has recently been looking to re-kindle a number of annual events and has requested the use of Lacy Park for one such event.

DISCUSSION
The San Marino High School Alumni Association has requested a reserved space in Lacy Park on Sunday, November 1 from 11:30 AM – 3:00 PM for an alumni gathering. The event is meant to be a small gathering of alumni and their families for ice cream in the park.

The association has requested the City waive the fees associated with this event. As a non-profit, the intent is to make this a no-cost event for alumni to Tony Chou, Mayor
Calvin Lo, Vice Mayor
Hunter Chang, Council Member
John Chou, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
PAGE 16 of 360
attend in an effort to bolster attendance. The association will still be subject to a safety and logistics review of the event and comply with all conditions given by staff. Fees expected to be associated with this event include the Special Event Permit Processing Fee and the Lacy Park Reservation Fee.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The impact of this action includes the Special Event Permit Processing Fee of $1,685 and the Lacy Park Reservation Fee of $145. The fiscal impact of this action would be a total of $1,830.

Procurement is not applicable to this report.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council waive the Special Event Permit fees associated with the San Marino High School Alumni Association Gathering in November of 2026.

ATTACHMENTS

1. SMHS Gathering Event Application
PAGE 17 of 360
PAGE 18 of 360
PAGE 19 of 360
PAGE 20 of 360
PAGE 21 of 360
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Joseph Montes, City Attorney
DATE: September 25, 2026
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED

AND RESTATED CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT

AGREEMENT

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Engaged and Connected Residents
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government

BACKGROUND
In June of 2023 the City Council appointed Philippe Eskandar as the City Manager. The City entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Eskandar, effective as of July 1, 2023.

Pursuant to the terms of that agreement, the City Council is to annually review Mr. Eskandar's performance and consider whether or not to change any aspects of the agreement. The City Council conducted a performance review on September 9, 2026.

DISCUSSION
As a result of the City Manager's performance review, and his leadership and performance during the past year of his service as City Manager, the City Council and City Manager would like to amend the existing agreement, with the following modifications:

Tony Chou, Mayor
Calvin Lo, Vice Mayor
Hunter Chang, Council Member
John Chou, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
PAGE 22 of 360
The severance payment in the event of a termination without cause has been increased to an amount equivalent to fifteen (15) months of base salary and health benefits, to be increased by one month annually for each year of work completed after July 1, 2026 up to a maximum of eighteen (18) months (or the remaining number of months on the contract, whichever is less); The term of the agreement has been extended to and through June 30, 2035.

Notably, in light of the City’s ongoing efforts to control costs and address its fiscal standing, Mr. Eskandar requested that there be no consideration of changes to his base salary or other compensation.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve a Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement. If the City Council agrees, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement Between the City of San Marino and Philippe Eskandar.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement
PAGE 23 of 360
4915-9683-5280 v1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY MANAGER

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MARINO AND

PHILIPPE ESKANDAR
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (“Second Amendment”) by and between the City of San Marino, California, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Philippe Eskandar, an individual (the “Employee”) is dated and effective as of the 25th day of September, 2026 and amends that certain Amended and Restated City Manager Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) amended on November 12, 2025, dated November 13, 2024, and which amended the original City Manager Employment Agreement dated as of July 1, 2023. City and Employee are collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
SECTION 1. RECITALS
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the City Council conducted an annual evaluation of the Employee on September 9, 2026; and WHEREAS, based upon the positive results of that evaluation and in recognition of the Employee’s leadership and accomplishments during the previous year, the City Council and the Employee wish to make certain amendments to the Agreement.

Therefore, in consideration of the performance by the Parties of the promises, covenants, and conditions herein, the Parties agree as provided in this Second Amendment.

SECTION 2. Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to state that the term of the Agreement commences on July 1, 2023, and continues to and through June 30, 2035, unless earlier terminated as provided elsewhere in the Agreement.

SECTION 3. Section 6.D is amended to reflect that the severance payment described in that section will be an amount equal to fifteen (15) months base salary and health benefits as contemplated by Government Code Section 53261, increased by one month annually for each year of work completed after July 1, 2026 up to a maximum of eighteen (18) months, or such number of months remaining in the term of the Agreement, whichever is less.

SECTION 4. Except as expressly amended by this Second Amendment, all other terms and provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

PAGE 24 of 360
4915-9683-5280 v1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Second Amendment as of the day and year first written above.
“City” “Employee”

CITY OF SAN MARINO
A Municipal Corporation
By: __________________________ By:___________________________ Tony Chou, Mayor Philippe Eskandar
ATTEST:

By: __________________________
Nia Calistro, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
Joseph Montes, City Attorney
PAGE 25 of 360
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
DATE: September 25, 2026
SUBJECT: REPORT ON EMERGENCY ACTIONS TAKEN TO
REPAIR/REMEDIATE FIRE STATION 91 AND REQUEST TO

EXTEND EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT PURSUANT TO
PUBLIC CONTRACTS CODE SECTION 22050 AND SAN
MARINO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.06.05(A)(8)

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
Fiscally Responsible and Transparent City Government

BACKGROUND
Fire Station 91, San Marino’s sole Fire Station is an essential public safety facility located within the City of San Marino that houses firefighting apparatus, emergency medical equipment, and fire personnel who provide emergency response services to the residents and businesses of the City. The facility is critical to the City's ability to deliver uninterrupted fire suppression and emergency medical response capabilities to the community.

City staff recently discovered that a long-term water leak within the Fire Station has caused significant and extensive water damage to the structure.

The damage includes deterioration of walls, flooring, electrical systems, and other building components critical to the continued safe operation of the fire station.

Upon discovery of the water damage, the City Manager, acting pursuant to the authority delegated under San Marino Municipal Code Section 04.03.02(A), proclaimed a public emergency in connection with the Tony Chou, Mayor
Calvin Lo, Vice Mayor
Hunter Chang, Council Member
John Chou, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
PAGE 26 of 360
water damage at the Fire Station and authorized immediate actions to assess, remediate, and repair the damage. Section 02.06.05(A)(8) of the San Marino Municipal Code delegates to the City Manager the power to proclaim a public emergency, as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1102, to immediately take all actions directly required by the emergency, to procure needed goods, services, and public projects, and to contract for public projects without informal or formal bidding.

At the April 24, 2026, City Council meeting, the City Council unanimously approved Resolution No. R-26-08, ratifying the City Manager’s proclamation of emergency and authorizing emergency procurement of construction and other related services to repair/remediate Fire Station 91. That resolution and governing law require that a report on progress be provided at each Council meeting and a decision be made as to whether to extend the emergency proclamation to facilitate continued emergency procurement.

DISCUSSION
Since the Council’s action, staff have been working with the City’s insurer, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) and their designees to carry out the remediation and repair work. The following work is currently in various stages of progress:
- Executed and completed an initial contract with ServePro for initial response, assessment, and rental equipment. Final invoice is pending. - Executed and completed a contract with Enviro Check for a variety of biological testing services. Cost for services was $2,590.00. - Executed a contract with Mobile Modular for the rental of temporary office and housing facilities for the Fire Department personnel. The facilities are expected to be delivered to the Civic Center during the week of May 11th.

Current cost estimate is $44,245.51.
- Executed a contract with BluSky Restoration Contractors, LLC for insurance covered remediation and demolition work. Final cost is $423,780.65. - Negotiating a scope of work and contract with BluSky Restoration Contractors, LLC for repair work. Costs are unknown at this time. - Executed a contract with Griffin Structures for construction management services to oversee the work of BluSky Restoration Contractors, LLC. Current cost estimate is $58,721.
- The City’s Information Technology (IT) servicer SDI is fulfilling the various IT needs related to the move out of the Fire Station and into the temporary facilities. Costs are unknown at this time.
- Executed and completed a contract with Westnet for fire personnel alerting equipment installation. Current cost estimate is $18,651.06.

PAGE 27 of 360
- Executed a contract with The Lavatory for additional temporary shower and restroom trailer facilities for fire personnel. Current cost estimate is $9,265.88.
- Executed and completed a second contract with Enviro Check for asbestos testing services. Cost for services was approximately $900. - Executed and completed a contract with Olfati Design Group for the perpetration of architectural and structural engineering plans. Cost for services was $26,800.00
- Negotiated and preparing to execute a contract with SOCTEC for geotechnical and environmental testing related to the foundation, soils, and concrete work. Current cost estimate is $9,624.00.
- Approved an invoice from Blue Sky Restoration covering the work performed related to building code and seismic upgrades. Invoice was for a total of $377,362 which was paid for by the City’s insurer.

Below is a summary table of the cost details above. If the cost is not listed, it is unknown or not finalized as of the date of this report.:

Provider Description Insurance
Responsibility
City
Responsibility
ServPro Water damage
remediation
Enviro
Check
Environmental
testing $2,590.00
Mobile
Modular
Mobile housing
and office units $44,245.51
Blue Sky
Restoration
Mitigation,
demolition,
moving, etc.
$423,780.65
Blue Sky
Restoration
Mold
abatement $58,171.19
Griffin
Structures
Construction
management
services
$58,721.00
SDI
Informational
technology
services
Westnet Response
alerting $18,651.06
PAGE 28 of 360
equipment
services
The Lavatory Temporary
restroom facilities $9,265.88
Enviro Check Environmental
Testing $900.00
Olfati Design
Group
Architect and
engineering
services
$26,800.00
Control Fire &
Security Plumbing Repairs $17,950.00
Blue Sky
Restoration Rebuilding

SOCOTEC
Geotechnical and
environmental
testing
$9,624.00
Blue Sky
Restoration
Building Code
Upgrade Repairs $377,362.00
Running
Totals $971,940.10 $76,121.19
As of the writing of this report, permits have been issued for the foundation, structural, and framing work to commence in the fire station. That work is underway with a significant portion of the seismic work, foundation, and framing repairs now completed. Following the completion of the foundation and framing work, it is anticipated that subfloor and finished flooring should begin installation within the month of September. Once flooring is completed or simultaneously, drywall repairs will commence with cabinetry following. The contractor anticipates finish tilework to begin in October with an anticipated project completion the first week of November.

It is unknown at this time whether additional emergency procurements will be required for the restoration work at Fire Station 91, but staff anticipates having a better understanding in that regard as repair activity progresses and undertaking the standard procurement procedures will unnecessarily delay repair and remediation of Fire Station 91. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Council determine that the emergency action approved in Resolution No.

R-26-08 be continued to facilitate expeditious repair and restoration of the PAGE 29 of 360
Fire Station.

Ongoing Review Requirements
Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050(c) and San Marino Municipal Code Section 02.06.05(A)(8), the City Council must review the emergency action at each regularly scheduled meeting and determine, by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, whether there is a need to continue the emergency action and whether that work should continue without the benefit of informal or formal bidding. The City Council shall terminate the emergency action at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant so that the remainder of the emergency action may be completed by giving notice for bids to let contracts. Staff will report to the City Council on the status of the emergency project at its next regularly scheduled meeting and at each regular meeting thereafter, as required by the Public Contract Code, until the repairs are completed.

Environmental Analysis
The emergency repairs to Fire Station 91 are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15269 (Emergency Projects).

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The full cost of the emergency repair work at Fire Station 91 is not yet known and will depend upon the scope of remediation required once a full assessment of the water damage has been completed. The City Manager will negotiate contracts with qualified contractors and vendors necessary to assess, remediate, and repair the damage. Even though there is no formal bid process required in emergency projects, the City Manager will make reasonable efforts to obtain competitive pricing where feasible and consistent with the urgency of the emergency. All contracts entered into pursuant to the Resolution shall be subject to applicable prevailing wage requirements. Staff will provide the City Council with regular updates on expenditures incurred pursuant to the Resolution at each regularly scheduled meeting.

While the total costs of the emergency repair work are unknown at this time, the City anticipates a significant portion to be covered by the City’s property insurance policies with the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority subject to the City’s coverage limits. At a minimum, the City expects to be responsible for the insurance policy’s deductible of $15,000. Expenses not covered by insurance will be paid for out of the City’s General Fund Unassigned Fund PAGE 30 of 360
Balance (Reserves).

As of the date of this report, in addition to a few miscellaneous expenses, two invoices for work completed were the responsibility of the City. The City Council appropriated $100,000 to pay for those invoices and expenses at the September 9, 2026 City Council meeting.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report of repair/remediation actions undertaken to date and extend the emergency by a 4/5 vote to facilitate expeditious restoration of Fire Station 91. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
"I move to 1) receive and file the report of repair/remediation actions undertaken to date and 2) extend the emergency action approved in Resolution No. R-26-08 to facilitate the expeditious restoration of Fire Station

91."

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. R-26-08
PAGE 31 of 360
PAGE 32 of 360
PAGE 33 of 360
PAGE 34 of 360
PAGE 35 of 360
PAGE 36 of 360

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Isidro Figueroa, Community Development Director
Aubrey Stark-Miller, Assistant Planner
DATE: September 25, 2026
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW
CASE NO. DR 22-26 AT 535 OLD MILL ROAD TO THE
DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,751 SQUARE-FOOT
RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO-STORY 2,690

SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED TWO-CAR

GARAGE (CHAN)

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Neighborhoods
Engaged and Connected Residents

BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 1,751 square-foot (sq ft) single-family residence and associated buildings and construct a 2,690 sq ft two-story residence with a detached 530 sq ft 2-car garage. The project is located on a 7,436 square-foot (sq ft) interior lot in the R-1 zone, Area District VII, and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Low-Density Residential. • DR 22-26 (New Residence)
The design review action is required pursuant to San Marino Municipal Code Section 23.15.04(B) because the project proposes a new or replacement structure.

Tony Chou, Mayor
Calvin Lo, Vice Mayor
Hunter Chang, Council Member
John Chou, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
PAGE 37 of 360
The Planning Commission reviewed (“Commission”) the project on October 22, 2025. The Commission continued the project for the applicant to address the following concerns:
• Privacy concerns and windows
• Front yard setback
• Driveway width
• Structure height and plate heights
The Commission reviewed the project on January 28, 2026. At the meeting, the applicant presented the project which was revised to address most of the concerns identified by the Commission at the October 22, 2025, meeting. The design changes reviewed by the Commission at the meeting consisted of the following:
• The applicant previously requested a variance to allow the residence to encroach within the front yard setback. The project was revised to comply with the front yard setback; therefore, the variance is no longer required.
• Windows:
o On the west side, Window 16 was replaced with privacy glazing glass blocks and a window was entirely removed on the second floor.
• Front yard:
o The proposed residence now has a setback of 35’ 4”, no longer requiring a variance as it meets the City’s required setback per the Yard Map.
• Driveway:
o Driveway has been widened with the setback from side yard property line changed from 10’ to 10’ 6”.
• Front façade:
o The structure’s overall height has been reduced from 23’ 6” to 22’ 8”
o Front facing gable reduced one 1ft to 13’ 6”. Plate height is reduced from 8’ 6” to 8’ 4”.
• Balcony:
o The Juliet balcony on the front façade has been changed in design. • Residence Side Yard Setbacks:
o The setback of the second floor from the property line has been changed by 6 inches on the east side.

PAGE 38 of 360
After reviewing the staff report, revised plans and associated documents, and receiving public comment from members of the public, the Commission found that the project did not meet the required findings and denied DR 22-26 by a 3-2 vote. Commissioner Boyle, Commissioner Chiao, and Chair John Dustin voted in favor of the motion to deny the project. Commissioners GatsoulisBatnij and Cheng voted against the motion to deny the project. Vice Chair Sharon Mequet was absent. The staff reports reviewed by the Commission on October 22, 2025, and January 28, 2026, provided an analysis of the project based on the information available to staff. The staff reports can be accessed through the following link:
https://sanmarinoca.gov/government/agendas___minutes_/index.php On February 25, 2026, the Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 25-17 for the denial of DR 22-26. On February 26, 2026, Patty Chan filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of for DR 22- 26 for the following reasons:

1. The staff report provided information and an analysis that the proposed project complied with Finding Number 1, “That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood”. The architect also provided revisions to the proposed project, ensuing combability with the adjacent properties and neighborhood for the second hearing. (Additional information provided in attachment 8).

2. The staff report provided information and an analysis that the proposed project complied with this finding. Revisions were made to address the privacy concerns for the second hearing. (Additional information provided in attachment 18).

3. The staff report concluded that all the required findings were met and provided a recommendation to approve the project. The Planning Commission ignored the recommendation without explanation.

The City Council reviewed the project on June 10, 2026. In accordance with San Marino Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 23.07.09 – Appeals, upon receiving a notice of appeal (or itself appealing a decision of the Commission), the City Council considered the following options at the meeting:
a. Affirm the action of the Commission; or
b. Require a summary of all evidence upon which the Planning Commission made its decision; after receiving such evidence, the Council shall take such action as, in its opinion, is indicated by such evidence alone; or
PAGE 39 of 360
c. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, with or without instructions, for further proceedings; or
d. Instruct the City Clerk to set the matter for hearing within seventyfive (75) days before itself, unless the applicant and all appellants consent to a later date. At such hearing, it shall hear and decide the case de novo. Such hearing shall be conducted in the manner and with the notice prescribed by the SMMC for the Planning Commission.

The Council voted 3-2 to set a De Novo hearing to review all aspects of the project and any new material including the following items:
• Neighborhood input
• Square footage for the proposed garage, front porch and rear patio.

Council Members Chou and Shepherd Romey and Vice Mayor Lo voted in favor of the motion. Council Member Chang and Mayor Chou voted against the motion.

DISCUSSION

PROJECT DETAILS
DR 22-26 (New Residence)
The applicant is proposing to demolish a 1,751 sq ft single-family residence and associated buildings. The project encompasses the construction of a new 2,690 sq ft two-story residence with a detached 530 sq ft 2-car garage.

Floor plans
The first-floor plan proposes a total of 1,610 sq ft of livable area. The floor plan includes two bedrooms, a living room, a dining room, a kitchen, and an uncovered rear patio.

The second-floor plan proposes a total of 1,025 sq ft of livable area. The floor plan includes two bedrooms and a loft.

Windows and Roofing
The residence was designed to incorporate aluminum-clad casement and fixed windows from Pella Lifestyle series. The proposed roof is a 2-piece mission clay tile.

PAGE 40 of 360
As shown in the following table, the project complies with SMMC requirements for a single-family residence located within District Area VII:

CRITERIA REGULATION EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING:

Maximum
Livable Area/Lot
Coverage
Maximum
2,700 sq ft
Lot Coverage:
1,751 sq ft
Livable Area:
1,751 sq ft
Lot Coverage:2,375 sq
ft
Livable Area: 2,690 sq
ft
HEIGHT
Maximum
Allowed
Maximum 30
feet
15 feet 21 feet-5 inches

YARD DIMENSIONS
Front Minimum 35
feet
30 feet-2
inches
35 feet- 4 inches
Side (East) Minimum 5
feet
8 feet-11
inches
10 feet
Side (West) Minimum 5
feet
3 feet-10
inches
5 feet-6 inches
Rear Minimum 25
feet
63 feet-1
inches
53 feet- 9 inches

PARKING
Garage Spaces
for 4 bedrooms
2 covered
spaces
2 covered
spaces
2 covered spaces
Garage Parking
Configuration
No tandem
parking
allowed
Side-by-side
parking
Side-by-side parking
DESIGN
Architectural
Style
No Regulation Spanish Spanish Colonial
Revival

TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant proposes the protection of 6 trees and the removal of two (2) trees, as listed on the Arborist Report dated April 5, 2025:
• Tree No. 4: 20-foot-tall Pyrus Calleryana with a 5-inch trunk diameter • Tree No. 5: 25-foot-tall Citrus with an 8-inch trunk diameter Replacement trees for the two removed trees include the following types and sizes:
• One (1) 15-gallon Western redbud tree
PAGE 41 of 360
• One (1) 15-gallon lime tree
• One (1) 15-gallon Fuji apple tree
• One (1) 24-inch boxed Wilson olive tree
• One (1) 15-gallon wild lilac tree
• One (1) 15-gallon Eureka lemon tree
There are 12 existing protected trees on the property. Trees No. 4 and No. 5 to be removed require removal to allow for construction. The two replacement trees proposed in the front yard are the olive and western redbud trees. A lime tree, lemon tree and an apple tree are proposed as replacement trees in the rear yard. Seven trees require protection. The replacement trees have been approved by the City’s Urban Forester.

Since the January 28, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has revised the project plans to encompass the following changes:
• Sheet A6.2 has been updated to include spec number with specific manufacture cut sheets;
• To address the Commission’s privacy concerns, the applicant added a Chinese flame tree for privacy in the northwest corner of the property which can be located on Sheet L-1; and
• The table on sheet A1.1 has been updated to note that the existing jacaranda in front yard will remain.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The subject property is identified on the Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report as a potential historic resource. The structure is listed as a potential district contributor of the potential future Mission Residential Historic District.

NEIGHBOR APPROVAL/OBJECTION LETTERS
Neighborhood notification prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 22, 2025, and January 28, 2026, encompassed the following:

Do Not Object – 8
Object – 0
No Response (with two attempts of certified mailings) – 1 Environmental Findings
The project encompasses the demolition of an existing 1,751 square-foot single-family residence and associated buildings in order to construct a new 2,690 sq ft two-story residence with a detached 530 sq ft 2-car garage.

Pursuant to Section 21084 of the California Public Resource Code, the PAGE 42 of 360
proposed second-story addition is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.

FINDINGS
Design Review Findings –DR 22-26
If the City Council determines that the project meets the required findings, a draft resolution demonstrating that the project meets the findings is found within Attachment 9. If the City Council determines to uphold the Planning Commission determination, a draft resolution demonstrating that the project does not meet the findings is found within Attachment 10.

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 adopt City Council Resolution No. R-26-21 approving 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.”
PAGE 43 of 360
If the City Council affirms the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No.

PCR 26-17, the appropriate motion would be:
“I move to adopt City Council Resolution No. R-26-21 affirming the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 26-17 to deny Design Review Case Number DR-22-26 at 535 Old Mill Road to demolish an existing 1,751 sq ft single-family residence and construct a 2,690 sq ft two-story residence with a detached 2-car garage.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission Resolution PCR 25-17

2. Project Plans

3. Neighborhood Map

4. Neighborhood Input Letters

5. Historical Resource Assessment Report

6. DPR Form

7. Arborist Report

8. Appeal Application and Supporting Documentation

9. City Council Resolution No. R-26-21 (Approval)

10. City Council Resolution No. R-26-21 (Denial)
PAGE 44 of 360
PAGE 45 of 360
PAGE 46 of 360
PAGE 47 of 360
x
xxxxxx
PAGE 48 of 360
PAGE 49 of 360
PAGE 50 of 360
PAGE 51 of 360
PAGE 52 of 360
PAGE 53 of 360
PAGE 54 of 360
PAGE 55 of 360
x
x
PAGE 56 of 360
PAGE 57 of 360
PAGE 58 of 360
PAGE 59 of 360
PAGE 60 of 360
x
xxxxxx
xx x
xxx
PAGE 61 of 360
x
xxxxxx
” ”
” ”
PAGE 62 of 360
x
xxxxxx
PAGE 63 of 360
x
xxxxxx
PAGE 64 of 360
PAGE 65 of 360
x
x
x
x
PAGE 66 of 360
’
PAGE 67 of 360
PAGE 68 of 360

PROPERTY OF NC DESIGNS ONLY,

TO BE BUILT SOLELY BY THE
CLIENT NAMED HERE. PERMISSION
MUST BE GRANTED FOR THISDRAWING TO BE USED ORREPRODUCED BY ANY OTHERS. 1071 LOVRLos Osos, CA 93402
805.704.9027
NCDESIGNS.CO
Scale: 1/8"=1'-0"

SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT QTY
TREES
CEANOTHUS X 'RAY HARTMAN' / RAY HARTMAN WILD LILAC 15 GAL 1CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS / WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL 1 JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA / JACARANDA EXISTING 1
KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA / CHINESE FLAME TREE 15 GAL 1MALUS X DOMESTICA 'FUJI' / FUJI APPLE 15 GAL 1 OLEA EUROPAEA `WILSONII` / WILSON OLIVE 24"BOX 1

FRUIT TREES
CITRUS X LIMON 'EUREKA' / EUREKA LEMON 15 GAL 1

SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE QTYSHRUBS
COTINUS COGGYGRIA 'PURPUREUS' / PURPLE SMOKE TREE 5 GAL 1CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS / ITALIAN CYPRESS EXISTING 8GAURA LINDHEIMERI `GEYSER WHITE` / GEYSER WHITE GAURA 1 GAL 3 LAVANDULA X INTERMEDIA `PROVENCE` / PROVENCE LAVENDIN 5 GAL 7NEPETA X FAASSENII `WALKERS LOW` / WALKERS LOW CATMINT 1 GAL 22 OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA' / LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 5 GAL 12SALVIA SPATHACEA / HUMMINGBIRD SAGE 1 GAL 11

GRASSES
CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA 'KARL FOERSTER' / KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS 1 GAL 17 PENNISETUM ALOPECUROIDES `HAMELN` / HAMELN FOUNTAIN GRASS 1 GAL 17

SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT SPACING QTY

GROUND COVERS
TURF SOD / DROUGHT TOLERANT FESCUE BLEND NONE 1,393 SF

PLANT SCHEDULE
NOTE: Refer to accompanying Tree Path Protected Tree Report for tree map and associated data.

PAGE 69 of 360

OLD MILL PLANT PALETTE
Wilson’s Olive Tree - Fruitless Provence Lavandin Geyser White Gaura Hamln Fountain Grass Western Redbud Tree
Walker’s Low Catmint
Chinese Flame Tree
Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Little Ollie Olive
Purple Smoke Tree
Ray Hartman Ceanothus
PAGE 70 of 360

OLD MILL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS
Belgard Large Melville Plank Paver - Driveway Option Belgard Catalina Grana Paver - Driveway Option Granite Boulders Santa Barbara BouldersPea Gravel Topcast Exposed Concrete PAGE 71 of 360
2/2/23, 9:33 AM .
https://apps.spatialstream.com/landvision/production/CurrentBuild/Html/printpreview.html# 1/4 © 2023 Digital Map Products. All rights reserved.
78 feet
PAGE 72 of 360

CITY OF SAN MARINO

NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT LETTER
The City welcomes public input on design review projects. Once completed, deliver this Neighborhood Input Letter to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department.

I, _C;;.;H~E.;..N;.J.., .;...R~A.;..Y_M_O_N_D _____________ , am a property owner/resident of (neighbor's name)
_1_6_7_9_S_LO_S_R_O_B_LE_S_A_V_E_N_U_E ________ ......;, San Marino, and have been shown (neighbor,.'s address)
the architectural plans and elevations of proposed changes to the neighboring property located at 535 OLD MILL ROAD
(project address)
After receiving an explanation and reviewing the plans of the proposed changes ( check applicable response):

D I OBJECT to the project.
~ I DO NOT OBJECT to the project.

Comments (Optional):
re of Neighbor (Resident/Property Owner) Date
Community Development Department • San Marino City Hall 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, CA 91108 • (626) 300-0700 PAGE 73 of 360

CITY OF SAN MARINO

NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT LETTER
The City welcomes public Input on da1lgn review proJecu. Once, c;omp,oiocf, dofl~or thfs Ncfzt,borhood Input Letter to the Plannlng Division of the Community DcwolopmGnt Department.

I. PRT CHAN LLC ( PROPERTY OWNER) . am a property owner/resident of (neighbor's name)
_____________________ 535 OLD MILL ROAD , , San Marino, and have been shown (neighbor's address)
the architectural plans and elevations of proposed changes to the neighboring property located at 535 OLD MILL ROAD
(project address)
After receiving an explanation and reviewing the plans of the proposed changes ( check applicable response):
□ I OBJECT to the project.
fZf I DO NOT OBJECT to the project.

Comments (Optional):
n Property Owner) Dote
Community Development Department • San Marino City Hall 2200 Huntington Drive. San Marino. CA 91108 • (626) 300-0700 PAGE 74 of 360
.• ii,~~. "'B,_ • """I-, ... •• ·-,,.,. .. ," _.,,_
.•~~,_:. ~-- . ~( fl I •,·:-
•Vt,~ J; ~--, ·• • • ., ••• i-... ...,,., ' ,.,r, \
. • ' ;;,,-•'~ . , . ,, ', • q. -~ I ••• • , . \
: !,-~
~ ' • -'
. /J.~}s,:'
.. :;i • ...:;,;'
• ,·., ' ... ·.·..,., . . . ., \,.
~-' '~ ,l; ..,,;,..,

CITY OF SAN MARINO

1. JUNG, SOON W , am a property owner/resident of
(neighbor's name)
545 OLD MILL ROAD
----------------------, San Marino, and have been shown (neighbor's address)
the architectural plans and elevations of proposed changes to the neighboring property located at 535 OLD MILL ROAD
(project address)
After receiving an explanation and reviewing the plans of the proposed changes (check applicable response):
□ I OBJECT to the project.
~O NOT OBJECT to the project.

Comments (Optional):
sident/Property Owner) Date
Community Development Department • San Marino City Hall 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, CA 91108 • (626) 300-0700 PAGE 75 of 360

CITY OF SAN MARINO

NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT LETTER
The City welcomes public input on design review projects. Once completed, deUver this Neighborhood Input Letter to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. 1, REPETTI, FRANCIS G OR REPETTI, NOELLE M , am a property owner/resident of (neighbor's name)
_5_5_0_O_L_D_M_IL_L_R_O_A_D ____________ --J San Marino, and have been shown (neighbor's address)
the architectural plans and elevations of proposed changes to the neighboring property located at 535 OLD MILL ROAD
(project address)
After receiving an explanation and reviewing the plans of the proposed changes ( check applicable response):

D I OBJECT to the project.

IE] I DO NOT OBJECT to the project.
es, en Property Owner) Date
Community Development Department • San Marino City Hall 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino. CA 91108 • (626) 300-0700 PAGE 76 of 360

CITY OF SAN MARINO

NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT LETTER
The City welcomes public Input on design review projects. Once completed. deliver this Neighborhood Input Letter to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department.

I, KELLY, BRYAN HOR SAKAGUCHI, MARISA N
(neighbor's name)
, am a property owner/resident of
___________________ 1670 S LOS ROBLES AVENUE San Marino, and have been shown _. (neighbor's address)
the architectural plans and elevations of proposed changes to the neighboring property located at 535 OLD MILL ROAD
(project address) \
j
After receiving an explanation and reviewing the plans of the proposed changes (check applicable response):
□ I OBJECT to the project.
l,?<T I DO NOT OBJECT to the project.

Comments (Optional):

Signature of Neighbor (R~ Owner) Date
Community Development Department • San Marino City Hall 2200 Hundngton Drive. San Marino. CA 91108 • (626) 300-0700 f_/
PAGE 77 of 360
r
Fi

CITY OF SAN MARINO

NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT LETTER
The City welcomes public Input on design review projects. Once completed, deliver this Neighborhood Input Letter to the Plannlng Dlvtslon of the Community Development Department.

I, ___ c_H_IU_,_J_E_F_F_R_E_Y_O_R_C_H_IU_,_c_E_C_I_L_E _____ ,. am a property owner/resident of (neighbor's name)
1657 S. LOS ROBLES AVENUE , San Marino, and have been shown ----------------------· (neighbor's address)
the architectural plans and elevations of proposed changes to the neighboring property located at:
535 OLD MILL ROAD
(project address)
After receiving an explanation and reviewing the plans of the proposed changes ( check applicable response):

D I OBJECT to the project.
~ NOT OBJECT to the project.

Comments (Optional):
elghbor (Residenr/Property Owner) Odte
Community Development Department • San Marino City Hall 2200 Hundngton Drive, San Marino, CA CJ 1108 • (626) 300-0700 PAGE 78 of 360
-

CITY OF SAN MARINO

NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT LETTER
The City welcomes public Input on design review protects. Once completed, deliver this Neighborhood Input Letter to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department.

WU, SHARON OR WU, VIVIEN
I, ____________________ , am a property owner/resident of (neighbor's name)
560 OLD MILL ROAD _____________________ , San Marino, and have been shown (neighbor's address)
the architectural plans and elevations of proposed changes to the neighboring property located at:
535 OLD MILL ROAD
(project address)
After receiving an explanation and reviewing the plans of the proposed changes ( check applicable response):

D I OBJECT to the project.
'0 I DO NOT OBJECT to the project.

Comments (Optional):
es/dent/Property O er) Date
Community Development Department • San Marino City Hall 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, CA 91108 • (626) 300-0700 I
PAGE 79 of 360

CITY OF SAN MARINO

NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT LETTER
The City welcomes public input on design review projects. Once completed. deliver this Neighborhood Input Letter to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department.

I, ___ A_L_E_XA_N_D_E_R_, _G_RA_N_T __________ , am a property owner/resident of (neighbor·s name)
555 OLD MILL ROAD , San Marino, and have been shown ---------------------- (neighbor·s address) the architectural plans and elevations of proposed changes to the neighboring property located at 535 OLD MILL ROAD
(project address)
After receiving an explanation and revi~w~ng the plans of the proposed changes (check applicable response):
□ I OBJECT to the project.

I DO NOT OBJECT to the project. aw--
Comments (Optional):

Signawre of Neighbor (Residenr/Property Owner) Date
Community Development Department• San Marino City Hall
2200 Huntington Drive. San Marino, CA CJI 108 • (626) 300-0700 •
PAGE 80 of 360

CITY OF SAN MARINO

NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION

DECLARATION
Project Address: __ 5_3_5_O_L_D_M_IL_L_R_O_A_D _______________ _ Case Number(s): __ D_R_C_2_2_-2_6 ___________________ _ Regarding the above-referenced project, I have made two (2) attempts in the form of certified mail to contact the property owner(s) of the following property(ies) in the legal neighborhood:
505 OLD MILL ROAD

YU, JEAN SHOOK YING,
1107 FAIR OAKS AVENUE #505 SOUTH PASADENA
"" \
\
1635 S LOS ROBLES AVENUE I
' )

KOO, PATRICK OR VOORA, SANTHL
460 S SPRING ST. APT 1205 LOS ANGELES
Attach a list if more space is required.

With each attempt, I provided the owner(s) of the aforementioned properties:
• The project address, case number(s), and a way for residents to contact me about the project. • An explanation of the proposed project and what requires design review. • A copy of the plans showing the proposed changes, minimum I I" x 17" in size.

Copies of the postmarked certified mail receipts are attached'.,to this form as proof.

I declare under that the foregoing is true and correct.

PATTY CHAN, PRT CHAN LLC
Signature cant Print Name
Date
Community Development Department • San Marino City Hall 2200 Hundngton Drive, San Marino, CA 91108 • (626) 300-0700 PAGE 81 of 360 - -
_,.... --:-- - - --··--17-----r_ -------.;; , ·--:-- - ' .
n.J
rn
m
co
r'-
Cl
~
cO
c:l
J]
cO
c:l
Cl
Cl
Cl
~
cO
U'l
...D
.::r
U.S. Postal ServiceT ..

Domestic Mail Only
bH~i«i@ iaM1Ail·i1•.~ZM-1i->=4r.f '"1 "{< l#·ii·G@4h@·H11r11E· ~ • ;:: · - ~~ ..-::i
ZE~ i~
0 0RatiMnR Certifted Mail Aa1ib1d«f
~ D Adult SignalUr9 ~
/? <" "'\)
~~s o~Slgna!l.nt
1$.
postage
[Total P..otStage . ._,.~
i~
• TM erv1ce RTIFIEO MAIL® RECEIPT oornc-stic Mai/ Only CCI For dcflv"'-• • [l
c::cl
c::::J
c:::l
Cl
CJ
• '-'"'-'
□"'
~oesc
i:,t,!
~~ ---,-,-~ A.:umRecelpt(~bonlc) c.tltJed Man~ DeDwry Adult~~ 0 0 D D AduftSIQnati.re ~ o.av.,y of~~. $9.~ j ;I; tw.P-• ana" CJ ~l ~ .~1_,- , ' $ 10- CJ
r-=,
~f'-
n-tt.ps: 1 '
A\ \ sa \ es -f i na \ o1 Re-funds -tor guara ,h~nk 'iou f o ller••WA·~ ,,,aatna·~ . ~h~tN~•
e 20
21 ,, vvv,.,_. ~
I --~-
~ \ ••---•-• / ~ • I ------ ---- ____ iv-o----~~~-=:;t I ·--- PAGE 82 of 360
Historical Resources Assessment Report for
535 Old Mill Road
San Marino, California 91108

Prepared for:
535 Old Mill Road
San Marino, CA 91108

Prepared by:

Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
430 North Halstead Street
Pasadena, California 91107

July 25, 2021
PAGE 83 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTIONS PAGE
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... 1 2 PROJECT SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 2 3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 3 4 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS/DESIGNATIONS ........................................... 4 5 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SURROUNDING AREA...................................... 5 6 PROPERTY HISTORY ...................................................................................................... 9 7 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................16 8 HISTORIC CONTEXT .....................................................................................................19 9 EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY .......................................................................................22 10 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................25 11 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................26

TABLES PAGE
1 Building Permit History ..................................................................................................14 2 Ownership History .........................................................................................................14

FIGURES PAGE
1A Setting, Old Mill Road (view facing east) .......................................................................... 9 1B Setting, Old Mill Road (view facing west) ......................................................................... 9 2 Sketch Map ....................................................................................................................10 3 Project Location Map......................................................................................................11 4 Primary Façade (view facing north) .................................................................................12

ATTACHMENTS
A Resume of Key Personnel
B DPR 523 Series Forms
PAGE 84 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 1 SECTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Historical Resources Assessment Report (HRAR) presents the results of an historical resources assessment for the building located at 535 Old Mill Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 5325- 005-025), City of San Marino (City), Los Angeles County, California. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. architectural historians (Mr. Scott Torres and Ms. Carrie Chasteen) were retained to serve as the principal investigators to complete the HRAR. Mr. Torres and Ms. Chasteen meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the fields of History and Architectural History.

The property is located on a residential street in the City with one 1,751-square-foot residence located at 535 Old Mill Road.

Architectural Resources Group (ARG) completed a Citywide historic resources survey of San Marino in 2020. In the ARG historic resources survey, the subject property was not identified as an individually eligible resource for listing at the national, state, or local level. The subject property was identified as a contributor to the potential Mission Street Residential Historic District, eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or for designation as a City Historic Landmark (Historic Landmark).

After careful research and evaluation, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (Mr. Torres; Attachment A, Resume of Key Personnel) concludes that the building does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or as a Historic Landmark. The subject property would also not contribute to a potential historic district as neighboring properties serve as excellent examples of the style. The subject property was added to the predominantly developed tract in 1932.

In addition to being a latter addition, the subject property is not an excellent example of the style on the block. In addition to being the least noted property on the 500 block of Old Mill Road, additional properties were constructed in the 1950s and are examples of the ubiquitous Ranch-style homes found throughout the City. The potentially eligible district contains over 200 potentially eligible contributors and the loss of this one would not impact the significance of the district. It is assumed the potential historic district would continue to qualify for designation with the loss of this property; therefore, the proposed project was evaluated against the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). The proposed project complies with the Standards and would not result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

PAGE 85 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 2 SECTION 2

PROJECT SUMMARY

2.1 BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will demolish the existing 1,751-square-foot single-family residence and construct a new 2,695-square-foot single-family residence.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND CURRENT SETTING
The subject property consists of one parcel located at 535 Old Mill Road (APN 5325-005-025), in the City, Los Angeles County, California. The property is located on a residential street with singlefamily housing.

PAGE 86 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 3 SECTION 3

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The assessment methodology consisted of research and field assessment of the buildings.

RESEARCH CONDUCTED

1. Obtained and reviewed the building permits for the parcel from the City Department of Building and Safety. Dates of construction and subsequent alterations were determined by the building permit records, as well as additional resources, such as the field inspection and historic aerial photographs.

2. Researched the project site and surrounding area at local libraries and archives to establish the general history and context of the project site, including a review of the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Los Angeles County, newspapers, City directories, books, and articles.

3. Consulted the Context/Theme/Property Type (CTP) eligibility standards formulated for the San Marino Historic Context Statement to identify the appropriate CTP under which to evaluate the buildings on the project site.

4. Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation assessment processes and programs to evaluate the significance and integrity of the buildings on the project site.

FIELD METHODS

5. Conducted a windshield survey of the project site on October 15, 2021, to ascertain the general condition and physical integrity of the buildings thereon. Digital photographs were taken during the site inspection, which included only the exterior of the buildings.

Field notes were made.

6. It was concluded during the field inspection that the subject property was evaluated individually and as a contributor to a potential historic district under federal, state, and local eligibility criteria according to the National Park Service, California Office of Historic Preservation, and San Marino Historic Ordinance standards.

PAGE 87 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 4 SECTION 4

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS/DESIGNATIONS

Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series topographic maps, and aerial photographs were reviewed for the project site and adjacent properties. In addition to official maps and records, and published registers and reports for the geographic area were reviewed:
• National Register of Historic Places – Listed (2022); • California Register of Historical Resources – Listed (2022); • California State Historical Landmarks (1996 and updates); • California Points of Historical Interest (1992 and updates); • Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) 2020;
• City of San Marino Citywide Historic Survey – (2020); and • City of San Marino Final Property List (2020).

4.2 PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS/DESIGNATIONS SUMMARY
Architectural Resources Group (ARG) completed a Citywide survey of San Marino in 2020 including a draft context statement and historical resource map with an index for individual resources and districts (updated October 6, 2020).
1,2
In the ARG report, the subject property was identified as a contributor to, the potentially eligible for listing in California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or for designation as a City Historic Landmark (Historic Landmark). 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. 1 City of San Marino. 2020. City of San Marino Historic Citywide Survey Map. City of San Marino. Prepared by:

Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4570/San-Marino-Recon-Map-61319 2 City of San Marino. Updated 15 May 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
PAGE 88 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 5 SECTION 5

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
This report employs the historic contexts, themes, and criteria considerations set forth in the initial City of San Marino Citywide Historic Context Statement completed by ARG in 2020. 3 Residential Development 1931–1945
San Marino had seen heavy residential construction during the 1920s, averaging over 150 new buildings per year and reaching a height of 212 new buildings in 1927, valued (along with additions/alterations to existing buildings) at over $3 million.4In contrast, its average between 1931 and 1934 was only 55 new buildings per year, with a low of only 44 new buildings and a valuation of $433,672 in 1934.5 The construction rate was about a third of what it was during the 1920s boom, while the valuation was about a seventh – this indicates that not only were fewer buildings built, but they were likely smaller and more modest than those that came before. It is clear that San Marino’s development slowed during the worst years of the Great Depression, just as development slowed across the nation, but it did not stop completely.

The federal government passed the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Act in 1933 as one of several acts meant to help stabilize housing values and slow losses. It created the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), which refinanced loans for borrowers to prevent default, and created standards for assessing the credit-worthiness of neighborhoods. In 1934, the passage of the National Housing Act created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which provided federal insurance for privately financed mortgages as long as the lenders submitted to federal standards. These and other federal programs during this time stimulated the revival of the construction industry, especially in better-off places like San Marino. The city felt the effects quickly. In 1935, it saw the construction of 138 new buildings, a threefold increase from 1934, with a total valuation (including additions and alterations to existing buildings) of almost $1.4 million – nearly a million dollars over the year before.6 Growth continued upward over the next few years, reaching its height in 1940. In that year, 263 new buildings (nearly all houses) were constructed, as were 284 additions to new buildings, at a valuation of $2.4 million.7 Even as construction picked up, real estate values remained lower than they had during the speculative years of the 1920s. But in terms of sheer volume of construction, 1940 exceeded even the height of the 1920s boom, as did 1941 (with 246 new buildings).8 The difference was in the types of houses built. 3 City San Marino. April 2020. San Marino Historic Context Statement Draft. Prepared by: Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available Available at: https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4569/SanMarino-Historic-Context-Statement-Draft-4119 4 “Building Inspector’s Report,” in the William Hertrich Papers, 1904–1966. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library; “Data Show Growth.”
5 “Building Inspector’s Report,” in the William Hertrich Papers, 1904–1966. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library; “Data Show Growth.”
6 “Building Inspector’s Report,” in the William Hertrich Papers, 1904–1966. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library; “Data Show Growth.”
7 “Building Two Million During 1941.” 8 January 1942. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA). 8 “Building Two Million During 1941.” 8 January 1942. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA).

PAGE 89 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 6 While San Marino still saw construction of architecturally distinctive homes on a grand scale during this period, far more common was the smaller-scale, developer-designed home. This is evident today in some of the city’s small-scale neighborhoods like San Marino Highlands (south of Huntington Drive in the east part of the city, originally planned to be the southern part of Gainsborough Heath in 1927), San Marino Oaks (just west of San Marino Highlands), and San Marino-Patton Estates (between The Huntington Library and Huntington Drive, originally subdivided right before the 1929 crash). These subdivisions built between the late 1930s and the early 1950s exhibit small (mostly one-story) houses with repetitive building plans and consistent styles, primarily in Colonial Ranch, Cape Cod Ranch, and Minimal Traditional designs. The homes tended not to be as small as the typical FHA-compliant house built in the late 1930s-early 1940s; the first few built in San Marino Highlands averaged 1,600 square feet in size.9 But the city’s developers and builders were clearly following the neighborhood and building design guidelines established by the FHA and formalized in its 1936 publication Planning Neighborhoods for Small Houses.

Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places,” 49. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 11 Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland. 2002. National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs:

Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places,” 49. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 12 “County Vacancy Ratio Now Lowest Since 1924.” 23 February 1941. Los Angeles Times. 13 “Homesites Bought; Residences to Rise.” 23 October 1938. Los Angeles Times. 14 “Development Plans Prepared.” 23 October 1938. Los Angeles Times. 15 “New Street Expands Tract.” 14 January 1940. Los Angeles Times. 16 “San Marino Model to Open.” 29 September 1940. Los Angeles Times.

PAGE 90 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 7 FHA guidelines also encouraged deed restrictions to ensure high property values; in practice, this included racial as well as design restrictions. Most, if not all, of San Marino’s 1920s houses carried racially restrictive covenants in their deeds; this was common across Southern California at this time. Even in areas without formal deed restrictions, informal means were typically used to exclude people of color - particularly the common realtor practice of simply refusing to show or sell properties to anyone of undesirable ethnicity.17,18 In San Marino, this real estate practice appears to have excluded most Jewish as well as African American, Asian American, and Latino buyers.19 The city’s realtors appear to have closely followed guidelines in the 1922 Code of Ethics for the National Association of Real Estate Brokers that stated, “A Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood a character of property or occupancy, members of any race or nationality, or any individual whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values in the neighborhood.”20 From its incorporation until the last quarter of the 20th century, San Marino’s residents were overwhelmingly white.

The discriminatory practice of restrictive covenants was reinforced by HOLC, which created a nationally applicable framework for appraising properties, classing neighborhoods into one of four grades: A, B, C, and D, with corresponding colors green, blue, yellow, and red shown on residential security maps, based on factors like homogeneity of population as well as proportion of multi-family income properties to single-family residences and building age/quality.21 The FHA used these ratings to decide who met the lending requirements of FHA-insured mortgages. In a practice that became known as redlining, certain neighborhoods were classed as red, a category that was usually reserved for the oldest areas with the highest ethnic diversity and presence of “subversive racial elements.” These neighborhoods were viewed as an undesirable credit risk to lenders, and their residents were rarely able to obtain FHA loans. HOLC rated all of San Marino as grade-A green in 1939, noting “Deed restrictions are ample and rigidly enforced” and “Population is homogeneous.”22 Of the most prestigious Oak Knolls area in the northwest part of town, the HOLC appraisal sheet notes “It is one of the most exclusive districts in the country and merely to be a resident here presupposes a secure place in the social register.”23 While most of San Marino’s late 1930s construction revival was due to federal programs like the FHA and HOLC, some credit is also due to an aggressive newspaper advertising campaign by a group of San Marino realtors. Display ads placed in the Los Angeles Times 17 City of Los Angeles. 2016. “Context: Jewish History” in “SurveyLA Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement,” 13. Prepared by: GPA Consulting, El Segundo, CA and Becky Nicolaides. 18 Rodman, Edmon J. 9 April 2014. “Let My People Go…to Hancock Park.” Jewish Journal. 19 Hescher, Uri and Pete McCloskey cited in “Courage and Cowardice in San Marino,” Matt Hormann, Hometown Pasadena. Accessed March 2019. Available at: http://hometown-pasadena.com/history/courage-and-cowardice-insanmarino/97684 20 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 21 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
22 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
23 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
PAGE 91 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 8 focused on San Marino as the ideal place to raise a family, with safe streets, fresh air, reasonably priced homes, and good schools with comfortably white and upper-class students who “are drawn from the sort of homes that you will live in, and will grow up to be the men and women that your children will meet in the business and social world.”24 The tactic seems to have worked, as shown by a 1938 report by the city building inspector showing an average of one family a day was moving into a new home in San Marino.25 The same report noted that building permit valuations indicated “a definite trend towards smaller home construction.”26
The U.S. entered World War II in 1941. New construction in San Marino slowed in 1942 and came to a screeching halt in 1943 due to the wartime building moratorium. Between 1943 and 1945, permits were granted for only three new buildings; additions and alteration work were all that was allowed, and their total valuations were quite low in comparison to those in 1940- 1941.27,28,29 Construction would not resume again until after the war. 24 Display ad. 17 April 1938. Los Angeles Times.
25 “Steady Influx of Families into San Marino Shown by Report.” 17 April 1938. Los Angeles Times. 26 “Steady Influx of Families into San Marino Shown by Report.” 17 April 1938. Los Angeles Times. 27 “Building Shows Big Decrease.” 6 January 1944. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA). 28 “S.M. Building Shows Increase Over Last Year.” 8 February 1945. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA). 29 “Building Permits Show Big Gain Over Last Year.” 2 January 1947. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA).

PAGE 92 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 9 SECTION 6

PROPERTY HISTORY

6.1 CURRENT SETTING
The setting surrounding the parcel is single-family residential. The parcel is located on a curved street between El Molino Avenue to the east and Los Robles Avenue to the west (Figures 1A–B, Setting, Old Mill Road; Figure 2, Sketch Map; Figure 3, Project Location Map).

Figure 1A. Setting, Old Mill Road (view facing east)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
Figure 1B. Setting, Old Mill Road (view facing west)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
PAGE 93 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 10 Figure 2. Sketch Map
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
PAGE 94 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 11 Figure 3. Project Location Map
SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey, 1994
PAGE 95 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 12

6.2 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
The subject property includes a single-family residence constructed in 1932. The single-story Spanish Colonial Revival-style residence faces Old Mill Road, measures 1,751 square feet, and features an ‘L’-shaped footprint. The subject property is clad in stucco. The building has a combination roofline; design styles visible from the public right-of-way include a low-pitched cross-gabled roof clad in terracotta tile (Figure 4, Primary Façade). The entryway to the property is accessible via a brick walkway that extends from the street to a radiused concrete porch, also clad in red tile. The porch remains minimally covered by the horizontal roofline.

Figure 4. Primary Façade (view facing north)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
The primary façade remains stuccoed and contains two, rectangular, fixed windows. Each window visible on the primary façade is recessed and framed in wood. One fixed window flanks the entry on the western end of the façade, and the main large window contains a metal window box. Extant wrought-metal décor includes porch handrailing and wall-mounted light fixtures. The roofline contains painted rain gutters and drains that discharge rainwater into the lawn.

Based on photographs from historic aerials and Google Earth, the western façade contains numerous square windows. Additional reviews of property photographs indicate two extant windows on the eastern façade of the subject property. The photographs did not provide sufficient views to determine specific window style and construction material. However, a review of City building permits does not indicate substantial alteration to extant windows were made. A concrete-block wall separates the subject property from the adjacent neighbor to the west.

Over the course of time, the subject property has not undergone substantial change to essential character-defining features. A detailed list of building permits remains available in the following section that encompasses building history specific to the subject property.

PAGE 96 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 13

6.3 BUILDING HISTORY

6.3.1 Construction History
The subject property is located in the City within Tract No. 8687, a subdivision of Rancho Los Robles and a portion of the Hardison Tract. The tract was owned by the First Trust and Savings Bank of Pasadena, and surveyed in August 1924 by Los Angeles civil engineer, Earle R. Bunker.30 The tract and subdivision of it consisted of 117 lots of various sizes and footprints. The subject property was constructed in 1932, and according to building permits, the original architect, if any, is unknown.

Building permits indicate V.A. Williamson was the contractor regarding the construction of the residence. A ProQuest search of historical issues of the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Sentinel in addition to issues of the Billings Gazette, Santa Ana Daily Register, and the City of South Pasadena Foothill Review indicate V.A. Williamson was a contractor whose building services were utilized throughout Pasadena, San Marino, and Santa Ana. The Montana-based Billings Gazette highlights Williamsons’ work building the J.L. Baird block of the city in 1919.31 In addition to his work in Montana, the Santa Ana Daily Register indicates Williamson arrived in Southern California from Colorado in 1925.32 Williamson is not featured in historic issues of the Southwest Builder and Contractor nor is the subject property featured in historic issues of Architectural Digest. There is no further information available regarding the life of V.A. Williamson. The subject property is not mentioned in any newspaper publication beyond real estate advertisements over the course of time and it received no mention in architectural or construction trade publications as well. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to have been a significant construction project in the City.

6.3.2 Permit History33
The original building permits for the construction of the building were provided by the City. The building permits regarding original construction indicate a proposed construction date of 1928.

Assessor records indicate the property was completed in 1932. The building permits issued by the City indicate various alteration and repairs made to the extant property ranging from 1928/32 to 2009 (Table 1, Building Permit History).
30 City of San Marino Tract Map 8687.
31 The Billings Gazette. 17 June 1919. Interstate News Montana-Wyoming. 32 The Santa Ana Daily Register. 22 December 1925.
33 All permits supplied by Christina Baker from the City of San Marino Planning Department in PDF format, October 2021.

PAGE 97 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 14 TABLE 1

BUILDING PERMIT HISTORY
Date Permit No. Description of Work
June 1928/1932 1415 Construction of a single-story 54×40 “Spanish Colonial” singlefamily residence 12/16/1948 6539 5’6” concrete garden wall
12/16/1948 6540 12’×14’concrete shed located on the rear of the lot 6/14/1957 10939 Roof tile repair
12/2/1968 8007 Construct a 4’ chain link fence and gate 3/6/1969 8530 Re-roof a portion of the residence
1/4/1971 13024 Roof tile repair
8/03/1973 20402 Roof tile repair
6/15/2009 084803 Re-roof entire residence
The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps do not cover this area of the City. Historic aerials photographs of the property were reviewed dating back to 1948 and show the footprint of the building which appears to generally be the same.

6.4 OWNERSHIP/OCCUPANT HISTORY
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 2, Ownership History):

TABLE 2

OWNERSHIP HISTORY
Year Name
1932 Mr. A.H. Bothe
1947 J.P. McMahon
1950–1962 Eben Cameron
1965–1969 John Freeman
1996–2009 Ginte Jasulaitis
2009–2021 Patty Chan
The first owner of the property was Dr. Arthur H. Bothe. Ancestry records estimate Bothe was born in 1895.
34 According to Ancestry records, Dr. Bothe was a high school teacher and junior varsity baseball coach at South Pasadena-San Marino High School as early as 1927.35 Bothe was born in Missouri, and Ancestry records indicate he received his formal education through college in Missouri prior to moving to Los Angeles. There is no further information available regarding the life of Bothe.

Building permits from 1947 indicate J.P. Mc Mahon as the property owner. There is no substantial information available in the Ancestry database regarding the life of J.P. McMahon. Building permits indicate Eben Cameron as the listed owner from 1950 to 1962. Ancestry records indicate Cameron 34 Ancestry. Year: 1940; Census Place: San Gabriel, Los Angeles, California; Roll: m-t0627-00254; Page: 8B; Enumeration District: 19-703.
35 Ancestry. Year: 1927; "U.S., School Yearbooks, 1880-2012"; School Name: South Pasadena-San Marino High School.

PAGE 98 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 15 was born in San Francisco in 1893.36 According to the Pasadena Independent, Cameron was a 22- year resident of the San Marino and Pasadena area.37 John Freeman owned the subject property between 1965 and 1969. There is no information available regarding the life of John Freeman specific to the subject property. Building permit records and Ancestry records indicate the subject property was owned by Ginte Jasulaitas from 1996 to 2009.38 Jasulaitis is a doctor and currently resides in the City of Carmel. The subject property is currently owned by Ms. Patty Chan. All ownership information regarding the subject property was found based on reviews of Ancestry database searches, newspapers.com, and historic issues of the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Sentinel via ProQuest.

6.5 USE HISTORY
The property was built as a single-family residence and is currently being used as such. 36 Ancestry. 2000. ”California, U.S., Death Index, 1940-1997 [database on-line].” Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
37 Pasadena Independent. 19 October 1967.
38 Ancestry. 2010. “U.S., Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 1 [database on-line].” Lehi, UT: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.

PAGE 99 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 16 SECTION 7

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The buildings associated with the subject property were evaluated to determine if they constitute a historical resource as defined by CEQA, using the eligibility criteria for listing in applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations.

7.1 FEDERAL
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, defines the criteria to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section part 63).

According to National Register Bulletin No. 15, “to be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must not only be shown to be significant under National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity.” Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin No. 15 as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”39 Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes the following seven aspects or qualities that in various combinations define integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 39 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/ PAGE 100 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 17

7.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Section 5024.1(c), Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 of the California Public Resources Code defines the criteria to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register:

A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the following [National Register] criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Section 4852(C) of the California Code of Regulations40 defines integrity as follows:

Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described in section 4852(b) of this chapter and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.

Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.
40 California Office of Historic Preservation. 1999. California State Law and Historic Preservation, 4853 (c), 66.

PAGE 101 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 18

7.3 CITY OF SAN MARINO
Section 23.18.030 of Article 18 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance No. 0-18-1336 defined the designation criteria for Historic Landmarks:41
A. The Council may designate a historic resource a Historic Landmark if it meets the requirements of both paragraphs B and C of this section.

B. Historic landmarks must meet at least one of the following criteria:

3. It is or was once associated or identified with important events or broad patterns of development that have made a significant contribution to the cultural, architectural, historical, and political heritage of the City, region, state, or nation; or

4. It is or was associated with an important person or persons who made a significant contribution to the history, development, or culture of the City, region, state, or nation; or

5. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction; exemplifies the work of a well-recognized architect or builder or possesses high artistic or aesthetic values; or it represents one of the last, best remaining examples of an architectural type or style in a neighborhood or the City that was once common but is now increasingly rare.

C. Historic landmarks must retain integrity from their period of significance with respect to its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these factors. A proposed landmark need not retain all such original aspects, but must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic, cultural, or architectural significance. Neither the deferred maintenance of a proposed landmark nor its dilapidated condition shall, on its own, be equated with a loss of integrity.

Integrity shall be judged with reference to the particular characteristics that support the property’s eligibility.
41 City of San Marino. 11 April 2018. City Council Agenda. Accessed May 16, 2018. Available at: http://www.ci.sanmarino.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04112018-1034 PAGE 102 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 19 SECTION 8

HISTORIC CONTEXT
The property was evaluated using the Citywide Historic Context Statement developed by ARG for the City; specifically, the Residential Development, 1931–1945 and Spanish Colonial Revival-style Themes.
42 8.1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1931–1945
Context: San Marino on the Great Depression and Wartime, 1931–1945 Theme: Residential Development, 1931–1945
Property Type(s): Single-family residences; ancillary buildings and structures like servants’ quarters, garages, porte-cochères, and pool houses; features related directly to subdivision development, including entrance markers, street lamps, street trees, curbs, sidewalks, and walls; vernacular landscapes reflecting residential occupations (possibly including small relic orange groves, orchards, or vineyards); designed landscapes like estate grounds (including unified features like perimeter walls, retaining walls, steps, walkways, roads, driveways, gates, water features, and gardens); and geographically unified groupings of residential properties (historic districts).

Area(s) of Significance: As the site of a significant historic event from this period; for its association with patterns of residential development in the City; as the site of a significant historic event from this period; for its association with a person (or persons) significant in the history of the City.

Criteria: NR: A/B CR: 1/2 Local: 1/2
Period of Significance: 1931–1945
Eligibility Standards:
• Date to the period of significance (1931–1945)
• Retain the essential aspects of integrity
o Retain enough of its essential physical features to sufficiently convey its association with the historic context
o Retain the majority (60 percent or more) of the contributors dating to the period of significance
o Retain enough of its essential physical features to sufficiently convey its association with the historic context
• Be directly associated with the notable person’s productive period—the time during which she or he attained significance
42 City of San Marino. October 2020. “San Marino Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report.” Prepared by:

Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available at https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/planning/Historic%20Survey/San%20Marino%20Historic%20Resources%20Surve y%20Report%20FINAL%2010.6.20.pdf
PAGE 103 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 20 Integrity Considerations: A property that is significant as the site of a significant historic event is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that comprised its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event. A residential property from this period should retain integrity of location, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey the important association with the city’s development during this period. A property that has lost integrity of setting may still be eligible. A property that has lost some historic materials or details may still be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its original style and appearance in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, and fenestration pattern. A property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying form and massing but has lost the majority of features that characterized its appearance during its historical period.

A property that is significant for its association with a significant person should retain integrity of location, design, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey its historic association with a significant individual.

In order for a historic district to be eligible for designation, the majority of the components within the district boundary must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. Integrity of design, setting, and feeling must be strongly present in the district overall, and it should convey a strong sense of time and place. A contributing building must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to adequately convey the significance of the historic district.

In general, minor or reversible alterations or in-kind replacement of original features and finishes are acceptable within historic districts. Significant alterations that change the massing, form, roofline, or fenestration patterns of an individual building, alter the original design intent, or that are not reversible may result in non-contributing status for an individual building. In order for a historic district to retain integrity, the majority (60 percent or more) of its component parts should contribute to its historic significance.

8.2 ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, 1870–1980
Context: Architecture and Design, 1870–1980
Theme: Spanish Colonial Revival
Property Type(s): Significant interpretations of architectural styles can be applied to nearly any property type. In San Marino, examples include single-family residences; commercial buildings like banks, office buildings, restaurants, and retail buildings; institutional properties like government buildings, clubhouses, schools, and churches; and designed landscapes (residential and institutional). Concentrations of buildings that collectively convey a significant representation of architectural style(s) or type(s) may be identified as historic districts.

Area(s) of Significance: An individual property eligible under this theme may be significant:
• As an excellent embodiment of an architectural style, type, period, or method of construction; and/or
• As the notable work of a master architect or builder; and/or • For possessing high artistic or aesthetic values; and/or • As one of the last, best remaining examples of a type or style in a neighborhood or the City that is increasingly rare.

PAGE 104 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 21 Criteria: NR: C CR: 3 Local: 3
Period of Significance: 1920s–1930s
Character-defining features of Spanish Colonial Revival-style architecture include:
• Complex massing and asymmetrical façades
• Incorporation of patios, courtyards, loggias, or covered porches and/or balconies • Low‐pitched gable or hipped roofs with clay tile roofing • Hipped or gable roofs, typically with boxed eaves
• Coved, molded, or wood‐bracketed eaves
• Towers or turrets
• Stucco wall cladding
• Arched window and door openings
• Single and paired multi‐paned windows (predominantly casement) • Decorative stucco or tile vents
• Used of secondary materials, including wrought iron, wood, cast stone, terra cotta, and pol ychromatic tile
Integrity Considerations: An individual property significant for its architecture is eligible if it retains most of the physical features that constitute its style or technique. It should retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit.

A property that has lost a few historic materials or details may still be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its original style and appearance in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. A property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying form and massing but has lost the majority of features that originally characterized its style or type. Given the City’s vast stock of intact historic architecture, properties that may be significant for their embodiment of an architectural style should be held to a higher integrity standard than those that may be significant as the last, best remaining example of a style or type.

An individual property that is significant must also retain certain aspects of integrity in order to express its historic significance. Determining which aspects are most important to a particular property type necessitates an understanding of its significance and essential physical characteristics.

The rarity of a property type and of an architectural style should also be considered when assessing integrity. In general, properties being evaluated for their architectural significance are held to a higher integrity threshold than those being evaluated under other contexts.

PAGE 105 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 22 SECTION 9

EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY

9.1 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
National Register Criterion A
The subject property was developed as part of a residential Tract No. 8687. The tract was surveyed in 1924. The subject property is a modest example of a Spanish Colonial Revival-style residence constructed in 1932, eight years after the tract was initially platted. The subject property is a rather modest example of a Spanish Colonial Revival-style residence in the City. Aside from being constructed within the period of significance, the subject property does not appear in newspapers beyond real estate advertisements. There is no information available to suggest the subject property stood apart from other residences constructed during the period of significance. The subject property was not constructed for a client of any particular significance. The subject property is a rather modest example of a Spanish Colonial Revival-style building constructed during the period of significance, 1931–1945. There is no information available to suggest it was a significant construction project that stood out from other residential construction during the period of significance and does not appear to be a significant development within national, state, or local historic narratives. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A.

National Register Criterion B
Arthur Bothe was the original owner of the property and aside from living in the City and working in nearby Pasadena, Bothe does not appear historically significant. There is no information available to suggest that any of the previous owners or residents are historic personages who made demonstrably significant contributions to the history of the nation, state, or region, or that any other individuals of historical significance are associated with the property. Therefore, the subject property is ineligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B.

National Register Criterion C
The subject property, a Spanish-Colonial Revival residence, was constructed in 1932. The architect, if any, of the project is unknown. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to be the work of a master architect. V.A. Williamson is listed as a contractor associated with the construction of the subject property. Based on newspaper research, Williamson operated throughout Southern California, particularly Pasadena, San Marino, and various surrounding communities. There is no information specific to or associated with Williamson’s building projects. Williamson is not identified in historic issues of Southwest Builder and Contractor. The subject property is not featured in historic issues of Architectural Digest. Local newspapers articles indicate Williams was contracted by Arthur Bothe to construct the subject property. There is no additional information available to suggest that Williamson was a master builder or tradesman. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to be a significant example of the style that would merit a mention in architectural and construction trade publications. The subject property is a common, low-style example of a SpanishColonial Revival single-family residence. Based on the overall commonality of the subject property and modest styling, it is safe to assert that it does not rise above the level of workmanship of other properties of the same style within the City. The subject property is not the best representation of the period of significance; therefore, the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C.

PAGE 106 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 23 National Register Criterion D
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.

9.2 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register eligibility criteria mirror those of the National Register. Therefore, the subject property is not eligible for listing in the California Register for the same reasons outlined above.

9.3 CITY OF SAN MARINO HISTORIC LANDMARK
Similarly, the San Marino Historic Landmark eligibility criteria mirror those of the National Register and California Register criteria. Therefore, the subject property is not eligible for designation as an Historic Landmark for the same reasons outlined above.

9.4 CITY OF SAN MARINO HISTORIC DISTRICT
The subject property was evaluated as a potential contributor to the potentially eligible Mission Street Residential Historic District identified by ARG in the Citywide Survey. Yet, the subject property does not convey an association with a significant development pattern within the City during this time due to it being built after residential development boom of the 1920s. San Marino had seen heavy residential construction during the 1920s, averaging over 150 new buildings per year and reaching a height of 212 new buildings in 1927, valued (along with additions/alterations to existing buildings) at over $3 million.137 In contrast, its average between 1931 and 1934 was only 55 new buildings per year, with a low of only 44 new buildings and a valuation of $433,672 in 1934. The construction rate was about a third of what it was during the 1920s boom, while the valuation was about a seventh—this indicates that not only were fewer buildings built, but they were likely smaller and more modest than those that came before. It is clear that San Marino’s development slowed during the worst years of the Great Depression, just as development slowed across the nation, but it did not stop completely.43 The subject property is a common, low-style example of a Spanish-Colonial Revival-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, the subject property is one of six Spanish Colonial Revival residences on the same block. Neighboring properties were constructed between 1924 and 1927. The construction of the surrounding properties appears to be more closely associated with residential development in the City between 1913 and 1930. The subject property was added to the predominantly developed tract in 1932. In addition to being a latter addition, the subject property is not an excellent example of the style on the block. In addition to being the least noted property on the 500 block of Old Mill Road, additional properties were constructed in the 1950s and are examples of the ubiquitous Ranch-style homes found throughout the City. The potentially eligible district contains over 200 potentially eligible contributors. The 500 block alone contains four potentially eligible Spanish Colonial Revival-style contributors that are excellent examples of the style and are closely associated with residential development in the City.

Contributors include 550 Old Mill Rd (3D,3CD, 5D3), 555 Old Mil Rd (3D,3CD,5D3), 575 Old Mill Rd (3D, 3CD, 5D3), 575 Old Mill Rd (3D, 3CD, 5D3), and 595 Old Mill Rd (3D, 3CD, 5D3). Overall, 43 City San Marino. April 2020. San Marino Historic Context Statement Draft. Prepared by: Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available at: https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4569/San-MarinoHistoric-Context-Statement-Draft-4119e PAGE 107 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 24 the loss of this one modest Spanish-Colonial Residence that is not found to bare historic significance beyond being constructed in 1932 would not result in a negative impact to the potentially eligible Mission Street Residential District. 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.

9.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, No. 9.

Therefore, the project will not stick out above extant buildings on the north side of Old Mill 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 the Mission Street Historic Residential Historic District. 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. Additionally, the subject property does not appear to be a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. 44 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
PAGE 108 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 25 SECTION 10

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the research and analysis, the subject property located at 535 Old Mill 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 1932 but is not associated with significant development patterns within the City (Attachment B, DPR 523 Series Forms). The subject property is not designed by a master architect or constructed by a master builder and is a common and low-style example of the Spanish-Colonial Revival-style residence. Additionally, the subject property does not contribute to a potential historic district. The proposed project was evaluated against the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and complies with the Standards and would not result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

PAGE 109 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 26 SECTION 11

REFERENCES
Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland. 2002. National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places,” 49. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Ancestry. 2000. ”California, U.S., Death Index, 1940-1997 [database on-line].” Provo, UT:

Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.

Ancestry. 2010. “U.S., Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 1 [database on-line].” Lehi, UT:

Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.

Ancestry. Year: 1927; "U.S., School Yearbooks, 1880-2012"; School Name: South Pasadena-San Marino High School.

Ancestry. Year: 1940; Census Place: San Gabriel, Los Angeles, California; Roll: m-t0627-00254; Page: 8B; Enumeration District: 19-703.

Baker, Christina, City of San Marino Planning Department. October 2021. Permits “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. “Context: Jewish History” in “SurveyLA Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement,” 13. Prepared by: GPA Consulting, El Segundo, CA and Becky Nicolaides.

City of San Marino Tract Map 8687.

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. 2020. City of San Marino Historic Citywide Survey Map. City of San Marino.

Prepared by: Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4570/San-Marino-Recon-Map61319 City of San Marino. October 2020. “San Marino Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report.” Prepared by: Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available at https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/planning/Historic%20Survey/San%20Marino%20Historic %20Resources%20Survey%20Report%20FINAL%2010.6.20.pdf
PAGE 110 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 27 City of San Marino. Updated 15 May 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
City San Marino. April 2020. San Marino Historic Context Statement Draft. Prepared by:

Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available Available at:
https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4569/San-Marino-HistoricContext-Statement-Draft-4119 “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.

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 Times. 17 April 1938. Display ad.

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.

Pasadena Independent. 19 October 1967.

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.

PAGE 111 of 360
535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-001\Documents\535 Old Mill Road_HRAR.docx Page 28 “Steady Influx of Families into San Marino Shown by Report.” 17 April 1938. Los Angeles Times.

The Billings Gazette. 17 June 1919. Interstate News Montana-Wyoming.

The Santa Ana Daily Register. 22 December 1925.

PAGE 112 of 360

ATTACHMENT A

RESUME OF KEY PERSONNEL
PAGE 113 of 360
Scott E. Torres, MA
Architectural Historian
Master of Arts, History,
California State University
Fullerton, Fullerton, CA,
2020
• History
• Architecture
• California History
• Historic Preservation
• Cultural Survey
Years of Experience: 3+
• Historic Resource
Documentation and
Evaluations for Sierra
Madre Ca, Hollywood,
San Marino, Ontario,
Fontana, Glendale, and
Los Angeles
• High Speed Rail
Construction Package 4
• Society of Architectural
Historians Member
Mr. Scott Torres has more than three years of experience in the field of historic research and writing, including primary and secondary source analysis, conducting oral history interviews, peer review, and editing.

Mr. Torres has served as a project architectural historian and conducted historic assessments in the Cities of Los Angeles, including Hollywood, San Marino, Los Angeles, Orange, and surrounding communities within Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Mr. Torres has conducted a historic resource evaluation of the Little Tokyo Towers as part of a historic resource assessment report in support of the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources.

Additional resource assessments in Hollywood include early Craftsman residences and the Period Revival Bungalow Court Apartments associated with early development and the
entertainment industry. On behalf of the County of Los Angeles, Mr.

Torres provided research and documentation on unincorporated East LA’s Unique Theater, in support of its nomination for Historic Landmark designation. Mr. Torres has also provided historic documentation and literature review in support of the Los Angeles Music Center Electric Replacement Project; the project included an impact assessment regarding identified historic resources located within the music center campus. Additionally, Mr. Torres has conducted research in support of residential design reviews in the Cities of Glendale, San Marino, and Hollywood. Mr. Torres has also provided cultural resources support for the High-Speed Rail (HSR) Construction Package (CP) 4.

Mr. Torres has conducted Department of Parks and Recreation documentation and evaluations in support of site assessments in the Cities of Sierra Madre, Monrovia, Hollywood, Los Angeles, and Ontario. This work includes site photographs, database research, and map review.

Mr. Torres is a member of the Society of Architectural Historians.

PAGE 114 of 360

ATTACHMENT B
DPR 523 SERIES FORMS
PAGE 115 of 360
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code: 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
Attachments: ☐ NONE ☒ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☒ Continuation Sheet ☒ Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (List):

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information

Page 1 of 10 ends

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: 535 Old Mill 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 5325-005-025 *P3a. Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries):

The subject property includes a single-family residence constructed in 1932. The single-story Spanish Colonial Revival-style residence faces Old Mill Road, measures 1,751 square feet, and features an ‘L’-shaped footprint. The subject property is clad in stucco. The building has a combination roofline; design styles visible from the public right-of-way include a low-pitched cross-gabled roof clad in terracotta tile. The entryway to the property is accessible via a brick walkway that extends from the street to a radiused concrete porch, also clad in red tile. The porch remains minimally covered by the horizontal roofline. (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 #):

Southern Façade
View North
October 27, 2021
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
☒Historic ☐Prehistoric ☐Both
1932 LA County Assessor
*P7. Owner and Address:

Ms. Patty Chan
535 Old Mill 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. November 2021. Historical Resources Assessment Report for 535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California 91108 P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) PAGE 116 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): 535 Old Mill Road *NRHP Status Code: 6Z

Page 2 of 10 ends

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
B1. Historic Name: 535 Old Mill Road
B2. Common Name: 535 Old Mill Road
B3. Original Use: Single-family residence B4. Present Use: Single-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The subject property is located in the City within Tract No. 8687, a subdivision of Rancho Los Robles and a portion of the Hardison Tract. The tract was owned by the First Trust and Savings Bank of Pasadena, and surveyed in August 1924 by Los Angeles civil engineer, Earle R. Bunker. The tract and subdivision of it consisted of 117 lots of various sizes and footprints. The subject property was constructed in 1932, and according to building permits, the original architect, if any, is unknown. Building permits indicate V.A. Williamson was the contractor regarding the construction of the residence (See Continuation Sheet page 5) *B7. Moved? ☒ No ☐ Yes ☐ Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: V.A. Williamson
*B10. Significance: Theme: Spanish Colonial Revival Area: San Marino Period of Significance: 1932 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 Spanish Colonial Revival buildings was 1915-1940. The subject property was constructed in 1932. The City of San Marino experience a slow in residential development due to the Great Depression and the onset of World War II, 1931-1945. (See Continuation Sheet page 6)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes): N/A *B12. References: See Continuation Sheet page 8.
*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 117 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

Page 3 of 10 ends

*Map Name: El Monte *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1994 PAGE 118 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 4 of 10 ends

*P3a. Description: (Continued from Primary Record page 1) The subject property includes a single-family residence constructed in 1932. The single-story Spanish Colonial Revival-style residence faces Old Mill Road, measures 1,751 square feet, and features an ‘L’-shaped footprint. The subject property is clad in stucco. The building has a combination roofline; design styles visible from the public right-of-way include a low-pitched cross-gabled roof clad in terracotta tile. The entryway to the property is accessible via a brick walkway that extends from the street to a radiused concrete porch, also clad in red tile. The porch remains minimally covered by the horizontal roofline.

Primary Façade (north)
The primary façade remains stuccoed and contains two, rectangular, fixed windows. Each window visible on the primary façade is recessed and framed in wood. One fixed window flanks the entry on the western end of the façade, and the main large window contains a metal window box. Extant wrought-metal décor includes porch handrailing and wall-mounted light fixtures. The roofline contains painted rain gutters and drains that discharge rainwater into the lawn.

PAGE 119 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 5 of 10 ends

*B6. Construction History: (Continuation from Building, Structure, Object Report page 2) A ProQuest search of historical issues of the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Sentinel in addition to issues of the Billings Gazette, Santa Ana Daily Register, and the City of South Pasadena Foothill Review indicate V.A. Williamson was a contractor whose building services were utilized throughout Pasadena, San Marino, and Santa Ana. The Montana-based Billings Gazette highlights Williamsons’ work building the J.L. Baird block of the city in 1919. In addition to his work in Montana, the Santa Ana Daily Register indicates Williamson arrived in Southern California from Colorado in 1925. Williamson is not featured in historic issues of the Southwest Builder and Contractor nor is the subject property featured in historic issues of Architectural Digest. There is no further information available regarding the life of V.A. Williamson. The subject property is not mentioned in any newspaper publication beyond real estate advertisements over the course of time and it received no mention in architectural or construction trade publications as well. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to have been a significant construction project in the City.

The original building permits for the construction of the building were provided by the City.

The building permits regarding original construction indicate a proposed construction date of 1928. Assessor records indicate the property was completed in 1932. The building permits issued by the City indicate various alteration and repairs made to the extant property ranging from 1928/32 to 2009
TABLE 1

BUILDING PERMIT HISTORY
Date Permit No. Description of Work
June 1928/1932 1415 Construction of a single-story 54×40 “Spanish Colonial” single-family residence
12/16/1948 6539 5’6” concrete garden wall
12/16/1948 6540 12’×14’concrete shed located on the rear of the lot 6/14/1957 10939 Roof tile repair
12/2/1968 8007 Construct a 4’ chain link fence and gate 3/6/1969 8530 Re-roof a portion of the residence
1/4/1971 13024 Roof tile repair
8/03/1973 20402 Roof tile repair
6/15/2009 084803 Re-roof entire residence
The first owner of the property was Dr. Arthur H. Bothe. Ancestry records estimate Bothe was born in 1895. According to Ancestry records, Dr. Bothe was a high school teacher and junior varsity baseball coach at South Pasadena-San Marino High School as early as 1927. Bothe was born in Missouri, and Ancestry records indicate he received his formal education through college in Missouri prior to moving to Los Angeles. There is no further information available regarding the life of Bothe. Building permits from 1947 indicate J.P. Mc Mahon as the property owner. There is no substantial information available in the Ancestry database regarding the life of J.P. McMahon.

Building permits indicate Eben Cameron as the listed owner from 1950 to 1962. Ancestry records indicate Cameron was born in San Francisco in 1893. According to the Pasadena Independent, Cameron was a 22-year resident of the San Marino and Pasadena area. John Freeman owned the subject property between 1965 and 1969. There is no information available regarding the life of John Freeman specific to the subject property. Building permit records and Ancestry records indicate the subject property was owned by Ginte Jasulaitas from 1996 to 2009. Jasulaitis is a doctor and currently resides in the City of Carmel. The subject property is currently owned by Ms. Patty Chan. All ownership information regarding the subject property was found based on reviews of Ancestry database searches, newspapers.com, and historic issues of the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Sentinel via ProQuest.

PAGE 120 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 6 of 10 ends

TABLE 2

OWNERSHIP HISTORY
Year Name
1932 Mr. A.H. Bothe
1947 J.P. McMahon
1950–1962 Eben Cameron
1965–1969 John Freeman
1996–2009 Ginte Jasulaitis
2009–2021 Patty Chan
*B10. Significance: (Continuation from Building, Structure, Object Report page 2) The subject property was developed as part of a residential Tract No. 8687. The tract was surveyed in 1924. The subject property is a modest example of a Spanish Colonial Revival-style residence constructed in 1932, eight years after the tract was initially platted. The subject property is a rather modest example of a Spanish Colonial Revival-style residence in the City.

Aside from being constructed within the period of significance, the subject property does not appear in newspapers beyond real estate advertisements. There is no information available to suggest the subject property stood apart from other residences constructed during the period of significance. The subject property was not constructed for a client of any particular significance. The subject property is a rather modest example of a Spanish Colonial Revivalstyle building constructed during the period of significance, 1931–1945. There is no information available to suggest it was a significant construction project that stood out from other residential construction during the period of significance and does not appear to be a significant development within national, state, or local historic narratives. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A/1/1.

Arthur Bothe was the original owner of the property and aside from living in the City and working in nearby Pasadena, Bothe does not appear historically significant. There is no information available to suggest that any of the previous owners or residents are historic personages who made demonstrably significant contributions to the history of the nation, state, or region, or that any other individuals of historical significance are associated with the property.

Therefore, the subject property is ineligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B/2/2.

The subject property, a Spanish-Colonial Revival residence, was constructed in 1932. The architect, if any, of the project is unknown. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to be the work of a master architect. V.A. Williamson is listed as a contractor associated with the construction of the subject property. Based on newspaper research, Williamson operated throughout Southern California, particularly Pasadena, San Marino, and various surrounding communities.

There is no information specific to or associated with Williamson’s building projects. Williamson is not identified in historic issues of Southwest Builder and Contractor. The subject property is not featured in historic issues of Architectural Digest. Local newspapers articles indicate Williams was contracted by Arthur Bothe to construct the subject property. There is no additional information available to suggest that Williamson was a master builder or tradesman. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to be a significant example of the style that would merit a mention in architectural and construction trade publications. The subject property is a common, low-style example of a Spanish-Colonial Revival single-family residence. Based on the overall commonality of the subject property and modest styling, it is safe to assert that it does not rise above the level of workmanship of other properties of the same style within the City. The subject property is not the best representation of the period of significance; therefore, the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C/3/3.

Criterion D was 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.

PAGE 121 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 7 of 10 ends

*B10. Significance: (Continuation from Continuation Sheet page 6) 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.

The subject property was evaluated as a potential contributor to the potentially eligible Mission Street Residential Historic District identified by ARG in the Citywide Survey. Yet, the subject property does not convey an association with a significant development pattern within the City during this time due to it being built after residential development boom of the 1920s. San Marino had seen heavy residential construction during the 1920s, averaging over 150 new buildings per year and reaching a height of 212 new buildings in 1927, valued (along with additions/alterations to existing buildings) at over $3 million. In contrast, its average between 1931 and 1934 was only 55 new buildings per year, with a low of only 44 new buildings and a valuation of $433,672 in 1934. The construction rate was about a third of what it was during the 1920s boom, while the valuation was about a seventh—this indicates that not only were fewer buildings built, but they were likely smaller and more modest than those that came before. It is clear that San Marino’s development slowed during the worst years of the Great Depression, just as development slowed across the nation, but it did not stop completely. The subject property is a common, low-style example of a Spanish-Colonial Revival-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, the subject property is one of six Spanish Colonial Revival residences on the same block. Neighboring properties were constructed between 1924 and 1927. The construction of the surrounding properties appears to be more closely associated with residential development in the City between 1913 and 1930. The subject property was added to the predominantly developed tract in 1932. In addition to being a latter addition, the subject property is not an excellent example of the style on the block. In addition to being the least noted property on the 500 block of Old Mill Road, additional properties were constructed in the 1950s and are examples of the ubiquitous Ranch-style homes found throughout the City. The potentially eligible district contains over 200 potentially eligible contributors. The 500 block alone contains four potentially eligible Spanish Colonial Revival-style contributors that are excellent examples of the style and are closely associated with residential development in the City. Contributors include 550 Old Mill Rd (3D,3CD, 5D3), 555 Old Mil Rd (3D,3CD,5D3), 575 Old Mill Rd (3D, 3CD, 5D3), 575 Old Mill Rd (3D, 3CD, 5D3), and 595 Old Mill Rd (3D, 3CD, 5D3).

Overall, the loss of this one modest Spanish-Colonial Residence that is not found to bare historic significance beyond being constructed in 1932 would not result in a negative impact to the potentially eligible Mission Street Residential District. 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 Rehabilitation, No. 9.

Page 8 of 10 ends

*B10. Significance: (Continuation from Continuation Sheet page 7) The proposed new construction of a 2,695-square-foot residence would not result in a substantial adverse change to the potentially eligible Mission Street Residential Historic District. The proposed project was preliminarily reviewed by the City of San Marino. 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 stick out above extant buildings on the north side of Old Mill 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 the Mission Street Historic Residential Historic District. 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. Additionally, the subject property does not appear to be a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Based on the research and analysis, the subject property located at 535 Old Mill 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 1932 but is not associated with significant development patterns within the City. The subject property is not designed by a master architect or constructed by a master builder and is a common and low-style example of the Spanish-Colonial Revival-style residence. Additionally, the subject property does not contribute to a potential historic district. The proposed project was evaluated against the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and complies with the Standards and would not result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
*B12. References: (Continued from Building, Structure, Object Report page 2) Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland. 2002. National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places,” 49. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Ancestry. 2000. ”California, U.S., Death Index, 1940-1997 [database on-line].” Provo, UT:

Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.

Ancestry. 2010. “U.S., Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 1 [database on-line].” Lehi, UT:

Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.

Ancestry. Year: 1927; "U.S., School Yearbooks, 1880-2012"; School Name: South Pasadena-San Marino High School.

Ancestry. Year: 1940; Census Place: San Gabriel, Los Angeles, California; Roll: m-t0627-00254; Page: 8B; Enumeration District: 19-703.

California Office of Historic Preservation. 1999. California State Law and Historic Preservation, 4853 (c), 66.

City of Los Angeles. 2016. “Context: Jewish History” in “SurveyLA Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement,” 13. Prepared by: GPA Consulting, El Segundo, CA and Becky Nicolaides.

City of San Marino Tract Map 8687.

PAGE 123 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 9 of 10 ends

*B12. References: (Continued from Continuation Sheet page 8) 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. 2020. City of San Marino Historic Citywide Survey Map. City of San Marino.

Prepared by: Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4570/San-Marino-Recon-Map-61319 City of San Marino. October 2020. “San Marino Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report.” Prepared by: Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available at https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/planning/Historic%20Survey/San%20Marino%20Historic%20Reso urces%20Survey%20Report%20FINAL%2010.6.20.pdf
City of San Marino. Updated 15 May 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
City San Marino. April 2020. San Marino Historic Context Statement Draft. Prepared by:

Architectural Resources Group, Pasadena, CA. Available Available at:
https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4569/San-Marino-Historic-ContextStatement-Draft-4119 “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.

Available at: http://salt.umd.edu/T-RACES/demo/demo.html “Homesites Bought; Residences to Rise.” 23 October 1938. Los Angeles Times.

Pasadena Independent. 19 October 1967.

The Billings Gazette. 17 June 1919. Interstate News Montana-Wyoming.

PAGE 124 of 360
State of California ⎯ Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 10 of 10 ends

*B12. References: (Continued from Continuation Sheet page 9) The Santa Ana Daily Register. 22 December 1925.

PAGE 125 of 360
State of California--- The Resources Agency Primary #

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial #
NRHP Status Code 3S, 3CS, 5S3
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 5 ends

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Mission Street Residential Historic District P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ;R ; ¼of ¼ of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address 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) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The Mission Street Residential Historic District is located in western San Marino. It comprises 382 houses in the irregular area bounded roughly by Winthrop Road to the south, Euclid Avenue and Los Robles Avenue to the west, South Oak Knoll Avenue to the east, and the northern city limit. The northeastern quadrant of the district abuts the Mission Street Commercial Planning District. Residences are one or two stories and set on large lots. The area is fairly flat or gently sloping. Streets are mostly straight, and improvements vary throughout the district. The neighborhood consists of single-family residences primarily designed in a mix of Period Revival styles with some compatible Minimal Traditional infill. 306 properties contribute to the district’s historic significance. Some properties have been altered, but overall, the district retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and as a City of San Marino Historic District.
*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.):
*P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures or objects) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) Mission Street
Historic District, Fleur Drive,
view east (ARG 2020)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
1924-1955
(sources listed on Page 3)
*P7. Owner and Address:

Not Recorded
*P8. Recorded by: Name,
affiliation, and address)
Mary Ringhoff, Rosa Lisa Fry,
Architectural Resources Group,
360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 225
Los Angeles, CA 90012
*P9. Date Recorded:
2/19/20-
2/27/20
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
Reconnaissance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources or enter "none.") ARG, “City of San Marino Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report” (prepared for the City of San Marino, 2020) *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure & Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photographic Record Other (List)
PAGE 126 of 360
State of California--- The Resources Agency Primary #

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI

DISTRICT RECORD

Page 2 of 5 ends

DPR 523D (1/95) *Required Information
D1. Historic Name: D2. Common Name: Mission Street Residential Historic District *D3. Detailed Description (Discuss overall coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of the district.):

The Mission Street Residential Historic District is a neighborhood of one and two-story single-family residences located on the far west side of San Marino. The neighborhood is mostly flat, though it is flanked on the east and west by channelized drainages of the Alhambra wash. The topography slopes downward towards these waterways, particularly in the northeastern and southwestern corners of the district. Streets are mostly straight, though there is no strict adherence to a grid. Improvements include concrete sidewalks and most streets feature ornamental cast stone streetlights with obscure glass lanterns. Houses retain generous setbacks with front lawns and scattered mature shade trees. Historic street trees are prevalent and can be found along many roadways throughout the district. Some streets retain consistent plantings of southern magnolia, jacaranda, or carrotwood trees. All properties have garages with driveways oriented on the side of the lot. Most garages are detached and sited at the rear of the parcels.

The Mission Street district consists of single-family residences primarily designed in a mix of Period Revival and Minimal Traditional styles.

Period Revival contributors include high style examples of Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, American Colonial Revival, Monterey Revival, and Mediterranean Revival. The Spanish Colonial Revival style predominates throughout the neighborhood with particularly consistent stretches on Fleur Drive and eastern La Mirada Avenue. Typical architectural features include complex massing and asymmetrical façades, incorporation of corbeled jetties and balconettes, a low-pitched hipped roof with clay tile roofing, open woodbracketed eaves, stucco wall cladding, single and paired multi-paned windows (predominantly casement), and decorative chimney caps simulating turrets. Of the 382 total properties, 306 (80%) contribute to the district’s historic significance. 76 of this district’s properties do not contribute to its significance due to substantial alterations or construction dates after the period of significance. The district retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and as a City of San Marino Historic District.

Of the 306 buildings that contribute to the district’s significance, 6 have also been identified as individually eligible for designation (880 Winthrop Road, 1740 Ramiro Road, 2585 Monterey Road, 2385 Monterey Road, 1720 Ramiro Road, 2787 Fleur Drive). *D4. Boundary Description (Describe limits of district and attach map showing boundary and district elements.):

The Mission Street Residential Historic District constitutes an irregularly shaped area in western San Marino. The district is bounded by Winthrop Road to the south, Euclid Avenue and Los Robles Avenue to the west, South Oak Knoll Avenue to the east, and the northern city limit.
*D5. Boundary Justification:

The boundaries of the Mission Street Residential Historic District were drawn to encompass a relatively intact area of residential development and related site features which retain sufficient integrity to convey their significance. The boundaries of the district roughly correspond to tracts subdivided in the mid-1920s, but have been modified to include only that portion of the neighborhood that retains enough integrity to convey its association with residential development from 1924-1955. Elements within the district boundaries are unified geographically and in terms of scale, style, use, and age. *D6. Significance: Theme Residential Development; Architecture and Design Area San Marino Period of Significance: 1924-1955 Applicable Criteria: A/1/1, C/3/3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Summary Statement of Significance:

The Mission Street Residential Historic District is eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and as a City of San Marino Historic District under Criteria A/1/1 and C/3/3. The district conveys significant patterns of residential development in San Marino from the 1920s to the 1950s and embodies the distinctive characteristics of multiple architectural styles (predominantly Period Revival and Minimal Traditional).

Residential Development and Architecture:

The Mission Street Residential Historic District is significant as one of the earlier sections of San Marino to be subdivided and developed.

This westernmost corner of San Marino appears to be one of the few areas in the city not owned by railroad magnate Henry E. Huntington; instead the early ranchos were divided and sold to various developer groups. Before subdivision, orchards dominated the district and agricultural holdings in the area included Los Robles Rancho, the Pollard Ranch, and Richardson’s Lemon Grove.

Similar to much of the development surrounding the Huntington Estate, the Mission Street Residential Historic District was fully subdivided and aggressively marketed in the mid-1920s. This district comprises 10 small tracts, all of which were originally subdivided between 1923- (continued on page 3)
*D7. References (Give full citations including the names and addresses of any informants, where possible.): (See Page 3) *D8. Evaluator: Mary Ringhoff and Rosa Lisa Fry Date: 2/19-2/27, 2020 Affiliation and Address: Architectural Resources Group, 360 E. 2nd Street Suite 225, Los Angeles, CA 90012 PAGE 127 of 360
State of California--- The Resources Agency Primary #

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI

CONTINUATION SHEET

Page 3 of 5 ends

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Mission Street Residential Historic District Recorded By: Architectural Resources Group Date: 2/19-2/27, 2020 Continuation Update *D6. Significance (continued from page 2):
1927 by different proprietors. The northwestern quadrant of the Mission Street Residential District was subdivided in 1924 and subsequently developed by the California Consolidated Building and Investment Corporation as Oak Knoll Grove. A Los Angeles Times article from November 16, 1924 announces the construction of 100 homes by the developer.1 The neighborhood is noted as highly restricted with high grade improvements including macadam streets, sidewalks, and wide street frontages.2 Additionally, the “balmy weather of Southern Italy” and proximity to the Huntington Hotel, Raymond Hotel, and California Institute of Technology are noted as selling points.

By 1926, many tracts in the eastern half of the district (9381, 9164, 9382, and 5529) were owned by the Evans-Lee Corporation and the area was marketed as the Old Mill Vista subdivision. A Los Angeles Times article from 1926 announced that the Evans-Lee Corporation and the Lincoln Mortgage Company planned to build homes in the area and lauded the desirable location near the Huntington Hotel and Old Mill. The article states, “In view of the historic background of the property, closely linked with the early mission days of Southern California, the development at Old Mill Vista will be carried out along Spanish lines.”3 Many of the houses in Old Mill Vista were built in the Spanish Colonial Revival style by the subdivision developers and custom homes had to be approved by the Evans-Lee Corporation’s jury of architects. Advertisements boast that “every lot has trees” and the area is “historic in its charms.”4 The southwestern quadrant of the district does not appear to have been marketed as a unified subdivision. As such it is presumed that that most homes were custom-built and not the work of owner-developers. The three tracts in this area (7500, 7828, 8349) were subdivided between 1923-1924 and many of the earliest houses in the district appear in this area west of Los Robles Avenue. Although this section of the district was subdivided by different developers, it also features many Spanish Colonial Revival designs and maintains architectural cohesiveness with Oak Knoll Grove and Old Mill Vista. Development throughout the district was relatively swift, beginning on the west side and moving east, with scattered infill in the 1940s and 1950s. Approximately two thirds of the residences in the district were built in the 1920s and a quarter in the 1930s. The neighborhood was largely complete by the late 1930s, with compatible construction and infill continuing until the mid-1950s.

The Mission Street Residential Historic District contains a significant concentration of Period Revival and Minimal Traditional architecture, with high quality of design and craftsmanship conveyed by individual dwellings. District contributors retain the original plans, massing, and character-defining features of their respective styles. The district appears eligible for listing as a City of San Marino Historic District as an embodiment of significant patterns of residential development from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s. It also appears eligible as a cohesive collection of intact Period Revival residential architecture, particularly the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The district retains sufficient integrity to convey its association with historic patterns of residential development, and to convey its original architectural character.

Evaluation of Significance:

The Mission Street Residential Historic District is eligible for federal, state, and local designation under Criteria A/1/1 for its association with significant patterns of events: specifically, residential development in San Marino from the 1920s to the 1950s. The district is also eligible for designation under Criteria C/3/3 for its association with the distinctive architectural character of the Period Revival (particularly Spanish Colonial Revival) and Minimal Traditional. The period of significance for the Mission Street Residential Historic District is 1924 to 1955, reflecting its major period of development and the time during which most of its buildings were constructed.

Evaluation of Integrity:

The Mission Street Residential Historic District contains a significant concentration of Period Revival and Minimal Traditional architecture, with high quality of design and craftsmanship conveyed by individual dwellings. Minimal Traditional and Period Revival styles were used concurrently throughout the period of significance. District contributors retain the original plans, massing, and character-defining features of their respective styles. As a result, the district appears eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and as a City of San Marino Historic District as an embodiment of significant patterns of residential development from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s. It also appears eligible as a cohesive collection of intact Period Revival and Minimal Traditional residential architecture. The district retains sufficient integrity to convey its association with historic patterns of residential development, and to convey its original architectural character.
*
D7. References (continued from page 2):
“$1,000,000 To Be Spent,” Los Angeles Times, November 16, 1924.

Architectural Resources Group, Inc. City of San Marino Citywide Historical Resources Survey Report. Prepared for the City of San Marino, 2020. (continued on page 4)
1 “Oak Knoll Grove Put on Market,” Los Angeles Times, November 16, 1924. 2 “$1,000,000 To Be Spent,” Los Angeles Times, November 16, 1924. 3 “New Tract Built Up,” Los Angeles Times, June 26, 1926. 4 “Location is Everything,” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1926. PAGE 128 of 360 State of California--- The Resources Agency Primary #

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI

CONTINUATION SHEET

Page 4 of 5 ends

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
*D7. References (continued from page 2):

City of Los Angeles. SurveyLA Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Architecture and Engineering, 1850-1980.

Themes prepared by multiple consultants for the City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, 2018-2020.

City of San Marino. Building permits, various dates.

GPA Consulting, Inc. Residential Period Revival Architecture and Development in Pasadena from 1915-1942. Prepared for the City of Pasadena, 2004.
“Location is Everything,” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1926.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Tract Maps. Accessed 2020 at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/TractMaps.aspx.

Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Parcel Data. Accessed 2020 at http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/.

Los Angeles Times, various dates.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015. “New Tract Built Up,” Los Angeles Times, June 26, 1926. “Oak Knoll Grove Put on Market,” Los Angeles Times, November 16, 1924. *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Mission Street Residential Historic District Recorded By: Architectural Resources Group Date: 2/19-2/27, 2020 Continuation Update PAGE 129 of 360
State of California--- The Resources Agency Primary #

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI

LOCATION MAP

Page 5 of 5 ends

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Mission Street Residential Historic District *Map Name: Mission Street Residential HD Location Map *Scale: See scale bar *Date of Map: 2/27/2020 PAGE 130 of 360
535 Old Mill Rd

10.11.25 Protected 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

OCTOBER 11, 2025
PAGE 131 of 360
Table of Contents
Background and Assignment .......................................................................................... 1

Project Description.......................................................................................................... 2 Tree Map ........................................................................................................................ 3 Tree Data ........................................................................................................................ 4 Recommendations and Construction Impact Guidelines.................................................. 5 Photos............................................................................................................................. 8 Assumptions & Limiting Conditions............................................................................. 20 Tree Map PDF is separately attached
PAGE 132 of 360
1 BACKGROUND AND ASSIGNMENT
In December of 2024, I was contracted by Studio Build California to prepare a Protected Tree Report for a single-family residential property located at 535 Old Mill Rd, San Marino, CA 91108. The property owner intends to make improvements to the property. I visited the site on December 20, 2024, collected the required tree data, and submitted a tree report and tree map on December 23, 2024.

In October of 2025, Studio Build California updated the site plan and asked that the tree report and tree map be updated accordingly. This is the updated report. The accompanying tree map PDF is separately attached.

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 133 of 360
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is proposing to demolish the existing house and build a new house in roughly the same place. The existing two-car garage in the northeast corner of the property will also be removed, and a new one will be built. I inventoried 12 trees for this report:
− Of the 12 trees, 2 are in the parkway, 4 are on other properties, and 6 are on-site. − Of the 12 trees, there are no “Oak Trees,” 3 “Established Trees,” and 9 “Heritage Trees,” 2 of which are street trees.
− There are 2 trees to be removed:
o Trees 4 and 5 (Callery pear and Citrus in the backyard) are proposed for removal because they are in the construction footprint of the new garage. − Please see the landscape plan submitted by the project architect for mitigation tree planting.

To calculate stem diameters on multi-trunk trees, I used the formula below (quadratic combined diameter) because it more accurately represents the actual trunk area of multi-trunk trees.

1. Measure the diameter of each stem.

2. Find the square of each value of diameter.

3. Add the squares.

4. Find the square root of the sum.

PAGE 134 of 360
3 TREE MAP
PAGE 135 of 360
4 TREE DATA
Tree # Tag # Location Common Name Scientific Name Trunk Diameters
Total DSH*
(inches)
Height
(feet)
Oak
Tree
Established
Tree
Heritage
Tree Removal Notes
1 942 On-site Mexica Fan Palm Washingtonia robusta 20
(estimated) 20 50(brown trunk) No No Yes No Covered in Ficus pumila 2 None Other property Victorian Box Pittosporum undulatum 18 (estimated) 18 30 No Yes No No None
3 None Other property California Sycamore Platanus racemosa 22 (estimated) 22 60 No No Yes No None
4 943 On-site Callery Pear Pyrus calleryana 1, 3, 5 6 20 No Yes No Yes In footprint of new garage 5 944 On-site Citrus Citrus sp. 8 8 16 No No Yes Yes In footprint of new garage 6 None Other property Edible Fig Ficus carica 4, 6
(estimated) 7 22 No Yes No No None
7 None Other property Pink Trumpet Tree Handroanthus heptaphyllus 5, 12 (estimated) 13 35 No No Yes No None
8 945 On-site Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 25 25 40 No No Yes No None 9 946 On-site Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia 16
(estimated) 16 30 No No Yes No Might be a boundary tree 10 947 On-site Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia 16
(estimated) 16 30 No No Yes No Might be a boundary tree 11 None Parkway Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 9 9 18 No No Yes No Street Tree 12 None Parkway Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 9 9 18 No No Yes No Street Tree * To calculate Total DSH on multi-trunk trees, I used the quadratic combined diameter formula because it more accurately represents the actual trunk area of multi-trunk trees.

PAGE 136 of 360
5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACT GUIDELINES
Pre-Construction
These recommendations should be implemented prior to the start of construction:
- Erect tree protection fencing 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 easy entry. If a gate is required in the fence in the backyard, the gate should have a sign signifying tree protection.
- 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 137 of 360
6 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 138 of 360
7 - 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 139 of 360
8 PHOTOS
Tree 1
PAGE 140 of 360
9 Tree 2
PAGE 141 of 360
10 Tree 3
PAGE 142 of 360
11 Tree 4
PAGE 143 of 360
12 Tree 5
PAGE 144 of 360
13 Tree 6
PAGE 145 of 360
14 Tree 7
PAGE 146 of 360
15 Tree 8
PAGE 147 of 360
16 Tree 9
PAGE 148 of 360
17 Tree 10
PAGE 149 of 360
18 Tree 11
PAGE 150 of 360
19 Tree 12
PAGE 151 of 360
20 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 152 of 360
21 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 153 of 360
PAGE 154 of 360
This application is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s January 28, 2026 denial of project number DR 22-26. Specifically, the Planning Commission denied the project on the stated grounds Design Review Findings 1 and 2 could not to be made because of the “scale and massing” of the proposed residence. However, they agreed that the applicant’s architect made all of the changes they requested at the first hearing on October 22, 2025.

Further, two of the public speakers stated how much more they liked it. The second of which even stated it would be a great addition to the neighborhood when questioned by the Commission. As such, the Commission ignored substantial evidence in support of both findings simply because they wanted the square footage of the house reduced. No other changes were discussed.

Specifically, as to Finding 1 “That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood”, the staff report provided information and an analysis that the proposed project complied with this finding. The project architect also provided revisions to the proposed project, ensuring compatibility with the adjacent properties and neighborhood.

There was a reduction on the proposed building height, additional design elements to the Spanish Colonial revival design, were added to the proposed structure, and a proposed variance was removed from the proposal. The proposed front yard setback of the house is 35’ which is the requirement for the subject property. The proposed project complied with the SMMC, Zoning Code, and the San Marino Design Guidelines to ensure no issues with the scale and massing. The proposed FAR is compatible with existing residences. There’s a total of 6 two story residential houses on the Old Mill Road neighborhood. The majority of the houses on the neighborhood are Mission/Spanish style houses.

As to 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 staff report provided information and an analysis that the proposed project complied with this finding. Revisions were made to address the privacy concerns from the October 22, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.

Privacy glazing is proposed on the windows, two proposed windows on the East elevation have been removed, the windows in bedroom #3 have been made a smaller size to comply with the minimum standards from the California Residential Building Code. The windows from bedroom #3 are located adjacent to the existing and proposed driveway at 535 Old Mill Road. The windows in bedroom #3 will only have a partial view of the adjacent driveway PAGE 155 of 360
and the roof of the 545 Old Mill Road property. The existing Cypress tree/hedges provide screening. There are no privacy issues with bedroom #3.

Bedroom #4 has a 16’ setback from the East elevation property line and none of the windows align with the 545 Old Mill Road second story structure. The 545 Old Mill Road property has a driveway that’s about 12’ wide. There is a total building separation of almost 28’ between the proposed bedroom #4 and the 545 Old Mill Road second floor. Only three windows are proposed on the West elevation. One is a bathroom window, and two windows are located in a loft/workspace area. All three windows will have privacy glazing. The rear yard setback is greater than 50’. There are mature trees on the West elevation and rear North elevation. There are no privacy issues.

The staff report properly concluded that all the required findings were met and provided with the recommendation of approval for the 535 Old Mill Road project, which the Commission also ignored without explanation.

PAGE 156 of 360
Picture of the 535 Old Mill Rd property, East elevation looking towards the 545 Old Mill Rd property. Picture taken from the existing driveway, front area of the house.

Picture of the 535 Old Mill Rd property, East elevation looking towards the 545 Old Mill Rd property. Picture taken from the existing driveway, middle area of the house.

PAGE 157 of 360
Picture of the 535 Old Mill Rd property, East elevation looking towards the 545 Old Mill Rd property. Picture taken from the existing driveway gate area of the house.

Picture of the 535 Old Mill Rd property, rear yard, looking at the front elevation of the existing garage. Picture taken from the existing driveway gate area of the house.

PAGE 158 of 360
Picture of the 535 Old Mill Rd property, East elevation looking towards the 545 Old Mill Rd property. Picture taken from the existing driveway/garage area of the house.

Picture of the 535 Old Mill Rd property, East garage elevation looking towards the 545 Old Mill Rd property.

Picture taken from the existing driveway/garage area of the house.

PAGE 159 of 360
Picture of the 535 Old Mill Rd property, rear yard looking East, towards the 545 Old Mill Rd property. Picture taken from the existing driveway, rear garage area.

Picture of the 535 Old Mill Rd property, rear yard looking East, towards the 545 Old Mill Rd property. Picture taken from the existing driveway, rear garage area.

PAGE 160 of 360
87 Columbia St. Pasadena, CA 91105 1
Date: 06.01.2026
Attn: Jose Villegas
Project Name: 535 Old Mill Road
Project Location: 535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, CA 91108 Ref. Plan # and submittal date: City Council Appeal Presentation June 4th 2026 Narrative of Landscape Tree and Plant Selections for 535 Old Mill Road Dear San Marino City Council,
I have reviewed the proposed landscape plan for the residence at 535 Old Mill Road and evaluated the plant selections with respect to privacy screening, neighborhood compatibility, and long-term landscape performance. The proposed residence has been designed in a Spanish Mission architectural style that is consistent with the historic character of Old Mill Road and reflects the architectural heritage of the nearby Old Mill landmark and surrounding residences. The landscape plan has been developed to complement this architectural character while providing effective longterm screening and preserving the established landscape character of the neighborhood.

The residence is set behind a significant existing Jacaranda tree that serves as the defining landscape feature of the front yard. Its mature canopy, graceful branching structure, and seasonal floral display soften views of the residence from the public street. In addition, two existing Crape Myrtle street trees located within the parkway are in good condition and will continue to provide a filtered foreground canopy that further reduces the visual prominence of the new two-story home.

The western property line benefits from an established canopy of mature trees ranging from approximately 25 to 35 feet in height, including Chinese Elms within the front yard and Pink Trumpet Trees and a large California Sycamore toward the rear of the property. Together, these trees provide a substantial upper canopy layer between neighboring properties to the north and west. To complement this canopy, the proposed front landscape introduces a Fruitless Olive (Olea europaea 'Swan Hill') and a Western Redbud (Cercis occidentalis) to frame the existing Jacaranda and create a secondary layer of vegetation beneath the Elms. The Fruitless Olive will be installed as a 24- inch box specimen, approximately 5 to 6 feet tall and 3 to 4 feet wide at installation, and is expected to mature to approximately 20 feet tall and 10 to 12 feet wide, fitting comfortably beneath the Elm canopy while contributing mid-story screening. The Western Redbud, a native flowering understory tree, will provide seasonal interest while reinforcing the Southern California character of the landscape palette.

Moving north into the rear yard, the west property line is framed by an established canopy of Pink Trumpet Tree, evergreen Pittosporums, California Sycamore, and edible Fig trees, creating a continuous overhead canopy along much of the property line. Beneath this canopy, the proposed Fuji Apple and Eureka Lemon trees will occupy the intermediate height layer between the existing wall and overstory trees. Installed as 15-gallon specimens approximately 6 to 8 feet tall, these fruit trees are expected to mature to 12 to 15 feet in height, providing seasonal interest, edible fruit, and additional screening between neighboring properties.

In response to comments received during the public review process regarding privacy screening, an additional canopy tree has been incorporated into the landscape plan to address the gap between the existing Sycamore and Fig trees along the west property line. The proposed Chinese Flame Tree (Koelreuteria bipinnata) was selected for its upright form and mature canopy size, allowing it to PAGE 161 of 360
87 Columbia St. Pasadena, CA 91105 2
occupy the vertical space between the existing trees while remaining compatible with the scale of the site. At maturity, this species is anticipated to reach approximately 25 to 35 feet in height and 20 to 30 feet in width, blending naturally with the surrounding tree canopy and further strengthening the layered screening condition along the west property line.

The north property line already benefits from substantial screening provided by mature trees located immediately beyond the property boundary. To enhance this condition, a Ray Hartman California Lilac (Ceanothus'Ray Hartman') and Purple Smoke Tree (Cotinus coggygria) are proposed along the north wall. Installed at approximately 4 feet and 3 feet tall, respectively, these plants are expected to mature to approximately 12 to 15 feet in height, extending above the existing wall while contributing additional screening, seasonal color, and landscape diversity. Their modest installation sizes are appropriate from a horticultural perspective, allowing successful establishment and healthy long-term growth.

Along the east property line, the existing Cypress hedge will be preserved and protected throughout construction activities. This mature hedge currently provides an effective privacy buffer between neighboring residences. Should any portion of the hedge be damaged during construction, replacement plantings should be installed in kind to maintain the continuity and screening function of this landscape feature.

The design retains lawn areas in both the front and rear yards, preserving the traditional residential character of the property while providing usable outdoor space for family activities. The front lawn complements the mature Jacaranda, while the rear lawn provides recreation space framed by flowering and fruiting trees.

Overall, the proposed landscape design creates a layered screening strategy composed of existing mature canopy trees, new mid-story trees, evergreen shrubs, and preserved hedging. The selected plant palette consists primarily of drought-tolerant Mediterranean and California-adapted species that are well suited to the San Gabriel Valley climate and consistent with the established landscape character of San Marino.

Based on my professional review as a licensed Landscape Architect, the proposed landscape plan will provide effective long-term layered screening along the west, north, and east property lines while remaining compatible with the architectural character of the residence, the surrounding neighborhood, and the historic landscape context of Old Mill Road. The proposed planting design preserves existing mature landscape assets, incorporates enhancements in response to public comments, and will continue to strengthen privacy and neighborhood character as the landscape matures over time.

Sincerely,
Sally Reynolds, Founding Principal SR-LA
Landscape Architect
California Certificate No. 6473
Renewal Date: 01.31.27
PAGE 162 of 360
June 3, 2026
Honorable Mayor, Mr. Tony Chou and Honorable Council Members, At the January 28, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission denied project DR 22-26, a proposal to demolish an existing 1,751 sq. ft. single-family residence and associated buildings to construct a 2,690 sq. ft. two-story residence with a detached 552 sq. ft. 2 vehicle garage. The Planning Commission stated per SMMC Sec. 23.15.09: STANDARD OF REVIEW, Finding 1 and Finding 2 could not be made.

However, the Planning Commission ignored the evidence and facts, demonstrating the proposal was complying and addressing the SMMC Sec. 23.15.09: STANDARD OF REVIEW, Finding 1 and Finding 2. A staff report also supported the approval of the proposal and the findings were made by staff to recommend approval of the proposed project.

SMMC. Section:23.15.09: STANDARD OF REVIEW:

The DRC or Planning Commission shall consider the durability, quality and cost of construction materials when raised as an issue by the applicant. The DRC or Planning Commission shall consider all applications for design review and may deny, with or without conditions, or approve any case in general accord with the following principles and standards as determined by the DRC or Planning Commission based on findings and conclusions drawn from information and evidence presented at a public hearing:

A. 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, and

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 proposed project complies with Finding 1. As it is compatible with the neighborhood per the reasons listed below:

The proposed project removed the requested Variance to reduce the front yard setback. The Variance would have allowed the house to be placed closer to the street. Given the comments from the first Planning Commission hearing, regarding scale and massing, the Variance was removed to setback the house further away from the street and front property line. The removal of the request for the Variance improved the compatibility with the neighborhood.

The existing Heritage tree, Jacaranda (Jacuranda Mimosifolia) will remain in the front of the property. It has an existing height of 40’ with a tree trunk diameter of 25”. The existing Jacaranda tree will soften the visual appearance of the front elevation of the proposed project and continue with the strong tree scape of the street and adjacent properties. Keeping the Jacaranda tree improves the compatibility with the neighborhood.

PAGE 163 of 360
The proposal is a Spanish Colonial Revival design structure, which is replacing an existing Spanish Colonial Revival. This neighborhood of Old Mill Road has 6 Spanish Colonial Revival structures.

The proposal and design are compatible with the neighborhood.

The proposal is a new two-story Spanish Colonial Revival. The neighborhood has 6 existing two-story single-family residential structures. 5 of those structures are Spanish Colonial Revivals.

The house located to the east elevation (545 Old Mill Road) is an existing two-story single family residential structure. The proposed two-story Spanish Colonial Revival is compatible with the neighborhood given the amount of existing two-story single-family residential structures and existing two-story Spanish Colonial Revivals.

The Legal Neighborhood consists of 11 properties. 7 properties are located on Old Mill Road. And 4 properties are located on South Los Robles Avenue. There are 8 Spanish Colonial Revival residential structures within the Legal Neighborhood. 3 of the 8 Spanish Colonial Revival properties are located on South Los Robles Avenue. There are 8 two-story residential structures within the Legal Neighborhood. 4 of the 8 two-story residential structures are located on South Los Robles Avenue. The proposal is compatible with the Legal Neighborhood as 8 of the residential structures are Spanish Colonial Revival and 8 of the residential structures are two-story structures.

During the January 28th Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Boyle stated "I believe that this house is still too large. I think that it is incompatible with the neighborhood due to its size. I think that this very small lot size with this very large house is something that is not seen in the Mission District and is specifically not seen on the street.” Unfortunately, this state was not true.

The proposed Spanish Colonial Revival is 2,690 sq. ft. which is 36.2% FAR. The average FAR of the neighborhood is 34%. 550 Old Mill Road has 35% FAR and 560 Old Mill Road has 39% FAR.

The property owner of 550 Old Mill Road mentioned their square footage of 3,130 sq. ft. was incorrect. However, the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office has it listed at 3,130 sq. ft. As of now, we need to use the information provided by the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office.

Regarding the proposed FAR, the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood.

The San Marino Mission District has existing houses and properties with a variety of Lot Sizes and FARs similar to the proposed 535 Old Mill Road project with a proposed FAR of 2,690 sq. ft. on an existing Lot Size of 7,436 sq. ft.

South El Molino Avenue has 3 properties/houses with the FAR greater than 30%. One property/house has the FAR greater than 35%. Please review below. 1665 S EL MOLINO AVE 31% FAR
2703 DORESTA RD 39% FAR (corner house of S El Molino Avenue and Doresta Road) 2710 ARDMORE RD 33% FAR (corner house of S El Molino Avenue and Ardmore Road) PAGE 164 of 360
South Los Robles Avenue has 13 properties/houses with the FAR greater than 30%. With 7 properties/houses with the FAR greater than 35%. Please review below. 1601 S LOS ROBLES AVE 45% FAR
1625 S LOS ROBLES AVE 35% FAR
1679 S LOS ROBLES AVE 37% FAR
1691 S LOS ROBLES AVE 36% FAR
1705 S LOS ROBLES AVE 42% FAR
1690 S LOS ROBLES AVE 35% FAR
1710 S LOS ROBLES AVE 38% FAR
There are 7 properties located North of Mission Street and South of the San Marino City boundary on South Los Robles Avenue with 35% FAR or greater. These properties are located within the Mission District and near the subject property that is compatible with the proposed project at 535 Old Mill Road, regarding FAR and design. 6 of those properties are Spanish Colonial Revival single-family residential structures.

The proposed project complies with all SMMC, Zoning Codes, San Marino Design Guidelines, and the most recent California Residential Building Codes. The project is compatible with the neighborhood, Legal Neighborhood, and the San Marino Mission District. Finding 1 can be made with all the supporting information listed above.

The proposed project complies with Finding 2. The project was designed to minimize privacy impacts on all the adjacent neighbors. The proposed project also addresses the current lack of privacy with the east elevation neighbor at 545 Old Mill Road. There is no privacy fence between the two properties.

A new block wall was proposed with the project, between the 535 Old Mill Road property and the 545 Old Mill Road property. However, during the first Planning Commission hearing the property owner of 545 Old Mill Road expressed concerns with the natural air flow and ventilation. The project was revised with a new 6’ height iron fence. There is currently no permanent fence or wall between the two properties. There’s only vegetation and trees that provides minimal privacy. The 6’ height iron fence will allow the existing vegetation and trees to grow as footings will be used. The existing Cypress hedges will be preserved. The iron fence with the footing will also allow the 545 Old Mill Road property owner to plant their own trees on their property, increasing the privacy. The new iron fence will provide privacy between the two properties. Please review the attached pictures of the existing conditions. There is no privacy. The proposed project will create privacy.

The proposed new single-family residential structure has a new side yard setback of 10’6” on the east elevation. The existing side yard setback is 8’1”. The proposed new single-family residential structure will be 1’6” away from the current east elevation property line. This will increase privacy between the two properties.

The proposed east elevation was revised and two windows were removed. The windows on bedroom number 3, located on the east elevation, second floor, were reduced in size to the minimum allowed per the California Residential Building Code. The windows in bedroom number 3 will be facing the two driveways and potentially look at the roof area of 545 Old Mill Road. The PAGE 165 of 360
existing windows on the first floor at 545 Old Mill Road (west elevation) have two canopies, protecting their privacy. The existing Cypress hedges will remain and be replaced if needed. The privacy of the adjacent 545 Old Mill Road property is provided.

Bedroom number 4 on the second floor has three windows on the east elevation and will be located about 16’3” away from the property line. The property 545 Old Mill Road has an existing driveway that is about 8’ to 9’ wide. The estimated distance of the windows in bedroom number 4 to the adjacent single-family residential structure will be about 24’ to 25’.

The west elevation second floor has windows in the loft area, which is open area and near the staircase. There are two-bathroom windows, on the second floor, west elevation. The windows have privacy glass. The west elevation first floor has two-bathroom windows with privacy glass.

One window in each of the bathrooms. There are 4 required windows in bedroom number 2. Two windows on the west elevation and 2 windows on the north elevation. The existing side yard setback on the west elevation is 3’10” and the proposed side yard setback is 5’. The estimated building setback from the proposed project to the east elevation of 505 Old Mill Road will be greater than 40’. A new stucco on both sides, CMU block wall, will be built to increase privacy.

The rear north elevation has bedroom number 2 on the first floor and has two windows located on the north elevation and that will have a 50’9” setback from the rear property line. There are no privacy issues with those windows. The second floor has bedroom number 4 with two windows facing the north elevation, rear property line. The proposed setback will be greater than 50’9”.

There are no privacy issues.

The rear patio area will be about 18” from the grade. There might be minimum visibility with the adjacent property at 545 Old Mill Road. There is currently no privacy between these two properties as there is no fence or wall between them. The proposed iron fence will increase and improve privacy.

The existing garage is located on or near the east elevation property line. The new garage will have a new 5’ setback and an iron fence, providing privacy. There is currently no privacy in the rear yard or side setback between 535 Old Mill Road and 545 Old Mill Road. The proposed design and project will address the privacy issue.

The proposed landscape plan also addresses any privacy issues. The proposed trees are anticipated to reach a mature height of approximately 12’ to 15’ ft. and will provide an appropriate transition between the 6’ stucco CMU wall along the west property line and the existing mature trees on neighboring properties, which currently provide canopy heights in the range of 20’ to 30’ ft.

As the proposed plants mature, it will contribute to a denser and more effective visual buffer for adjacent properties. Please review the letter drafted by the Landscape Architect, explaining how the proposed landscape plan will provide and address privacy.

The proposed project complies with all SMMC, Zoning Codes, San Marino Design Guidelines, and the most recent California Residential Building Codes. The project was created, trying to preserve or increase the privacy between the adjacent neighbors. Finding 2 can be made with all the supporting information listed above.

PAGE 166 of 360
1 RESOLUTION NO. R-26-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-26, TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,751 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED
STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,690 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A 530 SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE; LOCATED AT 535 OLD MILL ROAD, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 5325-005-025, CITY OF

SAN MARINO
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2022, an application to demolish an existing 1,751 square-foot (sq ft) single-family residence and associated buildings and construct a 2,690 sq ft two-story residence with a detached 530 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 535 Old Mill Road, San Marino, CA, 91108 (the Property),
WHEREAS, the Property is Zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential (Area District VII) and
WHEREAS, the Property in question is legally described as follows:

LOT ON NE LINE OF OLD MILL RD COM NW THEREON 10.07 FT FROM SE COR OF LOT 57 TR # 8687 TH N 21¢ E 142.40 FT TH N 61¢ 52'35" W 50 FT TH SW TO SD NE LINE TH SE THEREON 50 FT TO BEG PART OF LOT 18 SUB OF A PORTION OF THE LOS ROBLES RANCHO AS PER BK 42 PG 83 OF M R AND PART OF LOT 57 TRACT # 8687 , IN THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said application was set and held before the Planning Commission on October 22, 2025, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record.

WHEREAS, on October 22, 2025, 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 October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission deliberated the merits of the Project and made a Motion of Intent to Continue the Project to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said application was set and held before the Planning Commission on January 28, 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 January 28, 2026, the Planning Commission also reviewed all of the information provided in the staff report and considered the testimony given at the public PAGE 167 of 360
2 hearing, including all written communications to the Planning Commission, as well as other pertinent information; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2026, pursuant to the findings, the Planning Commission denied DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-25; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 26-17 denying Design Review No. 22-25; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2026, an application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission was duly filed by Patty Chan; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2026, a public hearing to consider said appeal 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 WHEREAS, on June 10, 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 June 10, 2026, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino deliberated the merits of the project, and set a de novo hearing at a future date to consider additional new information.

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 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:

PAGE 168 of 360
3 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 530 sq ft 2-car garage for DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-26:

1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, a. The project encompasses the construction of a new 2,690 sq ft two-story Spanish style single-family residence with a detached 530 sq ft 2-car garage.

The proposed Spanish Colonial Revival home is compatible with the legal neighborhood and with the existing property. The legal neighborhood is comprised of homes that display Spanish Colonial Revival and Mediterranean Revival architecturally styled homes.

The height of the proposed residence is 21 feet-5 inches. The proposed structure is compatible with the height of the adjacent neighbor’s home at 545 Old Mill Road, which has a height of 21 feet – 8 inches and with other residences in the legal neighborhood such as 550 Old Mill Road, at 25 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 560 Old Mill Road with a livable area of 2,951 sq ft, and 550 Old Mill Road with a livable area of 3,130 sq ft.

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, a. The two-story design of the home is consistent with the majority of the residences found in the legal neighborhood that are designed as twostory residences.

The proposed side setback to the east neighboring property is 10 feet-6 inches, which is greater than the existing setback of 8 feet-11 inches.

The proposed side setback to the west neighboring property is 5 feet-6 inches, which is greater than the existing setback of 3 feet-10 inches.

PAGE 169 of 360
4 The property features existing 16-foot-tall cypress hedges and a proposed 6-foot-tall CMU block wall with stucco that wraps around the entire perimeter of the property from the front of the house to the rear property line. There are existing hedges and as the property abuts the rear yard of 505 Old Mill Road, the side yard impact is decreased. There is significant landscaping and no structure directly behind the rear property line of 535 Old Mill Road. 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 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.

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,
a. The project proposes 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.
a. The project proposes to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence. Consequently, this finding is not applicable to this project.

Therefore, this project meets this finding.

SECTION 3. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, IT IS RESOLVED that City Council of the City of San Marino hereby approves DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-26 and subject to conditions of approval.

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 170 of 360
5 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

EXHIBITS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS

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 Septemver, 2026, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

________________________

NIA CALISTRO

CITY CLERK
PAGE 171 of 360
6 EXHIBIT A

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Design Review No. DR 22-26
SUBJECT: Demolish an existing 1,751 sf residence and construct a 2,690 sf twostory residence with a detached 530 sf 2-car garage.

APPLICANT: Patty Chan
LOCATION: 535 Old Mill 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 172 of 360
7 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 173 of 360
1 RESOLUTION NO. R-26-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.

PCR 25-17, WHICH DENIED DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-26, TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,751 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED
STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,690 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A 530 SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE; LOCATED AT 535 OLD MILL ROAD, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 5325-005-025, CITY OF

PAGE 174 of 360
2 WHEREAS, on January 28, 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 January 28, 2026, pursuant to the findings, the Planning Commission denied DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 22-25; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 26-17 denying Design Review No. 22-25; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2026, an application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission was duly filed by Patty Chan; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2026, a public hearing to consider said appeal 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 WHEREAS, on June 10, 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 June 10, 2026, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino deliberated the merits of the project, and set a de novo hearing a future date to consider additional new information.

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 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.

PAGE 175 of 360
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.

1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, The project encompasses the construction of a new 2,690-square-foot two-story Spanish style single-family residence with a detached 530- square-foottwo-car garage.

The proposed massing of the residence is incompatible with the surrounding residences located within the neighborhood. The proposed residence is on a 7,218-square-foot lot and the proposed livable area is 2,690-square-feet, which is 37 percent of the property and significantly larger than the average of 29 percent in the legal neighborhood.

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 windows on the proposed east elevation create a direct line of sight into the neighbor’s property at 545 Old Mill Road without any mitigating factors.

The proposal project, therefore, does not properly balance 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 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 project proposes to demolish the existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence. Consequently, this finding is not applicable to this project.

PAGE 176 of 360
4 As such, this project meets this finding.

4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.

The project proposes to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence. Consequently, this finding is not applicable to this project.

Therefore, this project meets this finding.

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 22-26.

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 )
PAGE 177 of 360
5 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 178 of 360

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Isidro Figueroa, Community Development Director
Aubrey Stark-Miller, Assistant Planner
DATE: September 25, 2026
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW
CASE NO. DR 22-25 AT 1469 BRADBURY ROAD TO
DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,944 SQUARE-FOOT
RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO-STORY 2,810

SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED TWO-CAR

GARAGE (CHAN)

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Neighborhoods
Engaged and Connected Residents

BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 1,944 square-foot singlefamily residence and associated buildings and construct a 2,810 square-foot (sq ft) two-story residence with a detached 520 sq ft 2-car garage located at 1469 Bradbury Road.

The design review action is required pursuant to San Marino Municipal Code Section 23.15.04(B) because the project proposes a new or replacement structure.

The Planning Commission (“Commission”) reviewed the project on May 27, 2026. After reviewing the staff report, revised plans and associated documents, and receiving public comment from members of the public, the Tony Chou, Mayor
Calvin Lo, Vice Mayor
Hunter Chang, Council Member
John Chou, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
PAGE 179 of 360
Commission found that the project did not meet the required findings and denied DR 22-25 by a 4-0 vote. Commissioner Boyle, Commissioner Leitner, Vice Chair Mequet, and Chair Dustin voted in favor of the motion to deny the project. Commissioner Gatsoulis-Batnij and Commissioner Cheng were absent.

On June 24, 2026, the Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 25-17 for the denial of DR 22-25. On July 1, 2026, Patty Chan filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of for DR 22-25.

ZONING INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use Designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: Single Family Dwelling Zone (R-1), District VI
Parcel Number (APN): 5332-015-016
Location: The subject property is located on Bradbury Road between Huntington Drive and Melville Drive.

Existing Use: One-story single-family residence with a detached two-car garage
Surrounding Uses: One-story and two-story single-family residences

TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant proposes the protection of 2 trees and the removal of one (1) tree, as listed on the Arborist Report dated March 26, 2026:
• Tree No. 2: 20-foot tall Pyrus Calleryana with a 5-inch trunk diameter Replacement trees for the one removed tree include the following types and sizes:
• One 24” box Japanese Black Pine tree (Species: pinus thunbergii) • One 24” box Japanese Maple tree (Species: Acer palmatum) • One 24” box Maidenhair tree (Species: Gingko biloba)
There are 2 existing protected trees on the property. Tree No. 2 is to be removed to allow for landscape design purposes. The three replacement trees are proposed in the front yard. The replacement trees have been approved by the City’s Arborist.

PAGE 180 of 360

NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION
Do Not Object – 9
Object –11
No Response (with two attempts of certified mailings) – 2 Environmental Findings
The project encompasses the demolition of an existing single-family residence and associated buildings in order to construct a new 2,810 square-foot (sq ft) two-story residence with a detached 450 sq ft 2-car garage. Pursuant to Section 21084 of the California Public Resource Code, the proposed residence is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to San Marino Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 23.07.09 – Appeals, upon receiving a notice of appeal (or itself appealing a decision of the Commission), the City Council shall either:
a. Affirm the action of the Commission; or
b. Require a summary of all evidence upon which the Planning Commission made its decision; after receiving such evidence, the Council shall take such action as, in its opinion, is indicated by such evidence alone; or
c. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, with or without instructions, for further proceedings; or
d. Instruct the City Clerk to set the matter for hearing within seventyfive (75) days before itself, unless the applicant and all appellants PAGE 181 of 360
consent to a later date. At such hearing, it shall hear and decide the case de novo. Such hearing shall be conducted in the manner and with the notice prescribed by the SMMC for the Planning Commission.

APPEAL
On June 24, 2026, the Commission denied a proposal to demolish an existing 1,944 square-foot (sq ft) single-family residence and associated buildings and construct a 2,810 sq ft two-story residence with a detached 520 sq ft 2-car garage, during a public hearing.

The staff reports reviewed by the Commission on May 27, 2026, provided an analysis of the project based on the information available to staff. The staff reports can be accessed through the following link:
https://sanmarinoca.gov/government/agendas___minutes_/index.php On July 1, 2026, the appellant, Paty Chan, filed the appeal for DR 22-25. The submitted appeal application listed the reasoning for the appeal which are summarized below:
“The Commissioners already had made their decision before the hearing…evidencing unlawful bias…The Planning Commission applied the Design Guidelines rather than the Municipal Code, which inverts the planning hierarchy under State Law and is equally unlawful.”
The original staff report of May 27, 2026 recommended approval of DR 22-25 and made the following findings:

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 450 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 residences in the legal neighborhood such as 1500 Mirasol Drive, at 29 feet in height.

PAGE 182 of 360
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.

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 length 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.

PAGE 183 of 360
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 an 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.

PROJECT DETAILS
DR 22-25 (New Residence)
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single-family residence and associated buildings. The project encompasses the construction of a new 2,810 square-foot (sq ft) two-story residence with a detached 450 sq ft 2-car garage.

Floor plans
The first-floor plan proposes a total of 1,915 sq ft of livable area. The floor plan includes two bedrooms, a great room, a dining room, a kitchen, and an covered rear patio.

The second-floor plan proposes a total of 825 sq ft of livable area. The floor plan includes a bedroom and a loft.

Windows and Roofing
PAGE 184 of 360
The residence was designed to incorporate aluminum-clad casement and fixed windows from Pella Lifestyle series. The proposed roof is Cedarlite simulated shake concrete tiles in Autumnwood color.

As shown in the following table, the project complies with SMMC requirements for a single-family residence located within District Area VI:

CRITERIA REGULATION EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING:

Maximum
Livable Area/Lot
Coverage
Maximum
3,000 sq ft
Lot Coverage:
2,344 sq ft
Livable Area:
1,994 sq ft
Lot Coverage: 2,995 sq
ft
Livable Area: 2,810 sq
ft
HEIGHT
Maximum
Allowed
Maximum 30
feet
15 feet 26 feet-4 inches

YARD DIMENSIONS
Front Minimum 30
feet
30 feet 30 feet
Side (North) Minimum 5
feet
10 feet 10 feet
Side (South) Minimum 5
feet
5 feet 5 feet
Rear Minimum 25
feet
58 feet 3
inches
35 feet

FINDINGS
Design Review Findings –DR 22-25
Based on the information presented to the Commission and public testimony received at the May 27, 2026 public hearing, the Planning Commission PAGE 185 of 360
determined that the project did not meet the required findings as stipulated under SMMC Section 23.15.08 which consists of the following:

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 450 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 structure that appears substantially larger and more visually dominant than surrounding residences.

As such, this project does not meet this finding.

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.

PAGE 186 of 360
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 an 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.

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 PAGE 187 of 360
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 adopt City Council Resolution No. R-26-33 approving 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.”
If the City Council affirms the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No.

PCR 26-06, the appropriate motion would be:
“I move to adopt City Council Resolution No. R-26-33 affirming the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 26-06 to deny Design Review Case Number DR-22-25 at 1469 Bradbury Road to demolish an existing 1,944 sq ft single-family residence and construct a 2,810 sq ft two-story residence with a detached 2-car garage.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission Resolution PCR 26-06

2. Project Plans

3. Neighborhood Map

4. Neighborhood Input Letters

5. Objection letters

6. Historical Resource Assessment Report

7. DPR 523A Form

8. Arborist Report

9. Story Pole and Certification

10. Appeal Application

11. City Council Resolution No. R-26-33 (Approval)

12. City Council Resolution No. R-26-33 (Denial)
PAGE 188 of 360
PAGE 189 of 360
PAGE 190 of 360
PAGE 191 of 360
x
xxxx
PAGE 192 of 360
PAGE 193 of 360
PAGE 194 of 360
PAGE 195 of 360
PAGE 196 of 360
PAGE 197 of 360
PAGE 198 of 360
PAGE 199 of 360
PAGE 200 of 360
PAGE 201 of 360
PAGE 202 of 360
PAGE 203 of 360
PAGE 204 of 360
x
xxxxxxx
PAGE 205 of 360
x
xxxxxxx
PAGE 206 of 360
x
xxxxxxx
PAGE 207 of 360
x
xxxxxxx
PAGE 208 of 360
PAGE 209 of 360
PAGE 210 of 360
’
PAGE 211 of 360

!"#$%&'()**+!"#$,+-,-+.-/(
012--$
PAGE 212 of 360
PAGE 213 of 360

PAGE 215 of 360
PAGE 216 of 360
PAGE 217 of 360
PAGE 218 of 360
PAGE 219 of 360
PAGE 220 of 360
PAGE 221 of 360
PAGE 222 of 360
PAGE 223 of 360
PAGE 224 of 360
PAGE 225 of 360

PAGE 227 of 360
PAGE 228 of 360
PAGE 229 of 360
PAGE 230 of 360
PAGE 231 of 360
PAGE 232 of 360
PAGE 233 of 360
1526 Bradbury Road
San Marino, CA 91108
May 15, 2026
City of San Marino
Planning Division
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
Re: 1469 Bradbury Road, San Marino, CA 91108
Case Number: DR 22-26
Dear Design Review Board,
This letter is in response to the plan to raze the residential property currently located at 1469 Bradbury Road and the proposed structure to be built on the site. We object to the following aspects of the proposed structure.
• In our opinion, the character and style of the proposed structure does not integrate well with the surrounding houses and natural environment on Bradbury Road. We believe the design is appealing, but not consistent with the distinctiveness of the street. • The floor area ratio (“FAR”) is not consistent with the other houses on Bradbury Road or in the immediate neighborhood. We believe the proposed structure would have one of the highest FARs on the street. Currently, all but three houses on Bradbury Road have a FAR under 30%. There are two houses with FARs in excess of 35%, and one in excess of 30%.

This is on a street with 51 houses. We understand greater density is needed, but this is still a single family residence.
o The current average square footage of the houses on Bradbury Road is approximately 2,150 SF. The proposed structure is seeking to add 30% more than the average, and nearly 45% over the existing structure. This would put this house in the top 10% of the houses on the street. We don’t dispute the average square footage of the houses on Bradbury Road may be below the median in San Marino, and the need to bring it up to a more current standard. However, we are also aware of the trend over the past several years of homes decreasing in size after decades of increases, some of which may be attributable to demographic trends. The size and scale of the proposed structure may fit within other areas of San Marino, but feels misplaced on Bradbury Road. We hope a more balanced approach can be taken.
• The height of the proposed structure makes it more prominent than almost anything else on Bradbury Road. The houses on the street and in the immediate neighborhood are primarily single story. There are only five two story houses on Bradbury Road, 10% of all PAGE 234 of 360
Design Review Board 2
1469 Bradbury Road
Case Number: DR 22-26
the houses on the street. All but one of them has a lower profile that integrates well with the surrounding houses and natural environment. In our opinion, this proposed structure does not achieve or maintain the current harmony on the street. • We toured a house on a neighboring street that utilized a subterranean approach to increase the FAR. We realize this isn’t feasible in all situations, but believe it could be applicable when structures are razed or substantially razed. We would like to understand if other alternatives have been explored to achieve an appropriate increase in FAR.

We have lived on Bradbury Road for nearly 30 years. This may be a rarity in other communities, but it never felt like that on Bradbury Road or in San Marino. We raised our family here. We welcomed new young families such as ourselves, shared stories with older residents with grown children who have left their homes, and experienced the heartache of neighbors who have passed.

What attracted us to Bradbury Road was the overall charm of the street. How the homes and canopy of oak trees that line the street complement each other. A friend of ours highlighted that streets like ours are not common since it takes time for the trees to mature and develop a certain unity with the homes. We later learned the oaks are Englemann Oaks, and in San Marino they only line Bradbury Road. Over the years we’ve developed a greater appreciation and respect for the oak trees and how they provide a unique balance. As majestic as the trees are, they don’t overwhelm anything else on the street. We believe a great deal of thought was exercised when the street was originally planned and developed so nothing on the street is overwhelming on its own.

As nearly 30 year residents of the street and San Marino, we also realize there is a need for the housing stock to continue to improve and evolve. Most of the houses on the street are over 75 years old. We understand that progress needs to be embraced. But we also hope we can progress in a meaningful way that respects and maintains the unity we currently have on Bradbury Road. For the same reasons why planting maples, eucalyptuses, and palms among the Englemann Oaks would not be appealing, we would hope the same level of thoughtful consideration would be applied when deciding on new houses to be constructed on the street.

Maples, eucalyptuses and palms are majestic trees on their own, but they would create dissonance if they were combined into a common environment. We also feel it would be disrespectful to put an Englemann Oak, a long time resident of the street, in the shadow of another tree. Unfortunately, the oak tree is unable to move itself and needs to entrust others to protect it and provide it with some respect. Just as with the oak tree, existing homeowners are at a disadvantage when placed in a shadow created by someone else after they acquired their property. We know a balance is achievable, just as an oak tree stands in the middle of the desert garden at the Huntington Library while blending in and complimenting the curated landscape.

We realized long ago what we believe makes San Marino unique and special. It’s that every street is unique on its own. Every street is a small community of its own that forms the larger PAGE 235 of 360
Design Review Board 3
1469 Bradbury Road
Case Number: DR 22-26
cohesive community of San Marino. This is quite an accomplishment to maintain something that feels more curated than planned. Our hope is that others share and embrace this belief as well. If you have not had an opportunity to drive down Bradbury Road, we would encourage you to do so. The environment is unified and nothing stands out on its own. We hope the charm and character of this street can be maintained for future generations while still evolving to accommodate the change that is needed. The residents, houses and natural environment are integral parts that allow a community to sustain itself and thrive. But the Englemann Oaks will be here long after the houses are gone, and the houses will be here long after the residents are gone. We hope the same level of care and thought exercised by the original planners and developers can continue to be applied for the shared benefit of everyone and everything on Bradbury Road. We respectfully request that thoughtful consideration be given to all parties involved, which include the ones that have a voice along with those that do not, and that every eeort be aeorded to maintain and respect the unity of the street as it was originally intended.

Very truly yours,
Christopher Wong and Wanda Chan
PAGE 236 of 360
From: Sabeer
To: Aubrey Stark-Miller
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Objection to Proposed Development at 1469 Bradbury Rd, San Marino, 91108 Date: Thursday, May 7, 2026 10:10:42 AM
Hi Aubrey,
I am Sabeer Sayyed, a neighboring resident at 1355 Bradbury Rd and I was recently informed of the proposed development planned for 1469 Bradbury Rd. I would like to formally express my objection to this project.

The proposed style and scale of the development would significantly alter the existing character and feel of our neighborhood. In addition, due to the sloping landscape descending from Huntington Drive down toward Melville Drive, the development would create substantial privacy concerns for the surrounding single-story family homes.

I am personally impacted by a similar situation at 1365 Bradbury Rd, where a rear extension was built into a two-story structure directly overlooking the back side of my home. My family (my spouse and 2 little girls) and I spend nearly all of our outdoor quality time in our backyard, and the loss of privacy has been very noticeable and difficult. When I learned about this proposed development, it immediately brought back those same concerns and worries for our neighborhood.

Many residents value the current residential atmosphere, openness, and privacy of the neighborhood, and I am concerned that this project would negatively impact those qualities for many surrounding homeowners.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns.

Sincerely,
Sabeer Sayyed
1355 Bradbury Rd, San Marino, 91108
PAGE 237 of 360
From: Kenneth Lue
To: Aubrey Stark-Miller
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1469 Bradbury Development
Date: Thursday, May 7, 2026 8:49:11 PM
Hi Mrs. Stark-Miller,
We live at 1360 Bradbury Rd and we are opposed to the proposed development at 1469 Bradbury. One of the reasons we love this street is that it isn't crowded with over-sized houses, and the current flags indicate the significance in size and scale of the proposed development.

We are worried that if this gets approved, it is going to change the entire character of the block and encourage more of these oversized style builds that don't fit our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Kenneth Lue and Judy Nguyen
PAGE 238 of 360
From: sam stranger
To: Aubrey Stark-Miller
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1469 Bradbury
Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:05:41 PM
Greetings Ms. Stark-Miller,
My name is Sam Stranger and I live at 1396 Bradbury Rd. I'm writing to support the neighborhood opposition to the proposed changes at 1469 Bradbury.

I generally support an individuals right to make changes as they see fit to their property - however I believe that in a unique community such as ours the concerns of the neighbors are legitimate and worthy of consideration.

1. Privacy for direct neighbors. This is a concern and warrants changes.

2. Building "up and out". I have witnessed this same thing happen in the town I grew up in, La Canada. Relatively small, post-war lots, skyrocket in value and everybody builds out to the property line and up. It really makes for a terrible look. Given San Marino's traditional concern for tradition I think a reasonable middle ground could be easily met with relatively minor design changes.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sam Stranger
818-749-4852
P.S. Feel free to text or email with any questions.

PAGE 239 of 360
From: DJ Hsueh
To: Aubrey Stark-Miller
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1469 Bradbury Road
Date: Thursday, May 7, 2026 3:52:04 PM
Hi Aubrey,
I hope this email finds you well. I am a resident on Bradbury Road and am writing regarding the proposed development at 1469 Bradbury Road.

To begin, I want to express my support for the idea of new construction in the city. I believe thoughtful reinvestment in our neighborhood is positive, and I genuinely appreciate the significant effort the homeowner and their architect have put into the current designs. I find some elements of the plans appealing.

However, after reviewing the proposal and observing the erected story poles, I have two primary concerns:

Scale and Privacy: Due to the street's north-to-south downhill slope, the proposed twostory structure appears disproportionately large relative to its immediate neighbors. It significantly looms over the property to the south (1477), raising valid concerns about the second-story windows overlooking their house and backyard. I believe a collaborative approach between neighbors would significantly help find a balanced solution.

Neighbor Outreach: My understanding is that the homeowner at 1469 has not yet engaged in substantive outreach with neighbors within the city-required radius. Direct communication is often helpful in building community and addressing concerns before they escalate. Currently, the lack of dialogue has allowed a one-sided and negative narrative to form amongst many neighbors on the street. The project would be better served if the owner proactively shared their intentions with the community stakeholders.

I appreciate the hard work of everyone involved -- including you, the Planning Department, the homeowner, and the homeowner's agents. I hope these observations are helpful as you evaluate how this project can best integrate into our neighborhood.

Thank you,
DJ Hsueh
1423 Bradbury Road
PAGE 240 of 360
1 Aubrey Stark-Miller
From: S Chuck <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 6:07 PM
To: Aubrey Stark-Miller
Subject: [EXTERNAL] DRC-22-25
Hi Aubrey,
I'm Steve Chuck owner of 1476 Bradbury and I would like to rescind my approval for DRC-22-25 for 1469 Bradbury.

After the story poles were put up, I realized that the size if much larger than it seems on the plans.

The prairie architecture is completely out of place for this street where every house is of the traditional style without even a Spanish, Mission, Monterey, tutor, modern or other style of homes.

The two story homes are mainly 1 and half type and not an obvious two story. At 2810 square feet it would also be one of the largest on the street.

In summary, I withdraw my approval and would like to see a more traditional home seen on the street and not as imposing as the current design.
thanks
Steve
PAGE 241 of 360
Chih-Yin “Gene” Chen
1477 Bradbury Rd
San Marino, CA 91108
May 6, 2026
City of San Marino Planning Department
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
RE: Objection to Proposed Development at 1469 Bradbury Road Dear Members of the Planning Department,
I am writing to formally submit my objection to the proposed single-family development at 1469 Bradbury Road. As the next-door neighbor to the south, I have significant concerns regarding the project’s current design, specifically the impact of the proposed second-story and window placement on the privacy of my property. Furthermore, the massing and architectural style of the proposal are inconsistent with the houses on the street and would alter the character of the neighborhood.

Privacy Concerns
My primary concern involves the windows on the proposed second story, as well as a couple on the first story. The current design allows for direct, unobstructed sightlines into the interior of my home and across the entirety of my backyard.
• The second story windows effectively eliminate the privacy of my outdoor living space, making it impossible to enjoy my yard and patio without feeling observed • The proposed windows permit a direct view into my primary bedroom, second bedroom and kitchen, which is a significant departure from the privacy levels currently shared between the existing home and mine
Street Character Concerns
The proposed structure appears disproportionately large in relation to its neighbors. The overall volume due to the footprint and height creates an imposing presence that disrupts the established rhythm of the street. Additionally, every house on Bradbury Road has a traditional or English cottage type of architecture. This development as proposed would heavily detract from the existing aesthetic harmony of the street.

PAGE 242 of 360
While I support the improvement of residential lots within our community, the configuration and scale of this particular proposal would severely impact the use and enjoyment of my property and alter the character of the neighborhood.

Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration as you proceed through the review process.

I would be happy to provide additional clarification or support for any of the comments in this objection.

Sincerely,
Chih-Yin “Gene” Chen
(808) 381-0159
[email protected]
Enclosures:

Pictures of proposed development from my property
Picture of windows facing my property of existing structure PAGE 243 of 360
View of proposed development from my backyard
PAGE 244 of 360
View of proposed development from my primary bedroom
PAGE 245 of 360
View of proposed development from my second (child’s) bedroom PAGE 246 of 360
Windows facing my property of existing structure (note: window size and height are configured to provide privacy in respect of the natural elevation of the lot) PAGE 247 of 360
From: 1485 Bradbury
To: Aubrey Stark-Miller
Cc: Michelle Cherng; Ben
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1469 Bradbury Road
Date: Monday, May 18, 2026 9:54:08 PM
To the City Planner and Planning Commission,
I am the owner of 1485 Bradbury, within the legal neighborhood, and would like to provide input on the proposed development on 1469 Bradbury.

While I was approached by the architect a few months ago on the plans, I was under the impression from the architect that it was already approved and there was no opportunity for input. I initially did not object to the project. I've since been made more aware of the details of the plan and scale of the development, and have concerns that the size and style are drastically different from the houses on our street and will significantly alter the look of this neighborhood. I urge you to reconsider.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Benjamin Lee
Owner, 1485 Bradbury
PAGE 248 of 360
From: Suilma
To: Aubrey Stark-Miller
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed re-build on Bradbury Rd
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:20:19 PM
Hi Aubrey,
We live at 1496 Bradbury and find some issues with the proposed development at 1469 Bradbury. Based on the flagged outline and design plans, the development appears to be significantly out of character for our street in its size and style.

We urge the City to reconsider allowing this project to come to fruition, as well as similar future projects that are incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.

Suilma Rodriguez-Rizzo
213-841-4554
PAGE 249 of 360
1526 Bradbury Road
San Marino, CA 91108
May 15, 2026
City of San Marino
Planning Division
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
Re: 1469 Bradbury Road, San Marino, CA 91108
Case Number: DR 22-26
Dear Design Review Board,
This letter is in response to the plan to raze the residential property currently located at 1469 Bradbury Road and the proposed structure to be built on the site. We object to the following aspects of the proposed structure.
• In our opinion, the character and style of the proposed structure does not integrate well with the surrounding houses and natural environment on Bradbury Road. We believe the design is appealing, but not consistent with the distinctiveness of the street. • The floor area ratio (“FAR”) is not consistent with the other houses on Bradbury Road or in the immediate neighborhood. We believe the proposed structure would have one of the highest FARs on the street. Currently, all but three houses on Bradbury Road have a FAR under 30%. There are two houses with FARs in excess of 35%, and one in excess of 30%.

This is on a street with 51 houses. We understand greater density is needed, but this is still a single family residence.
o The current average square footage of the houses on Bradbury Road is approximately 2,150 SF. The proposed structure is seeking to add 30% more than the average, and nearly 45% over the existing structure. This would put this house in the top 10% of the houses on the street. We don’t dispute the average square footage of the houses on Bradbury Road may be below the median in San Marino, and the need to bring it up to a more current standard. However, we are also aware of the trend over the past several years of homes decreasing in size after decades of increases, some of which may be attributable to demographic trends. The size and scale of the proposed structure may fit within other areas of San Marino, but feels misplaced on Bradbury Road. We hope a more balanced approach can be taken.
• The height of the proposed structure makes it more prominent than almost anything else on Bradbury Road. The houses on the street and in the immediate neighborhood are primarily single story. There are only five two story houses on Bradbury Road, 10% of all PAGE 250 of 360
Design Review Board 2
1469 Bradbury Road
Case Number: DR 22-26
the houses on the street. All but one of them has a lower profile that integrates well with the surrounding houses and natural environment. In our opinion, this proposed structure does not achieve or maintain the current harmony on the street. • We toured a house on a neighboring street that utilized a subterranean approach to increase the FAR. We realize this isn’t feasible in all situations, but believe it could be applicable when structures are razed or substantially razed. We would like to understand if other alternatives have been explored to achieve an appropriate increase in FAR.

We realized long ago what we believe makes San Marino unique and special. It’s that every street is unique on its own. Every street is a small community of its own that forms the larger PAGE 251 of 360
Design Review Board 3
1469 Bradbury Road
Case Number: DR 22-26
cohesive community of San Marino. This is quite an accomplishment to maintain something that feels more curated than planned. Our hope is that others share and embrace this belief as well. If you have not had an opportunity to drive down Bradbury Road, we would encourage you to do so. The environment is unified and nothing stands out on its own. We hope the charm and character of this street can be maintained for future generations while still evolving to accommodate the change that is needed. The residents, houses and natural environment are integral parts that allow a community to sustain itself and thrive. But the Englemann Oaks will be here long after the houses are gone, and the houses will be here long after the residents are gone. We hope the same level of care and thought exercised by the original planners and developers can continue to be applied for the shared benefit of everyone and everything on Bradbury Road. We respectfully request that thoughtful consideration be given to all parties involved, which include the ones that have a voice along with those that do not, and that every eeort be aeorded to maintain and respect the unity of the street as it was originally intended.

Very truly yours,
Christopher Wong and Wanda Chan
PAGE 252 of 360
From: Lily Nguyen
To: Aubrey Stark-Miller
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Input on residential development
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2026 12:50:50 PM
Hi Aubrey,
I am a resident on Bradbury Rd and am writing you to express my support to residents of 1477 Bradbury Rd. They claim the development of the neighbouring house, 1469 Bradbury rd encroaches on their privacy. I would feel the same way if it was my house.

Thank you
Lily
PAGE 253 of 360
Donna Wheeler
1495 Bradbury Rd.

San Marino, CA 91108
May 25, 2026
City of San Marino Planning Commission
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
My name is Donna Wheeler, and I have lived at 1495 Bradbury Rd. since 1987 when I married my husband, who purchased the property in the mid 1970’s. Having studied the proposed development and read the submitted letters from my neighbors, I find I agree with those on my street who oppose this design.

I can certainly understand the desire to have the “home of your dreams”, however, the owner’s “dream” should not become a “nightmare” for the neighbors. While this is a beautiful, welldesigned home, it unfortunately, does not fit in well with the existing houses in style or size. The height, roof design and squareness of of the house’s footprint make it appear from the pictures as a fence to driveway house. Even though it meets code, it gives the appearance of the McMansions that were allowed to be built all over Arcadia, that destroy the pleasant proportions of streets, and it will do the same for ours. What were once neighborhood communities in Arcadia, now look liked streets filled with homes, each trying to outdo each other, changing the whole “friendly neighborhood” look. Once there is one outsized house, it gives approval for more. Our friendly, family welcoming street will be gone. This approval of bigger houses may bring in more tax revenue for the city, but drive out young families that are looking for first time homes.

Over the years other houses have been remodeled and enlarged, including my own, without attracting attention. They have a similar style and size imprint on their lots. The owner mentions that 1542 Bradbury Rd. is even larger than hers, however, it does not stand our\t as such. Build a house similar to that. Unfortunately, the “Prairie style” look does not fit in.

Since, according to Isidro Figueroa, the Community Development Director the plans fall within the city’s criteria. He says, “The proposed Prairie home is compatible with the legal neighborhood and Prairie residences found in San Marino.” but, “The legal neighborhood is comprised of homes that display Minimal Traditional and American Colonial Revival architecturally styled homes. …..”The proposed massing of the residence is compatible with the surrounding residences located within the neighborhood. (His opinion) “Compatible residences within the legal neighborhood include…(size for 2 addresses). As such, this project meets this finding.” He says it meets the finding, but also admits it’s not the same design as any other house on our street, and only one house on this street as large. This is our point! We don't want houses that are much larger, and don't fit in to the “look” on this street. Therefore, I believe it fails to meet and support the “Strategic Plan Critical Success Factors”.

PAGE 254 of 360
Bradbury Road, in my opinion, is one of the most beautiful streets in San Marino. It’s stunning Englemann Oaks, arch over the road lined with well similarly maintained houses that were built in the “40”s. We have “engaged and connected residents”, who have shared with you their concerns about this property. If our concerns are ignored, will this contribute to the success of the city?
How often do you have 24% of the homeowners on a street rejecting a design of a private, small home? If twelve (12) residents responded, It usually indicates there are more that feel the same way, but didn’t get around to responding in writing, or who aren't paying attention now, but will be unhappy once the house is built. Also, two neighbors who were interviewed by the architect for permission, have changed their minds once they had time to more fully consider the plans and view the “flag” markings.

Ms. Chan’s response to the letters of her neighbors justified her position as legal, but just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should?
It is unfortunate that so much time and money are spent before the neighbors have a chance to respond. This makes it very difficult for Ms. Chan and the Commission. However, those of us who have responded so far feel a different design, smaller appearing footpad and consideration for privacy would be in order.

I hope that expressing our concerns through email or at a future meeting will have weight with the Commission. If the only thing that can stop this project is an objection that proves an error in Mr. Figueroa’s report, all of this is a waste of time for community members because if pointing out our visual and cultural problems is only our “opinion”, then this process is a waste of time.

You ask for input, but only want confirmation. I hope the Commission will listen to our concerns and opinions as a “critical success factor”.

Sincerely,
Donna Wheeler

PAGE 255 of 360
Historical Resources Assessment Report for
1469 Bradbury Road
San Marino, California 91108

Prepared for:
1469 Bradbury Road
San Marino, CA 91108

Prepared by:

Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
430 North Halstead Street
Pasadena, California 91107

July 25, 2022
PAGE 256 of 360
1469 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTIONS PAGE
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... 1 2 PROJECT SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 2 3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 3 4 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS/DESIGNATIONS ........................................... 4 5 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SURROUNDING AREA...................................... 5 6 PROPERTY HISTORY ...................................................................................................... 9 7 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................21 8 HISTORIC CONTEXT .....................................................................................................24 9 EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY .......................................................................................27 10 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................30 11 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................31

TABLES PAGE
1 Building Permit History ..................................................................................................19 2 Ownership History .........................................................................................................19

FIGURES PAGE
1A Setting, Bradbury Road (view setting north) ...................................................................... 9 1B Setting, Bradbury Road (view facing south)....................................................................... 9 2 Sketch Map ....................................................................................................................10 3 Project Location Map......................................................................................................11 4A Primary Façade (view facing west)...................................................................................12 4B Primary Façade (view facing southwest) ..........................................................................13 5A Western Façade (view facing east)...................................................................................13 5B Western Façade (view northeast).....................................................................................14 6A Northern Façade (view southwest) ..................................................................................14 6B Northern Façade (view southeast) ...................................................................................15 7A Southern Façade (view northwest)...................................................................................15 7B Southern Façade (view north)..........................................................................................16 7C Southern Façade (view north)..........................................................................................16 8A Detached Garage (view south) ........................................................................................17 8B Detached Garage (view south) ........................................................................................17 8C Detached Garage (view southwest) .................................................................................18 PAGE 257 of 360
1469 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page ii

ATTACHMENTS
A Resume of Key Personnel
B Project Plans
C DPR 523 Series Forms
PAGE 258 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 1 SECTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a Historical Resources Assessment Report for the building located at 1469 Bradbury Road (APN 5332-015-016), City of San Marino (City), Los Angeles County, California. The purpose of this report is to determine if the building, individually or collectively, constitutes a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. architectural historians (Mr. Scott Torres and Ms. Carrie Chasteen) were retained to serve as the principal investigators to complete the Historical Resource Assessment Report. Mr. Torres and Ms. Chasteen meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the fields of History and Architectural History.

The property is located on a residential street in the City with one 1,944-square-foot residence located at 1469 Bradbury Road.

Architectural Resources Group (ARG) completed the first Citywide survey of San Marino in 2020 including a draft context statement and historical resource map with an index for individual resources and districts.
1 In the ARG report, the subject property is not identified as an individually eligible resource for listing at the national, state, or local level. The subject property is identified as a contributor to the San Marino Highlands Residential Historic District, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or for designation as a City Historic Landmark (Historic Landmark).

The Citywide Survey Property Lists was last updated on May 15, 2020.2 After careful research and evaluation, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (Mr. Scott Torres; Attachment A, Resume of Key Personnel) concludes that the building does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register, or as a Historic Landmark. The subject property would also not contribute to a potential historic district as the surrounding buildings do not convey a significant development pattern within the history of the City. The building does not embody the distinctive characteristic of a type, period, or method of construction as an example of a Minimal Traditional residence and was not designed by a master architect for a prominent client. It is assumed the potential historic district would continue to qualify for designation with the loss of this property; therefore, the proposed project was evaluated against the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). The proposed project complies with the Standards and would not result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
1 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/San-Marino-Recon-Map-61319 2 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
PAGE 259 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 2 SECTION 2

PROJECT SUMMARY

2.1 BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project would demolish the existing building and construct a new 2,995-square-foot residence

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND CURRENT SETTING
The subject property consists of one parcel located at 1469 Bradbury Road (APN 5332-015-016), in the City of San Marino (City), Los Angeles County, California. The property is located on a residential street with single-family housing. The subject property faces east onto Bradbury Road with Huntington Drive to the north and Lorain Road to the south.

PAGE 260 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 3 SECTION 3

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The assessment methodology consisted of research and field assessment of the structures and buildings.

RESEARCH CONDUCTED

4. Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statues, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation assessment processes and programs to evaluate the significance and integrity of the buildings on the project site.

FIELD METHODS

5. Conducted a field inspection of the project site on October 21, 2021, to ascertain the general condition and physical integrity of the building thereon. Digital photographs were taken during the site inspection, which included only the exterior of the building.

Field notes were made.

6. It was concluded during the field inspection that the residential building located at 1469 Bradbury Road is located within a potential historic district because the surrounding buildings are a cohesive style and pattern of development significant to the City.

Accordingly, the parcel was evaluated individually as a potential historical resource under federal, state, and local eligibility criteria according to the National Park Service, California Office of Historic Preservation, and San Marino Historic Ordinance standards.

PAGE 261 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 4 SECTION 4

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS/DESIGNATIONS

4.1 RECORDS SEARCH
In accordance with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton, current procedures and policies, the BERD for Los Angeles County, available from the California Office of Historic Preservation (updated March 3, 2020), historic U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series topographic maps, and aerial photographs were reviewed for the project site and adjacent properties. In addition to official maps and records, and published registers and reports for the geographic area were reviewed:
• National Register of Historic Places – Listed (2022); • California Register of Historical Resources – Listed (2022); • California State Historical Landmarks (1996 and updates); • California Points of Historical Interest (1992 and updates); and • Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) 2021; and • City of San Marino Citywide Historic Survey – (2020).

4.2 PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS/DESIGNATIONS SUMMARY
Architectural Resources Group (ARG) completed the first Citywide survey of San Marino in 2020 including a draft context statement and historical resource map with an index for individual resources and districts (updated November 6, 2020).
3,4
In the ARG report, the subject property is not identified as an individually eligible resource for listing at the national, state, or local level. The subject property is identified as contributor to the San Marino Highlands Residential Historic District. The district is potentially eligible for listing in California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or for designation as a City Historic Landmark (Historic Landmark). 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. 3 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/San-Marino-Recon-Map-61319 4 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
PAGE 262 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 5 SECTION 5

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
This report employs the historic contexts, themes, and criteria considerations set forth in the initial City San Marino Historic Context statement completed by ARG in 2020. 5 Post-War Development in San Marino,1946–1960
San Marino had seen heavy residential construction during the 1920s, averaging over 150 new buildings per year and reaching a height of 212 new buildings in 1927, valued (along with additions/alterations to existing buildings) at over $3 million.6In contrast, its average between 1931 and 1934 was only 55 new buildings per year, with a low of only 44 new buildings and a valuation of $433,672 in 1934.7 The construction rate was about a third of what it was during the 1920s boom, while the valuation was about a seventh – this indicates that not only were fewer buildings built, but they were likely smaller and more modest than those that came before. It is clear that San Marino’s development slowed during the worst years of the Great Depression, just as development slowed across the nation, but it did not stop completely.

Available at: https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4569/San-Marino-Historic-Context-StatementDraft-4119 6 “Building Inspector’s Report,” in the William Hertrich Papers, 1904–1966. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library; “Data Show Growth.”
7 “Building Inspector’s Report,” in the William Hertrich Papers, 1904–1966. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library; “Data Show Growth.”
8 “Building Inspector’s Report,” in the William Hertrich Papers, 1904–1966. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library; “Data Show Growth.”
9 “Building Two Million During 1941.” 8 January 1942. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA). 10 “Building Two Million During 1941.” 8 January 1942. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA).

PAGE 263 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 6 While San Marino still saw construction of architecturally distinctive homes on a grand scale during this period, far more common was the smaller-scale, developer-designed home. This is evident today in some of the city’s small-scale neighborhoods like San Marino Highlands (south of Huntington Drive in the east part of the city, originally planned to be the southern part of Gainsborough Heath in 1927), San Marino Oaks (just west of San Marino Highlands), and San Marino-Patton Estates (between The Huntington Library and Huntington Drive, originally subdivided right before the 1929 crash). These subdivisions built between the late 1930s and the early 1950s exhibit small (mostly one-story) houses with repetitive building plans and consistent styles, primarily in Colonial Ranch, Cape Cod Ranch, and Minimal Traditional designs. The homes tended not to be as small as the typical FHA-compliant house built in the late 1930s-early 1940s; the first few built in San Marino Highlands averaged 1,600 square feet in size.11 But the city’s developers and builders were clearly following the neighborhood and building design guidelines established by the FHA and formalized in its 1936 publication Planning Neighborhoods for Small Houses.

This guide encouraged things like curvilinear streets (already San Marino’s predominant street type) and modest homes built to maximize efficiency and ensure consistent neighborhood character.12 This kind of development made more sense for large-scale builders who could “arrange for the purchase of land, the design of the subdivision plat, and the design and construction of the houses.”13 In the case of San Marino Oaks and San Marino Highlands, it was California Subdividers.14 California Subdividers boasted that its San Marino Highlands homes “will be complete in every detail except for movable furnishings,” and were to include central heat, air conditioning, and large, fully landscaped yards with sprinklers.15
FHA guidelines also encouraged deed restrictions to ensure high property values; in practice, this included racial as well as design restrictions. Most, if not all, of San Marino’s 1920s houses carried racially restrictive covenants in their deeds; this was common across Southern California at this time. Even in areas without formal deed restrictions, informal means were typically used to exclude people of color - particularly the common realtor practice of simply refusing to show or sell properties to anyone of undesirable ethnicity.16 In San Marino, this real estate practice appears to have excluded most Jewish as well as African American, Asian 11 “Development Plans Prepared for New San Marino Tract.” 22 January 1939. Los Angeles Times. 12 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.
13 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.
14 “County Vacancy Ratio Now Lowest Since 1924.” 23 February 1941. Los Angeles Times; “Homesites Bought; Residences to Rise.” 23 October 1938. Los Angeles Times; “Development Plans Prepared.” 23 October 1938. Los Angeles Times.
15 “New Street Expands Tract.” 14 January 1940. Los Angeles Times; “San Marino Model to Open.” 29 September 1940. Los Angeles Times.
16 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. p. 13; Rodman, Edmon J. 9 April 2014. “Let My People Go…to Hancock Park.” Jewish Journal.

PAGE 264 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 7 American, and Latino buyers.17 The city’s realtors appear to have closely followed guidelines in the 1922 Code of Ethics for the National Association of Real Estate Brokers that stated, “A Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood a character of property or occupancy, members of any race or nationality, or any individual whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values in the neighborhood.”18 From its incorporation until the last quarter of the 20th century, San Marino’s residents were overwhelmingly white.

The discriminatory practice of restrictive covenants was reinforced by HOLC, which created a nationally applicable framework for appraising properties, classing neighborhoods into one of four grades: A, B, C, and D, with corresponding colors green, blue, yellow, and red shown on residential security maps, based on factors like homogeneity of population as well as proportion of multi-family income properties to single-family residences and building age/quality.19 The FHA used these ratings to decide who met the lending requirements of FHA-insured mortgages. In a practice that became known as redlining, certain neighborhoods were classed as red, a category that was usually reserved for the oldest areas with the highest ethnic diversity and presence of “subversive racial elements.” These neighborhoods were viewed as an undesirable credit risk to lenders, and their residents were rarely able to obtain FHA loans. HOLC rated all of San Marino as grade-A green in 1939, noting “Deed restrictions are ample and rigidly enforced” and “Population is homogeneous.”20 Of the most prestigious Oak Knolls area in the northwest part of town, the HOLC appraisal sheet notes “It is one of the most exclusive districts in the country and merely to be a resident here presupposes a secure place in the social register.”21 17 Hescher, Uri and Pete McCloskey cited in “Courage and Cowardice in San Marino,” Matt Hormann, Hometown Pasadena. Accessed March 2019. Available at: http://hometown-pasadena.com/history/courage-and-cowardice-insanmarino/97684 18 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 19 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
20 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
21 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
PAGE 265 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 8 While most of San Marino’s late 1930s construction revival was due to federal programs like the FHA and HOLC, some credit is also due to an aggressive newspaper advertising campaign by a group of San Marino realtors. Display ads placed in the Los Angeles Times focused on San Marino as the ideal place to raise a family, with safe streets, fresh air, reasonably priced homes, and good schools with comfortably white and upper-class students who “are drawn from the sort of homes that you will live in, and will grow up to be the men and women that your children will meet in the business and social world.”22 The tactic seems to have worked, as shown by a 1938 report by the city building inspector showing an average of one family a day was moving into a new home in San Marino.23 The same report noted that building permit valuations indicated “a definite trend towards smaller home construction.”24
The U.S. entered World War II in 1941. New construction in San Marino slowed in 1942 and came to a screeching halt in 1943 due to the wartime building moratorium. Between 1943 and 1945, permits were granted for only three new buildings; additions and alteration work were all that was allowed, and their total valuations were quite low in comparison to those in 1940–1941.25 Construction would not resume again until after the war. 22 Display ad. 17 April 1938. Los Angeles Times.
23 “Steady Influx of Families into San Marino Shown by Report.” 17 April 1938. Los Angeles Times. 24 “Steady Influx of Families into San Marino Shown by Report.” 17 April 1938. Los Angeles Times. 25 “Building Shows Big Decrease.” 6 January 1944. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA); “S.M. Building Shows Increase Over Last Year.” 8 February 1945. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA); “Building Permits Show Big Gain Over Last Year.” 2 January 1947. San Marino Tribune (San Marino, CA).

PAGE 266 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 9 SECTION 6

PROPERTY HISTORY

6.1 CURRENT SETTING
The subject property is within a densely populated neighborhood that features mainly single-family residences. Aside from a few American Colonial-Revival buildings majority of the residences are post-war Ranch-style, and Minimal Traditional homes (Figures 1A–B, Setting, Bradbury Road; Figure 2, Sketch Map; Figure 3, Project Location Map).

Figure 1A. Setting, Bradbury Road (view setting north)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
Figure 1B. Setting, Bradbury Road (view facing south)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
PAGE 267 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 10 Figure 2. Sketch Map
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, 2021
PAGE 268 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 11 Figure 3. Project Location Map
SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey, 1994
PAGE 269 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 12

6.2 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION

6.2.1 Primary Residence
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.

Primary Façade (Eastern Façade)
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 (Figure 4A, Primary Façade). The primary façade contains five rectangular windows. Three extant windows are vinyl single-hung, one-over-one windows. The window flanking the entry door is a rectangular fixed window, featuring two casement side-light windows (Figure 4B). The extant windows on the southern and northern end of the façade feature painted wood shutters. The entry door is a smoothfinished, 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 (Figure 4B).

Figure 4A. Primary Façade (view facing west)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
PAGE 270 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 13 Figure 4B. Primary Façade (view facing southwest)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
Western Façade
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 (Figure 5A, Western Façade). Extant windows include a bay window that contains three, viny one-over-one, single-hung windows (Figure 5B). 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.

Figure 5A. Western Façade (view facing east)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
PAGE 271 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 14 Figure 5B. Western Façade (view northeast)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
Northern Façade
The northern façade is clad in stucco and features a horizontal roof line, one window, and a door.

The extant window on the faced is a vinyl fixed window, flanked by two vinyl casement windows (Figures 6A–B, Northern Façade). 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.

Figure 6A. Northern Façade (view southwest)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
PAGE 272 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 15 Figure 6B. Northern Façade (view southeast)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
Southern Façade
The southern facade is clad in stucco, features a horizontal roofline, four windows, and contains various shrubs abutted to it (Figure 7A, Southern Façade). 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 (Figures 7B-C). The southern façade features include rain gutter drainage, various bushes, shrubs, municipal gas meter, and a brick planter.

Figure 7A. Southern Façade (view northwest)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
PAGE 273 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 16 Figure 7B. Southern Façade (view north)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
Figure 7C. Southern Façade (view north)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
PAGE 274 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 17

6.2.2 Detached Garage
The detached garage is clad in stucco and is simple in design. The building has a low-pitched, hipped roof clad in composition tiles (Figures 8A–B, Detached Garage). 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 (Figure 8C).

Figure 8A. Detached Garage (view south)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
Figure 8B. Detached Garage (view south)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
PAGE 275 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 18 Figure 8C. Detached Garage (view southwest)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021

6.3 BUILDING HISTORY

6.3.1 Construction History
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.
26 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.

6.3.2 Permit History27
The original building permits for the construction of the building were provided by the City (Table 1, Building Permit History).
26 Los Angeles Times. September 29, 1940. Los Angeles, CA, 69. 27 All permits supplied by Christina Baker from the City of San Marino Planning Department in PDF format, October 2021.

PAGE 276 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 19 TABLE 1

BUILDING PERMIT HISTORY
Date Permit No. Description of Work
July 1951 7848 Construction of a two-story 45×46 “California Traditional” singlefamily 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 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps do not cover this area of the City. Historic aerials photographs of the property were reviewed dating back to 1952 and show that the footprint of the building appears to generally be the same.

TABLE 2

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 1983.28 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.29 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.30 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 28 Ancestry. 2014. “U.S., Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014 [database on-line].” Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
29 Los Angeles Evening Express. 14 January 1909. Los Angeles, CA, 16. 30 Los Angeles Express. 28 September 1915. Los Angeles, CA, 14.

PAGE 277 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 20 Friese suffered from blindness late in life.31 Patty Chan has owned the subject property since 1991.32 City building permits, ancestry.com database searches, newspapers.com, and ProQuest were utilized to compile the ownership history specific to the subject property.

6.5 USE HISTORY
The property was built as a single-family residence and is currently being used as such. 31 Los Angeles Times. 25 June 1982. Los Angeles, CA, 18. 32 Ancestry. 2020. “U.S., Index to Public Records, 1994-2019 [database on-line].” Lehi, UT: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.

PAGE 278 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 21 SECTION 7

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The building associated with the subject property was evaluated to determine if it constitutes a historical resource as defined by CEQA, using the eligibility criteria for listing in applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations.

7.1 FEDERAL
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, defines the criteria to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register:

According to National Register Bulletin No. 15, “to be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must not only be shown to be significant under National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity.” Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin No. 15 as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”33 Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes the following seven aspects or qualities that in various combinations define integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 33 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/ PAGE 279 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 22

7.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Section 5024.1(c), Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 of the California Public Resources Code defines the criteria to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register:

A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the following [National Register] criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Section 4852(C) of the California Code of Regulations34 defines integrity as follows:

Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.
34 California Office of Historic Preservation. 1999. California State Law and Historic Preservation, 4853 (c), 66.

PAGE 280 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 23

7.3 CITY OF SAN MARINO
Section 23.18.030 of Article 18 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance No. 0-18-1336 defined the designation criteria for Historic Landmarks:35
A. The Council may designate a historic resource a Historic Landmark if it meets the requirements of both paragraphs B and C of this section.

B. Historic landmarks must meet at least one of the following criteria:

4. It is or was associated with an important person or persons who made a significant contribution to the history, development, or culture of the City, region, state, or nation; or

Integrity shall be judged with reference to the particular characteristics that support the property’s eligibility
35 City of San Marino. 11 April 2018. City Council Agenda. Accessed May 16, 2018. Available at: http://www.ci.sanmarino.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04112018-1034 PAGE 281 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 24 SECTION 8

HISTORIC CONTEXT
The property was evaluated using the Citywide Historic Context Statement developed by ARG for the City; specifically, the Postwar Development in San Marino, 1946–1980 and Minimal Traditional -style themes.
36 8.1 POSTWAR DEVELOPMENT IN SAN MARINO, 1946–1980 CONTEXT Theme: Residential Development, 1946–1980
Property Type: Residential resources may include single‐family residences; ancillary buildings and structures like servants’ quarters, garages, porte‐cocheres, and pool houses; features related directly to subdivision development, including entrance markers, street lamps, street trees, curbs, sidewalks, and walls; designed landscapes like estate grounds (including unified features like perimeter walls, retaining walls, steps, walkways, roads, driveways, gates, water features, and gardens); and geographically unified groupings of residential properties (historic districts).

Area of Significance: As the site of a significant historic event from this period; for its association with patterns of residential development in the City; as the site of a significant historic event from this period; for its association with a person (or persons) significant in the history of the City.

Criteria: NR: A/B CR: 1/2 Local: 1/2
Period of Significance: 1946–1980
Eligibility Standards:
• Date to the period of significance (1946–1980)
• Retain the essential aspects of integrity
o Retain enough of its essential physical features to sufficiently convey its association with the historic context
o Retain the majority (60 percent or more) of the contributors dating to the period of significance
o Retain enough of its essential physical features to sufficiently convey its association with the historic context
• Be directly associated with the notable person’s productive period—the time during which she or he attained significance
Integrity Considerations: A property that is significant as the site of a significant historic event is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that comprised its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event. A residential property from this period should retain integrity of location, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey the important association with the city’s development during this period. A property that has lost integrity of setting may still be eligible. A property that has lost some historic materials or details may still be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its original style and appearance in terms of the 36 Architectural Resources Group. April 2019. “San Marino Historic Context Statement Draft.” City of San Marino.

Available at: https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4569/San-Marino-Historic-Context-StatementDraft-4119 PAGE 282 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 25 massing, spatial relationships, proportion, and fenestration pattern. A property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying form and massing but has lost the majority of features that characterized its appearance during its historical period.

8.2 ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, 1870–1980 CONTEXT
Theme: Minimal Traditional
Property Type: Significant interpretations of architectural styles can be applied to nearly any property type. In San Marino, examples include single-family residences; commercial buildings like banks, office buildings, restaurants, and retail buildings; institutional properties like government buildings, clubhouses, schools, and churches; and designed landscapes (residential and institutional).

Concentrations of buildings that collectively convey a significant representation of architectural style(s) or type(s) may be identified as historic districts.

Area of Significance: An individual property eligible under this theme may be significant:
• As an excellent embodiment of an architectural style, type, period, or method of construction; and/or
• As the notable work of a master architect or builder; and/or • For possessing high artistic or aesthetic values; and/or • As one of the last, best remaining examples of a type or style in a neighborhood or the City that is increasingly rare.

Criteria: NR: C CR: 3 Local: 3
Period of Significance: 1946–1980
Character-defining features of Minimal Traditional-style architecture include:
• Small, typically one‐story height
• Simple massing
• Low‐pitched, hipped, side‐gable, or gable‐and‐wing roof • Double‐hung windows
PAGE 283 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 26 • Minimal ornamentation and architectural features, but relating to Tudor, Colonial Revival, or Ranch styles, where applied
Integrity Considerations: An individual property significant for its architecture is eligible if it retains most of the physical features that constitute its style or technique. It should retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to be eligible for its architectural merit.

PAGE 284 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 27 SECTION 9

EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY

9.1 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
National Register Criterion A
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.

National Register Criterion B
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.

National Register Criterion C
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.

PAGE 285 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 28 National Register Criterion D
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.

9.4 CITY OF SAN MARINO HISTORIC DISTRICT
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.

PAGE 286 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 29

9.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Rehabilitation (Standards), 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”37 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 (Attachment B, Project Plans). Based on the compatibility of scale, massing, design, and materials, the proposed project meets the Standards.
37 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
PAGE 287 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 30 SECTION 10

CONCLUSIONS
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, and national history (Attachment C, DPR 523 Series Forms). 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 288 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 31 SECTION 11

REFERENCES
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/San-Marino-Recon-Map61319 Architectural Resources Group. April 2019. “San Marino Historic Context Statement Draft.” City of San Marino. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanmarino.org/DocumentCenter/View/4569/San-Marino-HistoricContext-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/San-Marino-HistoricContext-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 PAGE 289 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 32 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.

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.

PAGE 290 of 360
1496 Bradbury Road, San Marino Historical Resources Assessment Report July 25, 2022 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2645\2645-002\Documents\1469 Bradbury Road_HRAR.docx Page 33 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 291 of 360

ATTACHMENT A

RESUME OF KEY PERSONNEL
PAGE 292 of 360
Scott E. Torres, MA
Architectural Historian
Master of Arts, History,
California State University
Fullerton, Fullerton, CA,
2020
• History
• Architecture
• California History
• Historic Preservation
• Cultural Survey
Years of Experience: 3+
• Historic Resource
Documentation and
Evaluations for Sierra
Madre Ca, Hollywood,
San Marino, Ontario,
Fontana, Glendale, and
Los Angeles
• High Speed Rail
Construction Package 4
• Society of Architectural
Historians Member
Mr. Scott Torres has more than three years of experience in the field of historic research and writing, including primary and secondary source analysis, conducting oral history interviews, peer review, and editing.

Mr. Torres is a member of the Society of Architectural Historians.

PAGE 293 of 360

ATTACHMENT B

PROJECT PLANS
PAGE 294 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

OWNER: Mrs. Patty Chan 1469 Bradbury Road
San Marino, CA 91008
ARCHITECT: DeMaria Design LLC
3308 Rogers Road
Studio 6103
Austin, TX 78758
Calif. Arch. Lic.# C-23127
Tel: 310 809 1520
1469 Bradbury Road
San Marino, CA 91008 A. New construction of 2975 sq.ft.two story single family residence B. Renovation and upgrade of existing one
story, two-car detached garage
Total Building ADU Area: 960 sq.ft.

SCOPE OF WORK:
'5$:,1*,1'(;
ARCHITECTURAL:

A1.00 PROJECT INFORMATIONA2.00 VICINTY MAP AND SURROUNDINGA2.01 EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE/FLOOR PLANSA2.02 EXISTING FLOOR PLANSA2.03 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANSA2.04 PROPOSED ROOF PLANA5.00 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONSA10.0 DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULES & DETAILS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 5332-015-016
LOT SIZE: 7,961 SQ.FT. PER (ASSESSOR RECORDS)
8,100 SQ.FT. PER (SURVEY & ASSESSOR INDEX MAP)
ƒ MAXIMUM LIVABLE FLOOR AREA: 3,000 S.F.
40% OF ACTUAL LOT AREA or 30% OF STATUTORY LOT AREA,

WHICHEVER IS SMALLER

0.4 X 8,100 = 3,240 S.F.0.3 X 10,000 = 3,000 S.F.
ƒ MAXIMUM GROSS LOT COVERAGE: 3,000 S.F.
40% OF ACTUAL LOT AREA or 30% OF STATUTORY LOT AREA,

WHICHEVER IS SMALLER

0.4 X 8,100 = 3,240 S.F.0.3 X 10,000 = 3,000 S.F.

PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING UNITS
CITY ZONING DESIGNATION: R1 - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
*(1(5$/127(6
FIRE SPRINKLERS: YES
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB
TOTAL HABITABLE AREA OF PROJECT: 2995 SQ, FT,
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 3000 SQ.FT. MAXIMUM ALLOW.

OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3
BUILDING TYPE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

WITH DETACHED GARAGE
AREA:

PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR AREA : 2150 SQ. FT.EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN: 1 (2-CAR GARAGE) 352-(&7&2'(&203/,$1&(
Project shall comply with the following codes:

IBC 2021 LACO Building Code 2021 California Building Code - Title 24, Part 2IRC 2021 LACO Residential Code 2021 California Residential Code - Title 24, Part 2.5 NEC 2021 LACO Electrical Code 2021 California Residential Code - Title 24, Part 3 UMC 2021 LACO Mechanical Code 2021 California Mechanical Code - Title 24, Part 4UPC 2021 LACO Plumbingl Code 2021 California Plumbing Code - Title 24, Part 5 2021 California EnergyCode - Title 24, Part 62021 California Green Building Standards Code Title 24, Part 11
The issuance of a permit shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors on these plans or from preventing any violation of the Codes
adopted by the City, relevant laws, ordinances, rulesand/or regulations. 3/$15(9,(:&2'(&203/,$1&(127(
352-(&7&2168/7$176

ARCHITECT
DeMaria Design LLC
3308 Rogers Road
Studio 6103
Austin, TX 78758
Tel: 310 809 1520
PETER DE MARIA AIA CA. LIC. C-23127Email: [email protected]

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERSTRUCTURAL AF
1021 S Brand Blvd
Suite 101
Glendale, CA 91204
ARSEN ADZHEMYAN, P.E. ENV. SP. CA LIC. NO: C89103
Email: [email protected]
Tele : 818-455-6667
TITLE 24 ENGINEER

CARSTAIRS ENERGY INC
2238 Bayview Heights Drive
Suite E
Los Osos, CA 93402

TIMOTHY CARSTAIRS, CEA, HERS, GPR
CA CERTIFICATION NO: R-16-06-10042
Email: [email protected]
Tele: 805-904-9048
38%/,&:25.6127(6
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR AREA :PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AREA: 2995 SQ. FT. < 3000 SQ.FT.

COMPLIES
845 SQ. FT.

NEW SFR. COVERAGE: 2155 SQ. FT.EXIST. DETACHED GARAGE COVERAGE: 441 SQ. FT.PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 2596 SQ. FT. $
352-(&7
,1)250$7,21
PAGE 295 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

([FDYDWHGVRLODQGODQGFOHDULQJGHEULV
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
RU
EXONPL[HG
VLQJOHVWUHDP

,GHQWLI\GLYHUVLRQIDFLOLWLHVZKHUHWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGGHPROLWLRQZDVWHPDWHULDOFROOHFWHGZLOOEH WDNHQ
,GHQWLI\FRQVWUXFWLRQPHWKRGVHPSOR\HGWRUHGXFHWKHDPRXQWRIFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGGHPROLWLRQZDVWH JHQHUDWHG
6SHFLI\WKDWWKHDPRXQWRIFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGGHPROLWLRQZDVWHPDWHULDOVGLYHUWHGVKDOOEHFDOFXODWHG E\ZHLJKWRUYROXPHEXWQRWE\ERWK
:$67(0$1$*(0(17&203$1<8WLOL]HDZDVWHPDQDJHPHQWFRPSDQ\DSSURYHGE\WKH HQIRUFLQJDJHQF\ZKLFKFDQSURYLGHYHULILDEOHGRFXPHQWDWLRQWKDWWKHSHUFHQWDJHRIFRQVWUXFWLRQDQG GHPROLWLRQZDVWHPDWHULDOGLYHUWHGIURPWKHODQGILOOFRPSOLHVZLWK6HFWLRQ 1RWH
7KHRZQHURUFRQWUDFWRUPD\PDNHWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQLIWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGGHPROLWLRQZDVWH PDWHULDOVZLOOEHGLYHUWHGE\DZDVWHPDQDJHPHQWFRPSDQ\ :$67(675($05('8&7,21$/7(51$7,9(>/5@3URMHFWVWKDWJHQHUDWHDWRWDOFRPELQHG ZHLJKWRIFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGGHPROLWLRQZDVWHGLVSRVHGRILQODQGILOOVZKLFKGRQRWH[FHHG OEVVTIWRIWKHEXLOGLQJDUHDVKDOOPHHWWKHPLQLPXPFRQVWUXFWLRQZDVWHUHGXFWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWLQ 6HFWLRQ
:$67(675($05('8&7,21$/7(51$7,9(3URMHFWVWKDWJHQHUDWHDWRWDOFRPELQHG ZHLJKWRIFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGGHPROLWLRQZDVWHGLVSRVHGRILQODQGILOOVZKLFKGRQRWH[FHHGSRXQGV SHUVTXDUHIRRWRIWKHEXLOGLQJDUHDVKDOOPHHWWKHPLQLPXPFRQVWUXFWLRQZDVWHUHGXFWLRQUHTXLUHPHQW LQ6HFWLRQ '2&80(17$7,21'RFXPHQWDWLRQVKDOOEHSURYLGHGWRWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\ZKLFKGHPRQVWUDWHV FRPSOLDQFHZLWK6HFWLRQLWHPVWKURXJK6HFWLRQRU6HFWLRQ 1RWHV

6DPSOHIRUPVIRXQGLQ$*XLGHWRWKH&DOLIRUQLD*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ6WDQGDUGV&RGH
5HVLGHQWLDO
ORFDWHGDWZZZKFGFDJRY&$/*UHHQKWPOPD\EHXVHGWRDVVLVWLQGRFXPHQWLQJFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKLVVHFWLRQ 0L[HGFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGGHPROLWLRQGHEULV
& '
SURFHVVRUVFDQEHORFDWHGDWWKH&DOLIRUQLD
'HSDUWPHQWRI5HVRXUFHV5HF\FOLQJDQG5HFRYHU\
&DO5HF\FOH

%8,/',1*0$,17(1$1&($1'23(5$7,21
23(5$7,21$1'0$,17(1$1&(0$18$/$WWKHWLPHRIILQDOLQVSHFWLRQDPDQXDOFRPSDFW GLVFZHEEDVHGUHIHUHQFHRURWKHUPHGLDDFFHSWDEOHWRWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\ZKLFKLQFOXGHVDOORIWKH IROORZLQJVKDOOEHSODFHGLQWKHEXLOGLQJ

'LUHFWLRQVWRWKHRZQHURURFFXSDQWWKDWWKHPDQXDOVKDOOUHPDLQZLWKWKHEXLOGLQJWKURXJKRXWWKH OLIHF\FOHRIWKHVWUXFWXUH
2SHUDWLRQDQGPDLQWHQDQFHLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUWKHIROORZLQJ

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
,QVWUXFWLRQVIRUPDLQWDLQLQJJXWWHUVDQGGRZQVSRXWVDQGWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIGLYHUWLQJZDWHUDWOHDVW IHHWDZD\IURPWKHIRXQGDWLRQ
,QIRUPDWLRQRQUHTXLUHGURXWLQHPDLQWHQDQFHPHDVXUHVLQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRFDXONLQJ SDLQWLQJJUDGLQJDURXQGWKHEXLOGLQJHWF

,QIRUPDWLRQDERXWVWDWHVRODUHQHUJ\DQGLQFHQWLYHSURJUDPVDYDLODEOH $FRS\RIDOOVSHFLDOLQVSHFWLRQVYHULILFDWLRQVUHTXLUHGE\WKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\RUWKLVFRGH,QIRUPDWLRQIURP&$/)LUHRQPDLQWHQDQFHRIGHIHQVLEOHVSDFHDURXQGUHVLGHQWLDOVWUXFWXUHV 5(&<&/,1*%<2&&83$176:KHUHRUPRUHPXOWLIDPLO\GZHOOLQJXQLWVDUHFRQVWUXFWHGRQD EXLOGLQJVLWHSURYLGHUHDGLO\DFFHVVLEOHDUHD
V
WKDWVHUYHVDOOEXLOGLQJVRQWKHVLWHDQGDUHLGHQWLILHGIRUWKH GHSRVLWLQJVWRUDJHDQGFROOHFWLRQRIQRQKD]DUGRXVPDWHULDOVIRUUHF\FOLQJLQFOXGLQJ DWDPLQLPXP
SDSHU
FRUUXJDWHGFDUGERDUGJODVVSODVWLFVRUJDQLFZDVWHUDQGPHWDOVRUPHHWDODZIXOO\HQDFWHGORFDOUHF\FOLQJ RUGLQDQFHLIPRUHUHVWULFWLYH
([FHSWLRQ
5XUDOMXULVGLFWLRQVWKDWPHHWDQGDSSO\IRUWKHH[HPSWLRQLQ3XEOLF5HVRXUFHV&RGH6HFWLRQ

D

$
HWVHTDUHQRWHUHTXLUHGWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKHRUJDQLFZDVWHSRUWLRQRI WKLVVHFWLRQ
',9,6,21 0$7(5,$/&216(59$7,21$1'5(6285&(()),&,(1&<',9,6,21 (19,5210(17$/48$/,7< ,1'225:$7(586(
:$7(5&216(59,1*3/80%,1*),;785(6$1'),77,1*63OXPELQJIL[WXUHV ZDWHUFORVHWVDQG

XULQDOV
DQGILWWLQJV
IDXFHWVDQGVKRZHUKHDGV
VKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHVHFWLRQV DQG
1RWH
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
1RWH
7KHHIIHFWLYHIOXVKYROXPHRIGXDOIOXVKWRLOHWVLVGHILQHGDVWKHFRPSRVLWHDYHUDJHIOXVKYROXPH RIWZRUHGXFHGIOXVKHVDQGRQHIXOOIOXVK
8ULQDOV7KHHIIHFWLYHIOXVKYROXPHRIZDOOPRXQWHGXULQDOVVKDOOQRWH[FHHGJDOORQVSHUIOXVK 7KHHIIHFWLYHIOXVKYROXPHRIDOORWKHUXULQDOVVKDOOQRWH[FHHGJDOORQVSHUIOXVK 6KRZHUKHDGV
6LQJOH6KRZHUKHDG6KRZHUKHDGVVKDOOKDYHDPD[LPXPIORZUDWHRIQRWPRUHWKDQ JDOORQVSHUPLQXWHDWSVL6KRZHUKHDGVVKDOOEHFHUWLILHGWRWKHSHUIRUPDQFHFULWHULDRIWKH86(3$ :DWHU6HQVH6SHFLILFDWLRQIRU6KRZHUKHDGV
0XOWLSOHVKRZHUKHDGVVHUYLQJRQHVKRZHU:KHQDVKRZHULVVHUYHGE\PRUHWKDQRQH VKRZHUKHDGWKHFRPELQHGIORZUDWHRIDOOWKHVKRZHUKHDGVDQGRURWKHUVKRZHURXWOHWVFRQWUROOHGE\ DVLQJOHYDOYHVKDOOQRWH[FHHGJDOORQVSHUPLQXWHDWSVLRUWKHVKRZHUVKDOOEHGHVLJQHGWRRQO\DOORZRQHVKRZHURXWOHWWREHLQRSHUDWLRQDWDWLPH 1RWH
$KDQGKHOGVKRZHUVKDOOEHFRQVLGHUHGDVKRZHUKHDG
)DXFHWV
5HVLGHQWLDO/DYDWRU\)DXFHWV7KHPD[LPXPIORZUDWHRIUHVLGHQWLDOODYDWRU\IDXFHWVVKDOO QRWH[FHHGJDOORQVSHUPLQXWHDWSVL7KHPLQLPXPIORZUDWHRIUHVLGHQWLDOODYDWRU\IDXFHWVVKDOOQRWEHOHVVWKDQJDOORQVSHUPLQXWHDWSVL /DYDWRU\)DXFHWVLQ&RPPRQDQG3XEOLF8VH$UHDV7KHPD[LPXPIORZUDWHRIODYDWRU\ IDXFHWVLQVWDOOHGLQFRPPRQDQGSXEOLFXVHDUHDV
RXWVLGHRIGZHOOLQJVRUVOHHSLQJXQLWV
LQUHVLGHQWLDO
EXLOGLQJVVKDOOQRWH[FHHGJDOORQVSHUPLQXWHDWSVL 0HWHULQJ)DXFHWV0HWHULQJIDXFHWVZKHQLQVWDOOHGLQUHVLGHQWLDOEXLOGLQJVVKDOOQRWGHOLYHU PRUHWKDQJDOORQVSHUF\FOH
.LWFKHQ)DXFHWV7KHPD[LPXPIORZUDWHRINLWFKHQIDXFHWVVKDOOQRWH[FHHGJDOORQV SHUPLQXWHDWSVL.LWFKHQIDXFHWVPD\WHPSRUDULO\LQFUHDVHWKHIORZDERYHWKHPD[LPXPUDWHEXWQRW WRH[FHHGJDOORQVSHUPLQXWHDWSVLDQGPXVWGHIDXOWWRDPD[LPXPIORZUDWHRIJDOORQVSHU PLQXWHDWSVL
1RWH
:KHUHFRPSO\LQJIDXFHWVDUHXQDYDLODEOHDHUDWRUVRURWKHUPHDQVPD\EHXVHGWRDFKLHYH UHGXFWLRQ
3UHULQVHVSUD\YDOYHV
:KHQLQVWDOOHGVKDOOPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVLQWKH&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH $SSOLDQFH
(IILFLHQF\5HJXODWLRQV
6HFWLRQV
K

7DEOH+6HFWLRQ
K

$
DQG6HFWLRQ

DQGVKDOOEHHTXLSSHGZLWKDQLQWHJUDODXWRPDWLFVKXWRII )255()(5(1&(21/<
7KHIROORZLQJWDEOHDQGFRGHVHFWLRQKDYHEHHQUHSULQWHGIURPWKH&DOLIRUQLD &RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH
$SSOLDQFH(IILFLHQF\5HJXODWLRQV
6HFWLRQ
K

DQG6HFWLRQ

K

$

7LWOH6HFWLRQ
K

&RPPHUFLDOSUHULQVHVSUD\YDOXHVPDQXIDFWXUHGRQRUDIWHU-DQXDU\ VKDOOKDYHDPLQLPXPVSUD\IRUFHRIQRWOHVVWKDQRXQFHVIRUFH R]I
>JUDPVIRUFH
JI
@
6XEPHWHUVIRUPXOWLIDPLO\EXLOGLQJVDQGGZHOOLQJXQLWVLQPL[HGXVHGUHVLGHQWLDOFRPPHUFLDO EXLOGLQJV
6XEPHWHUVVKDOOEHLQVWDOOHGWRPHDVXUHZDWHUXVDJHRILQGLYLGXDOUHQWDOGZHOOLQJXQLWVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH &DOLIRUQLD3OXPELQJ&RGH
6WDQGDUGVIRUSOXPELQJIL[WXUHVDQGILWWLQJV3OXPELQJIL[WXUHVDQGILWWLQJVVKDOOEHLQVWDOOHGLQ DFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD3OXPELQJ&RGHDQGVKDOOPHHWWKHDSSOLFDEOHVWDQGDUGVUHIHUHQFHGLQ7DEOH RIWKH&DOLIRUQLD3OXPELQJ&RGH
7$%/(0$;,080),;785(:$7(586(
),;785(7<3( )/2:5$7(
6+2:(5+($'6

5(6,'(17,$/
*03#36,
/$9$725<)$8&(76

5(6,'(17,$/

0$;*30#36,
0,1*30#36,
/$9$725<)$8&(76,1
&20021 38%/,&86($5($6 *30#36,
.,7&+(1)$8&(76 *30#36,0(7(5,1*)$8&(76 *$/&<&/( :$7(5&/26(7 *$/)/86+
85,1$/6 *$/)/86+
287'225:$7(586(
287'225327$%/(:$7(586(,1/$1'6&$3($5($65HVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWVVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWK DORFDOZDWHUHIILFLHQWODQGVFDSHRUGLQDQFHRUWKHFXUUHQW&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI:DWHU5HVRXUFHV 0RGHO:DWHU
(IILFLHQW/DQGVFDSH2UGLQDQFH
0:(/2
ZKLFKHYHULVPRUHVWULQJHQW
127(6

7KH0RGHO:DWHU(IILFLHQW/DQGVFDSH2UGLQDQFH
0:(/2
LVORFDWHGLQWKH&DOLIRUQLD&RGH5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH&KDSWHU'LYLVLRQ0:(/2DQGVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWVLQFOXGLQJZDWHUEXGJHWFDOFXODWRUDUHDYDLODEOHDW KWWSV
ZZZZDWHUFDJRY
$%%5(9,$7,21'(),1,7,216

+&' 'HSDUWPHQWRI+RXVLQJDQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW
%6& &DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ6WDQGDUGV&RPPLVVLRQ
'6$66 'LYLVLRQRIWKH6WDWH$UFKLWHFW6WUXFWXUDO6DIHW\ 26+3' 2IILFHRI6WDWHZLGH+HDOWK3ODQQLQJDQG'HYHORSPHQW /5 /RZ5LVH
+5 +LJK5LVH
$$ $GGLWLRQVDQG$OWHUDWLRQV
1 1HZ
127(

7+,67$%/(&203,/(67+('$7$,16(&7,21$1'
,6,1&/8'('$6$&219(1,(1&()257+(86(5
6(&7,21'(),1,7,216
'(),1,7,216
7KHIROORZLQJWHUPVDUHGHILQHGLQ&KDSWHU
DQGDUHLQFOXGHGKHUHIRUUHIHUHQFH

)5(1&+'5$,1$WUHQFKKROHRURWKHUGHSUHVVHGDUHDORRVHO\ILOOHGZLWKURFNJUDYHOIUDJPHQWVRIEULFNRUVLPLODU SHUYLRXVPDWHULDOXVHGWRFROOHFWRUFKDQQHOGUDLQDJHRUUXQRIIZDWHU :$77/(6:DWWOHVDUHXVHGWRUHGXFHVHGLPHQWLQUXQRII:DWWOHVDUHRIWHQFRQVWUXFWHGRIQDWXUDOSODQWPDWHULDOV VXFKDVKD\VWUDZRUVLPLODUPDWHULDOVKDSHGLQWKHIRUPRIWXEHVDQGSODFHGRQDGRZQIORZVORSH:DWWOHVDUHDOVR XVHGIRUSHULPHWHUDQGLQOHWFRQWUROV
6,7('(9(/230(17
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
5HIHUWRWKH6WDWH:DWHU5HVRXUFHV&RQWURO%RDUGIRUSURMHFWVZKLFKGLVWXUERQHDFUHRUPRUHRIVRLORU DUHSDUWRIDODUJHUFRPPRQSODQRIGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKLQWRWDOGLVWXUEVRQHDFUHRUPRUHRIVRLO

:HEVLWH
KWWSV
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYZDWHUBLVVXHVSURJUDPVVWRUPZDWHUFRQVWUXFWLRQKWPO

*5$',1*$1'3$9,1*&RQVWUXFWLRQSODQVVKDOOLQGLFDWHKRZWKHVLWHJUDGLQJRUGUDLQDJHV\VWHPZLOO PDQDJHDOOVXUIDFHZDWHUIORZVWRNHHSZDWHUIURPHQWHULQJEXLOGLQJV([DPSOHVRIPHWKRGVWRPDQDJHVXUIDFH ZDWHULQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWRWKHIROORZLQJ

6ZDOHV
:DWHUFROOHFWLRQDQGGLVSRVDOV\VWHPV
)UHQFKGUDLQV
:DWHUUHWHQWLRQJDUGHQV
2WKHUZDWHUPHDVXUHVZKLFKNHHSVXUIDFHZDWHUDZD\IURPEXLOGLQJVDQGDLGLQJURXQGZDWHU UHFKDUJH
([FHSWLRQ
$GGLWLRQVDQGDOWHUDWLRQVQRWDOWHULQJWKHGUDLQDJHSDWK (OHFWULFYHKLFOH
(9
FKDUJLQJIRUQHZFRQVWUXFWLRQ1HZFRQVWUXFWLRQVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWK6HFWLRQV RUWRIDFLOLWDWHIXWXUHLQVWDOODWLRQDQGXVHRI(9FKDUJHUV(OHFWULFYHKLFOHVXSSO\ HTXLSPHQW
(96(
VKDOOEHLQVWDOOHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD(OHFWULFDO&RGH$UWLFOH ([FHSWLRQV

2QDFDVHE\FDVHEDVLVZKHUHWKHORFDOHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\KDVGHWHUPLQHG(9FKDUJLQJDQG LQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHQRWIHDVLEOHEDVHGXSRQRQHRUPRUHRIWKHIROORZLQJFRQGLWLRQV

:KHUHWKHUHLVQRFRPPHUFLDOSRZHUVXSSO\:KHUHWKHUHLVHYLGHQFHVXEVWDQWLDWLQJWKDWPHHWLQJWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVZLOODOWHUWKHORFDO XWLOLW\LQIUDVWUXFWXUHGHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVRQWKHXWLOLW\VLGHRIWKHPHWHUVRDVWRLQFUHDVHWKHXWLOLW\VLGHFRVWWRWKHKRPHRZQHURUWKHGHYHORSHUE\PRUHWKDQSHU GZHOOLQJXQLW
$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV
$'8
DQG-XQLRU$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV
-$'8
ZLWKRXWDGGLWLRQDO
SDUNLQJIDFLOLWLHV
1HZRQHDQGWZRIDPLO\GZHOOLQJVDQGWRZQKRXVHVZLWKDWWDFKHGSULYDWHJDUDJHV)RUHDFK GZHOOLQJXQLWLQVWDOODOLVWHGUDFHZD\WRDFFRPPRGDWHDGHGLFDWHGYROWEUDQFKFLUFXLW7KHUDFHZD\ VKDOOQRWEHOHVVWKDQWUDGHVL]H
QRPLQDOLQFKLQVLGHGLDPHWHU
7KHUDFHZD\VKDOORULJLQDWHDWWKHPDLQVHUYLFHRUVXESDQHODQGVKDOOWHUPLQDWHLQWRDOLVWHGFDELQHWER[RURWKHUHQFORVXUHLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRWKH SURSRVHGORFDWLRQRIDQ(9FKDUJHU5DFHZD\VDUHUHTXLUHGWREHFRQWLQXRXVDWHQFORVHGLQDFFHVVLEOHRU FRQFHDOHGDUHDVDQGVSDFHV7KHVHUYLFHSDQHODQGRUVXESDQHOVKDOOSURYLGHFDSDFLW\WRLQVWDOODDPSHUH YROWPLQLPXPGHGLFDWHGEUDQFKFLUFXLWDQGVSDFH V
UHVHUYHGWRSHUPLWLQVWDOODWLRQRIDEUDQFKFLUFXLW
RYHUFXUUHQWSURWHFWLYHGHYLFH
([HPSWLRQ
$UDFHZD\LVQRWUHTXLUHGLIDPLQLPXPDPSHUHYROWGHGLFDWHG(9EUDQFKFLUFXLWLV LQVWDOOHGLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRWKHSURSRVHGORFDWLRQRIDQ(9FKDUJHUDWWKHWLPHRIRULJLQDOFRQVWUXFWLRQLQ DFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD(OHFWULFDO&RGH
,GHQWLILFDWLRQ7KHVHUYLFHSDQHORUVXESDQHOFLUFXLWGLUHFWRU\VKDOOLGHQWLI\WKHRYHUFXUUHQW SURWHFWLYHGHYLFHVSDFH
V
UHVHUYHGIRUIXWXUH(9FKDUJLQJDV(9&$3$%/(7KHUDFHZD\WHUPLQDWLRQ ORFDWLRQVKDOOEHSHUPDQHQWO\DQGYLVLEO\PDUNHGDV(9&$3$%/( &+$37(5
*5((1%8,/',1*
6(&7,21*(1(5$/6&23(%XLOGLQJVVKDOOEHGHVLJQHGWRLQFOXGHWKHJUHHQEXLOGLQJPHDVXUHVVSHFLILHGDVPDQGDWRU\LQ WKHDSSOLFDWLRQFKHFNOLVWVFRQWDLQHGLQWKLVFRGH9ROXQWDU\JUHHQEXLOGLQJPHDVXUHVDUHDOVRLQFOXGHGLQWKH DSSOLFDWLRQFKHFNOLVWVDQGPD\EHLQFOXGHGLQWKHGHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQRIVWUXFWXUHVFRYHUHGE\WKLVFRGH EXWDUHQRWUHTXLUHGXQOHVVDGRSWHGE\DFLW\FRXQW\RUFLW\DQGFRXQW\DVVSHFLILHGLQ6HFWLRQ $GGLWLRQVDQGDOWHUDWLRQV>+&'@7KHPDQGDWRU\SURYLVLRQVRI&KDSWHUVKDOOEHDSSOLHGWR DGGLWLRQVRUDOWHUDWLRQVRIH[LVWLQJUHVLGHQWLDOEXLOGLQJVZKHUHWKHDGGLWLRQRUDOWHUDWLRQLQFUHDVHVWKH

EXLOGLQJ
VFRQGLWLRQHGDUHDYROXPHRUVL]H7KHUHTXLUHPHQWVVKDOODSSO\RQO\WRDQGRUZLWKLQWKH VSHFLILFDUHDRIWKHDGGLWLRQRUDOWHUDWLRQ
1RWH
2QDQGDIWHU-DQXDU\UHVLGHQWLDOEXLOGLQJVXQGHUJRLQJSHUPLWWHGDOWHUDWLRQVDGGLWLRQVRU LPSURYHPHQWVVKDOOUHSODFHQRQFRPSOLDQWSOXPELQJIL[WXUHVZLWKZDWHUFRQVHUYLQJSOXPELQJIL[WXUHV 3OXPELQJIL[WXUHUHSODFHPHQWLVUHTXLUHGSULRUWRLVVXDQFHRIDFHUWLILFDWHRIILQDOFRPSOHWLRQFHUWLILFDWH RIRFFXSDQF\RUILQDOSHUPLWDSSURYDOE\WKHORFDOEXLOGLQJGHSDUWPHQW6HH&LYLO&RGH6HFWLRQ HWVHTIRUWKHGHILQLWLRQRIDQRQFRPSOLDQWSOXPELQJIL[WXUHW\SHVRIUHVLGHQWLDOEXLOGLQJVDIIHFWHGDQG RWKHULPSRUWDQWHQDFWPHQWGDWHV
/2:5,6($1'+,*+5,6(5(6,'(17,$/%8,/',1*6>+&'@7KHSURYLVLRQVRI LQGLYLGXDOVHFWLRQVRI&$/*UHHQPD\DSSO\WRHLWKHUORZULVHUHVLGHQWLDOEXLOGLQJVKLJKULVHUHVLGHQWLDO EXLOGLQJVRUERWK,QGLYLGXDOVHFWLRQVZLOOEHGHVLJQDWHGE\EDQQHUVWRLQGLFDWHZKHUHWKHVHFWLRQDSSOLHV VSHFLILFDOO\WRORZULVHRQO\
/5
RUKLJKULVHRQO\
+5
:KHQWKHVHFWLRQDSSOLHVWRERWKORZULVHDQG
KLJKULVHEXLOGLQJVQREDQQHUZLOOEHXVHG
6(&7,210,;('2&&83$1&<%8,/',1*60,;('2&&83$1&<%8,/',1*6,QPL[HGRFFXSDQF\EXLOGLQJVHDFKSRUWLRQRIDEXLOGLQJ VKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHVSHFLILFJUHHQEXLOGLQJPHDVXUHVDSSOLFDEOHWRHDFKVSHFLILFRFFXSDQF\ ([FHSWLRQV

>+&'@$FFHVVRU\VWUXFWXUHVDQGDFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVVHUYLQJUHVLGHQWLDOEXLOGLQJVVKDOO FRPSO\ZLWK&KDSWHUDQG$SSHQGL[$DVDSSOLFDEOH
>+&'@)RUSXUSRVHVRI&$/*UHHQOLYHZRUNXQLWVFRPSO\LQJZLWK6HFWLRQ RIWKH&DOLIRUQLD
%XLOGLQJ&RGHVKDOOQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGPL[HGRFFXSDQFLHV/LYH:RUNXQLWVVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWK &KDSWHUDQG$SSHQGL[$DVDSSOLFDEOH
1HZPXOWLIDPLO\GZHOOLQJV,IUHVLGHQWLDOSDUNLQJLVDYDLODEOHWHQ
SHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOQXPEHU
RISDUNLQJVSDFHVRQDEXLOGLQJVLWHSURYLGHGIRUDOOW\SHVRISDUNLQJIDFLOLWLHVVKDOOEHHOHFWULFYHKLFOH FKDUJLQJVSDFHV
(9VSDFHV
FDSDEOHRIVXSSRUWLQJIXWXUH(96(&DOFXODWLRQVIRUWKHUHTXLUHGQXPEHURI(9 VSDFHVVKDOOEHURXQGHGXSWRWKHQHDUHVWZKROHQXPEHU 1RWHV

&RQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWVDUHLQWHQGHGWRGHPRQVWUDWHWKHSURMHFW VFDSDELOLW\DQGFDSDFLW\IRU
IDFLOLWDWLQJIXWXUH(9FKDUJLQJ
7KHUHLVQRUHTXLUHPHQWIRU(9VSDFHVWREHFRQVWUXFWHGRUDYDLODEOHXQWLO(9FKDUJHUVDUHLQVWDOOHG IRUXVH
$SDUNLQJVSDFHVHUYHGE\HOHFWULFYHKLFOHVXSSO\HTXLSPHQWRUGHVLJQDWHGDVDIXWXUH(9FKDUJLQJ VSDFHVKDOOFRXQWDVDWOHDVWRQHVWDQGDUGDXWRPRELOHSDUNLQJVSDFHIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIFRPSO\LQJZLWK DQ\DSSOLFDEOHPLQLPXPSDUNLQJVSDFHUHTXLUHPHQWVHVWDEOLVKHGE\DORFDOMXULVGLFWLRQ6HH9HKLFOH &RGH6HFWLRQIRUIXUWKHUGHWDLOV
(OHFWULFYHKLFOHFKDUJLQJVSDFH
(9VSDFH
ORFDWLRQV&RQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWVVKDOO
LQGLFDWHWKHORFDWLRQRISURSRVHG(9VSDFHV:KHUHFRPPRQXVHSDUNLQJLVSURYLGHGDWOHDVWRQH(9VSDFH VKDOOEHORFDWHGLQWKHFRPPRQXVHSDUNLQJDUHDDQGVKDOOEHDYDLODEOHIRUXVHE\DOOUHVLGHQWV (OHFWULF9HKLFOH&KDUJLQJ6WDWLRQV
(9&6
:KHQ(9FKDUJHUVDUHLQVWDOOHG(9VSDFHV
UHTXLUHGE\6HFWLRQ,WHPVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJRSWLRQV

7KH(9VSDFHVKDOOEHORFDWHGDGMDFHQWWRDQDFFHVVLEOHSDUNLQJVSDFHPHHWLQJWKH UHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ&RGH&KDSWHU$WRDOORZXVHRIWKH(9FKDUJHU IURPWKHDFFHVVLEOHSDUNLQJVSDFH
7KH(9VSDFHVKDOOEHORFDWHGRQDQDFFHVVLEOHURXWHDVGHILQHGLQWKH&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ &RGH&KDSWHUWRWKHEXLOGLQJ
([FHSWLRQ
(OHFWULFYHKLFOHFKDUJLQJVWDWLRQVGHVLJQHGDQGFRQVWUXFWHGLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH &DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ&RGH&KDSWHU%DUHQRWUHTXLUHGWRFRPSO\ZLWK6HFWLRQDQG 6HFWLRQ,WHP
1RWH
(OHFWULF9HKLFOHFKDUJLQJVWDWLRQVVHUYLQJSXEOLFKRXVLQJDUHUHTXLUHGWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD %XLOGLQJ&RGH&KDSWHU%
(OHFWULFYHKLFOHFKDUJLQJVSDFH
(9VSDFH
GLPHQVLRQV7KH(9VSDFHVKDOOEH
GHVLJQHGWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKHIROORZLQJ

7KHPLQLPXPOHQJWKRIHDFK(9VSDFHVKDOOEHIHHW PP

7KHPLQLPXPZLGWKRIHDFK(9VSDFHVKDOOEH
IHHW
PP

2QHLQHYHU\(9VSDFHVEXWQRWOHVVWKDQRQH(9VSDFHVKDOOKDYHDQIRRW PP

ZLGHPLQLPXPDLVOH$IRRW
PP
ZLGHPLQLPXPDLVOHVKDOOEHSHUPLWWHGSURYLGHGWKHPLQLPXPZLGWKRIWKH(9VSDFHLVIHHW PP

D6XUIDFHVORSHIRUWKLV(9VSDFHDQGWKHDLVOHVKDOOQRWH[FHHGXQLWYHUWLFDOLQXQLWV KRUL]RQWDO
SHUFHQWVORSH
LQDQ\GLUHFWLRQ
6LQJOH(9VSDFHUHTXLUHG,QVWDOODOLVWHGUDFHZD\FDSDEOHRIDFFRPPRGDWLQJD YROWGHGLFDWHGEUDQFKFLUFXLW7KHUDFHZD\VKDOOQRWEHOHVVWKDQWUDGHVL]H QRPLQDOLQFKLQVLGH

GLDPHWHU
7KHUDFHZD\VKDOORULJLQDWHDWWKHPDLQVHUYLFHRUVXESDQHODQGVKDOOWHUPLQDWHLQWRDOLVWHG FDELQHWER[RUHQFORVXUHLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRWKHSURSRVHGORFDWLRQRIWKH(9VSDFH&RQVWUXFWLRQ GRFXPHQWVVKDOOLGHQWLI\WKHUDFHZD\WHUPLQDWLRQSRLQW7KHVHUYLFHSDQHODQGRUVXESDQHOVKDOOSURYLGH FDSDFLW\WRLQVWDOODDPSHUHPLQLPXPGHGLFDWHGEUDQFKFLUFXLWDQGVSDFH V
UHVHUYHGWRSHUPLW
LQVWDOODWLRQRIDEUDQFKFLUFXLWRYHUFXUUHQWSURWHFWLYHGHYLFH ([HPSWLRQ
$UDFHZD\LVQRWUHTXLUHGLIDPLQLPXPDPSHUHYROWGHGLFDWHG(9EUDQFK FLUFXLWLVLQVWDOOHGLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRWKHSURSRVHGORFDWLRQRIDQ(9FKDUJHUDWWKHWLPHRI RULJLQDOFRQVWUXFWLRQLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD(OHFWULFDO&RGH 0XOWLSOH(9VSDFHVUHTXLUHG&RQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWVVKDOOLQGLFDWHWKHUDFHZD\WHUPLQDWLRQSRLQWDQGSURSRVHGORFDWLRQRIIXWXUH(9VSDFHVDQG(9FKDUJHUV&RQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWV VKDOODOVRSURYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQRQDPSHUDJHRIIXWXUH(96(UDFHZD\PHWKRG V
ZLULQJVFKHPDWLFVDQG
HOHFWULFDOORDGFDOFXODWLRQVWRYHULI\WKDWWKHHOHFWULFDOSDQHOVHUYLFHFDSDFLW\DQGHOHFWULFDOV\VWHP LQFOXGLQJDQ\RQVLWHGLVWULEXWLRQWUDQVIRUPHU
V
KDYHVXIILFLHQWFDSDFLW\WRVLPXOWDQHRXVO\FKDUJHDOO(9V DWDOOUHTXLUHG(9VSDFHVDWWKHIXOOUDWHGDPSHUDJHRIWKH(96(3ODQGHVLJQVKDOOEHEDVHGXSRQD DPSHUHPLQLPXPEUDQFKFLUFXLW5HTXLUHGUDFHZD\VDQGUHODWHGFRPSRQHQWVWKDWDUHSODQQHGWREH LQVWDOOHGXQGHUJURXQGHQFORVHGLQDFFHVVLEOHRULQFRQFHDOHGDUHDVDQGVSDFHVVKDOOEHLQVWDOOHGDWWKH WLPHRIRULJLQDOFRQVWUXFWLRQ
([HPSWLRQ
$UDFHZD\LVQRWUHTXLUHGLIDPLQLPXPDPSHUHYROWGHGLFDWHG(9EUDQFK FLUFXLWLVLQVWDOOHGLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRWKHSURSRVHGORFDWLRQRIDQ(9FKDUJHUDWWKHWLPHRI RULJLQDOFRQVWUXFWLRQLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD(OHFWULFDO&RGH ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ7KHVHUYLFHSDQHORUVXESDQHOFLUFXLWGLUHFWRU\VKDOOLGHQWLI\WKHRYHUFXUUHQW SURWHFWLYHGHYLFHVSDFH
V
UHVHUYHGIRUIXWXUH(9FKDUJLQJSXUSRVHVDV(9&$3$%/(LQDFFRUGDQFH ZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD(OHFWULFDO&RGH
1HZKRWHOVDQGPRWHOV$OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGKRWHOVDQGPRWHOVVKDOOSURYLGH(9VSDFHV FDSDEOHRIVXSSRUWLQJIXWXUHLQVWDOODWLRQRI(96(7KHFRQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWVVKDOOLGHQWLI\WKHORFDWLRQ RIWKH(9VSDFHV
1RWHV

&RQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWVDUHLQWHQGHGWRGHPRQVWUDWHWKHSURMHFW VFDSDELOLW\DQGFDSDFLW\
RUIDFLOLWDWLQJIXWXUH(9FKDUJLQJ
7KHUHLVQRUHTXLUHPHQWIRU(9VSDFHVWREHFRQVWUXFWHGRUDYDLODEOHXQWLO(9FKDUJHUV DUHLQVWDOOHGIRUXVH
$SDUNLQJVSDFHVHUYHGE\HOHFWULFDOYHKLFOHVXSSOHHTXLSPHQWRUGHVLJQHGDVDIXWXUH(9 FKDUJLQJVSDFHVKDOOFRXQWDVDWOHDVWRQHVWDQGDUGDXWRPRELOHSDUNLQJVSDFHIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIFRPSO\LQJZLWKDQ\DSSOLFDEOHPLQLPXPSDUNLQJVSDFHUHTXLUHPHQWVHVWDEOLVKHGE\DORFDO MXULVGLFWLRQ6HH9HKLFOH&RGH6HFWLRQIRUIXUWKHUGHWDLOV 1XPEHURIUHTXLUHG(9VSDFHV7KHQXPEHURIUHTXLUHG(9VSDFHVVKDOOEHEDVHG RQWKHWRWDOQXPEHURISDUNLQJVSDFHVSURYLGHGIRUDOOW\SHVRISDUNLQJIDFLOLWLHVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK 7DEOH &DOFXODWLRQVIRUWKHUHTXLUHGQXPEHURI(9VSDFHVVKDOOEHURXQGHGXSWRWKH QHDUHVWZKROHQXPEHU
6(&7,21*(1(5$/
6FRSH
7KHSURYLVLRQVRIWKLVFKDSWHUVKDOORXWOLQHPHDQVRIUHGXFLQJWKHTXDOLW\RIDLUFRQWDPLQDQWVWKDWDUHRGRURXV LUULWDWLQJDQGRUKDUPIXOWRWKHFRPIRUWDQGZHOOEHLQJRIDEXLOGLQJ VLQVWDOOHUVRFFXSDQWVDQGQHLJKERUV
6(&7,21'(),1,7,216
'(),1,7,216
7KHIROORZLQJWHUPVDUHGHILQHGLQ&KDSWHU
DQGDUHLQFOXGHGKHUHIRUUHIHUHQFH

$*5,),%(5352'8&76$JULILEHUSURGXFWVLQFOXGHZKHDWERDUGVWUDZERDUGSDQHOVXEVWUDWHVDQGGRRU FRUHVQRWLQFOXGLQJIXUQLWXUHIL[WXUHVDQGHTXLSPHQW )) (
QRWFRQVLGHUHGEDVHEXLOGLQJHOHPHQWV
&20326,7(:22'352'8&76&RPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVLQFOXGHKDUGZRRGSO\ZRRGSDUWLFOHERDUGDQG PHGLXPGHQVLW\ILEHUERDUG&RPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVGRHVQRWLQFOXGHKDUGERDUGVWUXFWXUDOSO\ZRRG VWUXFWXUDOSDQHOVVWUXFWXUDOFRPSRVLWHOXPEHURULHQWHGVWUDQGERDUGJOXHGODPLQDWHGWLPEHUSUHIDEULFDWHG ZRRG,MRLVWVRUILQJHUMRLQWHGOXPEHUDOODVVSHFLILHGLQ&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRIUHJXODWLRQV &&5
WLWOH6HFWLRQ

',5(&79(17$33/,$1&($IXHOEXUQLQJDSSOLDQFHZLWKDVHDOHGFRPEXVWLRQV\VWHPWKDWGUDZVDOODLUIRU FRPEXVWLRQIURPWKHRXWVLGHDWPRVSKHUHDQGGLVFKDUJHVDOOIOXHJDVHVWRWKHRXWVLGHDWPRVSKHUH 7$%/(
727$/180%(52)3$5.,1*
63$&(6
180%(52)5(48,5('(9
63$&(6

DQGRYHU SHUFHQWRIWRWDO
(OHFWULFYHKLFOHFKDUJLQJVSDFH
(9VSDFH
GLPHQVLRQV7KH(9VSDFHVVKDOOEHGHVLJQHGWR
FRPSO\ZLWKWKHIROORZLQJ

7KHPLQLPXPOHQJWKRIHDFK(9VSDFHVKDOOEHIHHW PP

7KHPLQLPXPZLGWKRIHDFK(9VSDFHVKDOOEH
IHHW
PP

6LQJOH(9VSDFHUHTXLUHG:KHQDVLQJOH(9VSDFHLVUHTXLUHGWKH(9VSDFHVKDOOEHGHVLJQHG LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK6HFWLRQ
0XOWLSOH(9VSDFHVUHTXLUHG:KHQPXOWLSOH(9VSDFHVDUHUHTXLUHGWKH(9VSDFHVVKDOOEH GHVLJQHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK6HFWLRQ
,GHQWLILFDWLRQ7KHVHUYLFHSDQHOVRUVXESDQHOVVKDOOEHLGHQWLILHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK6HFWLRQ
$FFHVVLEOH(9VSDFHV,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVLQ6HFWLRQ(9VSDFHVIRU KRWHOVPRWHOVDQGDOO(96(ZKHQLQVWDOOHGVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHDFFHVVLELOLW\SURYLVLRQVIRUWKH(9FKDUJLQJ VWDWLRQVLQWKH&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ&RGH&KDSWHU%
< 1$ 5(6321 < 1$ < 1$ < 1$
3$57<
5(6321
3$57<
5(6321
3$57<
5(6321
3$57<

&$/,)251,$*5((1%8,/',1*67$1'$5'6&2'(
5(6,'(17,$/0$1'$725<0($685(66+((7
-XO\,QFOXGHV-XO\6XSSOHPHQW
< <(6 1$ 127$33/,&$%/( 5(63213$57< 5(63216,%/(3$57< LH
$5&+,7(&7(1*,1((5 2:1(5&2175$&725,163(&725(7&

*(1(5$/
6&23()RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIPDQGDWRU\HQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\VWDQGDUGVLQWKLVFRGHWKH&DOLIRUQLD(QHUJ\ &RPPLVVLRQZLOOFRQWLQXHWRDGRSWPDQGDWRU\VWDQGDUGV
',9,6,21 (1(5*<()),&,(1&<
7$%/(+
67$1'$5'6)25&200(5&,$/35(5,16(635$<
9$/8(60$18)$&785('2125$)7(5-$18$5<

352'8&7&/$66>VSUD\IRUFHLQRXQFHIRUFH
R]I
@ 0$;,080)/2:5$7(
JSP

3URGXFW&ODVV

3URGXFW&ODVV
!R]IDQG
3URGXFW&ODVV
!R]I

$
&$/,)251,$
*5((1
67$1'$5'6
PAGE 296 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

&+$15(6,'(1&( 'H0$5,$'(6,*1 $352)(66,21$/&25325$7,21 1RWLFH
8QOHVV RWKHUZLVH DJUHHG LQ ZULWLQJ'( 0$5,$ '(6,*1 3& LV WKH VROH RZQHU RI DOO SURSULHWDU\ ULJKWV LQFOXGLQJ FRS\ULJKWV
DQGDQ\WUDGHVHFUHWVLQWKHPDWWHUFRQWDLQHG
KHUHLQ $Q\ GLVFORVXUH UHSURGXFWLRQ RUUHYLVLRQ RI WKLV GRFXPHQW RU DQ\ SRUWLRQ WKHUHRI LV VSHFLILFDOO\ SURKLELWHG XQOHVV
SUHYLRXVO\DSSURYHGLQZULWLQJE\'(0$5,$
'(6,*13&
1(:6,1*/()$0,/<5(6,'(1&(
(;,67,1*'(7$&+('*$5$*(
0$;,080,1&5(0(17$/5($&7,9,7<
0,5
7KHPD[LPXPFKDQJHLQZHLJKWRIR]RQHIRUPHGE\DGGLQJD FRPSRXQGWRWKH%DVH5HDFWLYH2UJDQLF*DV
52*
0L[WXUHSHUZHLJKWRIFRPSRXQGDGGHGH[SUHVVHGWR
KXQGUHGWKVRIDJUDP
J2ñJ52&

1RWH
0,5YDOXHVIRULQGLYLGXDOFRPSRXQGVDQGK\GURFDUERQVROYHQWVDUHVSHFLILHGLQ&&57LWOH6HFWLRQV
DQG

02,6785(&217(177KHZHLJKWRIWKHZDWHULQZRRGH[SUHVVHGLQSHUFHQWDJHRIWKHZHLJKWRIWKHRYHQGU\ZRRG 352'8&7:(,*+7('0,5
3:0,5
7KHVXPRIDOOZHLJKWHG0,5IRUDOOLQJUHGLHQWVLQDSURGXFWVXEMHFWWRWKLV DUWLFOH7KH3:0,5LVWKHWRWDOSURGXFWUHDFWLYLW\H[SUHVVHGWRKXQGUHGWKVRIDJUDPRIR]RQHIRUPHGSHUJUDPRI SURGXFW
H[FOXGLQJFRQWDLQHUDQGSDFNDJLQJ

1RWH
3:0,5LVFDOFXODWHGDFFRUGLQJWRHTXDWLRQVIRXQGLQ&&57LWOH6HFWLRQ
D

5($&7,9(25*$1,&&203281'
52&
$Q\FRPSRXQGWKDWKDVWKHSRWHQWLDORQFHHPLWWHGWRFRQWULEXWHWR R]RQHIRUPDWLRQLQWKHWURSRVSKHUH
92&$YRODWLOHRUJDQLFFRPSRXQG
92&
EURDGO\GHILQHGDVDFKHPLFDOFRPSRXQGEDVHGRQFDUERQFKDLQVRUULQJV ZLWKYDSRUSUHVVXUHVJUHDWHUWKDQPLOOLPHWHUVRIPHUFXU\DWURRPWHPSHUDWXUH7KHVHFRPSRXQGVW\SLFDOO\FRQWDLQ K\GURJHQDQGPD\FRQWDLQR[\JHQQLWURJHQDQGRWKHUHOHPHQWV6HH&&57LWOH6HFWLRQ
D

),5(3/$&(6
*(1(5$/$Q\LQVWDOOHGJDVILUHSODFHVKDOOEHDGLUHFWYHQWVHDOHGFRPEXVWLRQW\SH$Q\LQVWDOOHG ZRRGVWRYHRUSHOOHWVWRYHVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWK86(3$1HZ6RXUFH3HUIRUPDQFH6WDQGDUGV 1636
HPLVVLRQOLPLWVDV
DSSOLFDEOHDQGVKDOOKDYHDSHUPDQHQWODEHOLQGLFDWLQJWKH\DUHFHUWLILHGWRPHHWWKHHPLVVLRQOLPLWV:RRGVWRYHV SHOOHWVWRYHVDQGILUHSODFHVVKDOODOVRFRPSO\ZLWKDSSOLFDEOHORFDORUGLQDQFHV 32//87$17&21752/
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
XQLWVRISURGXFWOHVVSDFNDJLQJZKLFKGRQRWZHLJKPRUHWKDQSRXQGDQGGRQRWFRQVLVWRIPRUH WKDQIOXLGRXQFHV
VKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKVWDWHZLGH92&VWDQGDUGVDQGRWKHUUHTXLUHPHQWVLQFOXGLQJ SURKLELWLRQVRQXVHRIFHUWDLQWR[LFFRPSRXQGVRI&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH FRPPHQFLQJZLWKVHFWLRQ

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
$HURVRO3DLQWVDQG&RDWLQJV$HURVROSDLQWVDQGFRDWLQJVVKDOOPHHWWKH3URGXFWZHLJKWHG0,5 /LPLWVIRU52&LQ6HFWLRQ

D

DQGRWKHUUHTXLUHPHQWVLQFOXGLQJSURKLELWLRQVRQXVHRIFHUWDLQWR[LF FRPSRXQGVDQGR]RQHGHSOHWLQJVXEVWDQFHVLQ6HFWLRQV

H

DQG
I

RI&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI
5HJXODWLRQV7LWOHFRPPHQFLQJZLWK6HFWLRQ

DQGLQDUHDVXQGHUWKHMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH%D\$UHD$LU 4XDOLW\0DQDJHPHQW'LVWULFWDGGLWLRQDOO\FRPSO\ZLWKWKHSHUFHQW92&E\ZHLJKWRISURGXFWOLPLWVRI5HJXODWLRQ 5XOH

9HULILFDWLRQ9HULILFDWLRQRIFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKLVVHFWLRQVKDOOEHSURYLGHGDWWKHUHTXHVWRIWKH HQIRUFLQJDJHQF\'RFXPHQWDWLRQPD\LQFOXGHEXWLVQRWOLPLWHGWRWKHIROORZLQJ

0DQXIDFWXUHU
VSURGXFWVSHFLILFDWLRQ
)LHOGYHULILFDWLRQRIRQVLWHSURGXFWFRQWDLQHUV
&+$37(5
,167$//(5 63(&,$/,163(&72548$/,),&$7,216
48$/,),&$7,216
,167$//(575$,1,1*+9$&V\VWHPLQVWDOOHUVVKDOOEHWUDLQHGDQGFHUWLILHGLQWKHSURSHU LQVWDOODWLRQRI+9$&V\VWHPVLQFOXGLQJGXFWVDQGHTXLSPHQWE\DQDWLRQDOO\RUUHJLRQDOO\UHFRJQL]HGWUDLQLQJRU FHUWLILFDWLRQSURJUDP8QFHUWLILHGSHUVRQVPD\SHUIRUP+9$&LQVWDOODWLRQVZKHQXQGHUWKHGLUHFWVXSHUYLVLRQDQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\RIDSHUVRQWUDLQHGDQGFHUWLILHGWRLQVWDOO+9$&V\VWHPVRUFRQWUDFWRUOLFHQVHGWRLQVWDOO+9$&V\VWHPV ([DPSOHVRIDFFHSWDEOH+9$&WUDLQLQJDQGFHUWLILFDWLRQSURJUDPVLQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWRWKHIROORZLQJ

6WDWHFHUWLILHGDSSUHQWLFHVKLSSURJUDPV
3XEOLFXWLOLW\WUDLQLQJSURJUDPV
7UDLQLQJSURJUDPVVSRQVRUHGE\WUDGHODERURUVWDWHZLGHHQHUJ\FRQVXOWLQJRUYHULILFDWLRQRUJDQL]DWLRQV 3URJUDPVVSRQVRUHGE\PDQXIDFWXULQJRUJDQL]DWLRQV 2WKHUSURJUDPVDFFHSWDEOHWRWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\ 63(&,$/,163(&7,21>+&'@:KHQUHTXLUHGE\WKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\WKHRZQHURUWKH UHVSRQVLEOHHQWLW\DFWLQJDVWKHRZQHU
VDJHQWVKDOOHPSOR\RQHRUPRUHVSHFLDOLQVSHFWRUVWRSURYLGHLQVSHFWLRQRU RWKHUGXWLHVQHFHVVDU\WRVXEVWDQWLDWHFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKLVFRGH6SHFLDOLQVSHFWRUVVKDOOGHPRQVWUDWHFRPSHWHQFH WRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\IRUWKHSDUWLFXODUW\SHRILQVSHFWLRQRUWDVNWREHSHUIRUPHG,QDGGLWLRQWR RWKHUFHUWLILFDWLRQVRUTXDOLILFDWLRQVDFFHSWDEOHWRWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\WKHIROORZLQJFHUWLILFDWLRQVRUHGXFDWLRQPD\EH FRQVLGHUHGE\WKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\ZKHQHYDOXDWLQJWKHTXDOLILFDWLRQVRIDVSHFLDOLQVSHFWRU

&HUWLILFDWLRQE\DQDWLRQDORUUHJLRQDOJUHHQEXLOGLQJSURJUDPRUVWDQGDUGSXEOLVKHU &HUWLILFDWLRQE\DVWDWHZLGHHQHUJ\FRQVXOWLQJRUYHULILFDWLRQRUJDQL]DWLRQVXFKDV+(56UDWHUVEXLOGLQJ SHUIRUPDQFHFRQWUDFWRUVDQGKRPHHQHUJ\DXGLWRUV 6XFFHVVIXOFRPSOHWLRQRIDWKLUGSDUW\DSSUHQWLFHWUDLQLQJSURJUDPLQWKHDSSURSULDWHWUDGH 2WKHUSURJUDPVDFFHSWDEOHWRWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\ 1RWHV

6SHFLDOLQVSHFWRUVVKDOOEHLQGHSHQGHQWHQWLWLHVZLWKQRILQDQFLDOLQWHUHVWLQWKHPDWHULDOVRUWKH SURMHFWWKH\DUHLQVSHFWLQJIRUFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKLVFRGH +(56UDWHUVDUHVSHFLDOLQVSHFWRUVFHUWLILHGE\WKH&DOLIRUQLD(QHUJ\&RPPLVVLRQ &(&
WRUDWH
KRPHVLQ&DOLIRUQLDDFFRUGLQJWRWKH+RPH(QHUJ\5DWLQJ6\VWHP +(56

>%6&@:KHQUHTXLUHGE\WKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\WKHRZQHURUWKHUHVSRQVLEOHHQWLW\DFWLQJDVWKHRZQHU VDJHQWVKDOO
HPSOR\RQHRUPRUHVSHFLDOLQVSHFWRUVWRSURYLGHLQVSHFWLRQRURWKHUGXWLHVQHFHVVDU\WRVXEVWDQWLDWHFRPSOLDQFHZLWK WKLVFRGH6SHFLDOLQVSHFWRUVVKDOOGHPRQVWUDWHFRPSHWHQFHWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\IRUWKH SDUWLFXODUW\SHRILQVSHFWLRQRUWDVNWREHSHUIRUPHG,QDGGLWLRQWKHVSHFLDOLQVSHFWRUVKDOOKDYHDFHUWLILFDWLRQIURPDUHFRJQL]HGVWDWHQDWLRQDORULQWHUQDWLRQDODVVRFLDWLRQDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKHORFDODJHQF\7KHDUHDRIFHUWLILFDWLRQ VKDOOEHFORVHO\UHODWHGWRWKHSULPDU\MREIXQFWLRQDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKHORFDODJHQF\ 1RWH
6SHFLDOLQVSHFWRUVVKDOOEHLQGHSHQGHQWHQWLWLHVZLWKQRILQDQFLDOLQWHUHVWLQWKHPDWHULDOVRUWKH SURMHFWWKH\DUHLQVSHFWLQJIRUFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKLVFRGH 9(5,),&$7,216
'2&80(17$7,21'RFXPHQWDWLRQXVHGWRVKRZFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKLVFRGHVKDOOLQFOXGHEXWLVQRW OLPLWHGWRFRQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWVSODQVVSHFLILFDWLRQVEXLOGHURULQVWDOOHUFHUWLILFDWLRQLQVSHFWLRQUHSRUWVRURWKHU PHWKRGVDFFHSWDEOHWRWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\ZKLFKGHPRQVWUDWHVXEVWDQWLDOFRQIRUPDQFH:KHQVSHFLILF GRFXPHQWDWLRQRUVSHFLDOLQVSHFWLRQLVQHFHVVDU\WRYHULI\FRPSOLDQFHWKDWPHWKRGRIFRPSOLDQFHZLOOEHVSHFLILHGLQ WKHDSSURSULDWHVHFWLRQRULGHQWLILHGDSSOLFDEOHFKHFNOLVW ,17(5,2502,6785(&21752/
*HQHUDO%XLOGLQJVVKDOOPHHWRUH[FHHGWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKH&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ6WDQGDUGV&RGH &21&5(7(6/$%)281'$7,216&RQFUHWHVODEIRXQGDWLRQVUHTXLUHGWRKDYHDYDSRUUHWDUGHUE\ &DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ&RGH&KDSWHU
RUFRQFUHWHVODERQJURXQGIORRUVUHTXLUHGWRKDYHDYDSRUUHWDUGHUE\WKH&DOLIRUQLD5HVLGHQWLDO&RGH&KDSWHUVKDOODOVRFRPSO\ZLWKWKLVVHFWLRQ &DSLOODU\EUHDN$FDSLOODU\EUHDNVKDOOEHLQVWDOOHGLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKDWOHDVWRQHRIWKH

IROORZLQJ

$LQFK
PP
WKLFNEDVHRILQFK
PP
RUODUJHUFOHDQDJJUHJDWHVKDOOEHSURYLGHGZLWK
DYDSRUEDUULHULQGLUHFWFRQWDFWZLWKFRQFUHWHDQGDFRQFUHWHPL[GHVLJQZKLFKZLOODGGUHVVEOHHGLQJVKULQNDJHDQGFXUOLQJVKDOOEHXVHG)RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQVHH$PHULFDQ&RQFUHWH,QVWLWXWH$&,5 2WKHUHTXLYDOHQWPHWKRGVDSSURYHGE\WKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\ $VODEGHVLJQVSHFLILHGE\DOLFHQVHGGHVLJQSURIHVVLRQDO 02,6785(&217(172)%8,/',1*0$7(5,$/6%XLOGLQJPDWHULDOVZLWKYLVLEOHVLJQVRIZDWHUGDPDJH VKDOOQRWEHLQVWDOOHG:DOODQGIORRUIUDPLQJVKDOOQRWEHHQFORVHGZKHQWKHIUDPLQJPHPEHUVH[FHHG SHUFHQW
PRLVWXUHFRQWHQW0RLVWXUHFRQWHQWVKDOOEHYHULILHGLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHIROORZLQJ

0RLVWXUHFRQWHQWVKDOOEHGHWHUPLQHGZLWKHLWKHUDSUREHW\SHRUFRQWDFWW\SHPRLVWXUHPHWHU(TXLYDOHQW PRLVWXUHYHULILFDWLRQPHWKRGVPD\EHDSSURYHGE\WKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\DQGVKDOOVDWLVI\UHTXLUHPHQWVIRXQGLQ6HFWLRQRIWKLVFRGH 0RLVWXUHUHDGLQJVVKDOOEHWDNHQDWDSRLQWIHHW PP
WRIHHW

PP
IURPWKHJUDGHVWDPSHGHQG
RIHDFKSLHFHYHULILHG
$WOHDVWWKUHHUDQGRPPRLVWXUHUHDGLQJVVKDOOEHSHUIRUPHGRQZDOODQGIORRUIUDPLQJZLWKGRFXPHQWDWLRQ DFFHSWDEOHWRWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\SURYLGHGDWWKHWLPHRIDSSURYDOWRHQFORVHWKHZDOODQGIORRUIUDPLQJ ,QVXODWLRQSURGXFWVZKLFKDUHYLVLEO\ZHWRUKDYHDKLJKPRLVWXUHFRQWHQWVKDOOEHUHSODFHGRUDOORZHGWRGU\SULRUWR HQFORVXUHLQZDOORUIORRUFDYLWLHV:HWDSSOLHGLQVXODWLRQSURGXFWVVKDOOIROORZWKHPDQXIDFWXUHUV GU\LQJ
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVSULRUWRHQFORVXUH
,1'225$,548$/,7<$1'(;+$867
%DWKURRPH[KDXVWIDQV(DFKEDWKURRPVKDOOEHPHFKDQLFDOO\YHQWLODWHGDQGVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKH

IROORZLQJ

)DQVVKDOOEH(1(5*<67$5FRPSOLDQWDQGEHGXFWHGWRWHUPLQDWHRXWVLGHWKHEXLOGLQJ 8QOHVVIXQFWLRQLQJDVDFRPSRQHQWRIDZKROHKRXVHYHQWLODWLRQV\VWHPIDQVPXVWEHFRQWUROOHGE\D KXPLGLW\FRQWURO
D+XPLGLW\FRQWUROVVKDOOEHFDSDEOHRIDGMXVWPHQWEHWZHHQDUHODWLYHKXPLGLW\UDQJHOHVVWKDQRU HTXDOWRWRDPD[LPXPRI$KXPLGLW\FRQWUROPD\XWLOL]HPDQXDORUDXWRPDWLFPHDQVRIDGMXVWPHQW E$KXPLGLW\FRQWUROPD\EHDVHSDUDWHFRPSRQHQWWRWKHH[KDXVWIDQDQGLVQRWUHTXLUHGWREH LQWHJUDO
LHEXLOWLQ

1RWHV

)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVVHFWLRQDEDWKURRPLVDURRPZKLFKFRQWDLQVDEDWKWXEVKRZHURU WXEVKRZHUFRPELQDWLRQ
/LJKWLQJLQWHJUDOWREDWKURRPH[KDXVWIDQVVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD(QHUJ\&RGH (19,5210(17$/&20)257
+($7,1*$1'$,5&21',7,21,1*6<67(0'(6,*1+HDWLQJDQGDLUFRQGLWLRQLQJV\VWHPVVKDOOEH VL]HGGHVLJQHGDQGKDYHWKHLUHTXLSPHQWVHOHFWHGXVLQJWKHIROORZLQJPHWKRGV

7KHKHDWORVVDQGKHDWJDLQLVHVWDEOLVKHGDFFRUGLQJWR$16,$&&$0DQXDO- 5HVLGHQWLDO
/RDG&DOFXODWLRQ
$6+5$(KDQGERRNVRURWKHUHTXLYDOHQWGHVLJQVRIWZDUHRUPHWKRGV 'XFWV\VWHPVDUHVL]HGDFFRUGLQJWR$16,$&&$0DQXDO' 5HVLGHQWLDO'XFW6\VWHPV

$6+5$(KDQGERRNVRURWKHUHTXLYDOHQWGHVLJQVRIWZDUHRUPHWKRGV 6HOHFWKHDWLQJDQGFRROLQJHTXLSPHQWDFFRUGLQJWR$16,$&&$0DQXDO6 5HVLGHQWLDO
(TXLSPHQW6HOHFWLRQ
RURWKHUHTXLYDOHQWGHVLJQVRIWZDUHRUPHWKRGV([FHSWLRQ 8VHRIDOWHUQDWHGHVLJQWHPSHUDWXUHVQHFHVVDU\WRHQVXUHWKHV\VWHPIXQFWLRQVDUH DFFHSWDEOH
7$%/($'+(6,9(92&/,0,7

/HVV:DWHUDQG/HVV([HPSW&RPSRXQGVLQ*UDPVSHU/LWHU

$5&+,7(&785$/$33/,&$7,216 92&/,0,7
,1'225&$53(7$'+(6,9(6
&$53(73$'$'+(6,9(6 287'225&$53(7$'+(6,9(6
:22')/225,1*$'+(6,9(6
58%%(5)/225$'+(6,9(6
68%)/225$'+(6,9(6
&(5$0,&7,/($'+(6,9(6
9&7 $63+$/77,/($'+(6,9(6
'5<:$// 3$1(/$'+(6,9(6
&29(%$6($'+(6,9(6
08/7,385326(&216758&7,21$'+(6,9(
6758&785$/*/$=,1*$'+(6,9(6 6,1*/(3/<522)0(0%5$1($'+(6,9(6 27+(5$'+(6,9(6127/,67('
63(&,$/7<$33/,&$7,216
39&:(/',1*
&39&:(/',1*

$%6:(/',1*
3/$67,&&(0(17:(/',1*
$'+(6,9(35,0(5)253/$67,&
&217$&7$'+(6,9(
63(&,$/385326(&217$&7$'+(6,9( 6758&785$/:22'0(0%(5$'+(6,9( 723 75,0$'+(6,9(
68%675$7(63(&,),&$33/,&$7,216
0(7$/720(7$/
3/$67,&)2$06 3252860$7(5,$/
(;&(37:22'

:22'
),%(5*/$66
,)$1$'+(6,9(,686('72%21'',66,0,/$568%675$7(672*(7+(5 7+($'+(6,9(:,7+7+(+,*+(6792&&217(176+$//%($//2:(' )25$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,215(*$5',1*0(7+2'6720($685( 7+(92&&217(1763(&,),(',17+,67$%/(6((6287+&2$67$,5 48$/,7<0$1$*(0(17',675,&758/(
7$%/(6($/$1792&/,0,7

/HVV:DWHUDQG/HVV([HPSW&RPSRXQGVLQ*UDPVSHU/LWHU

6($/$176 92&/,0,7
$5&+,7(&785$/
0$5,1('(&. 1210(0%5$1(522)
52$':$<
6,1*/(3/<522)0(0%5$1(
27+(5
6($/$1735,0(56
$5&+,7(&785$/121325286 325286
02',),('%,780,1286 0$5,1('(&.
27+(5
7$%/()250$/'(+<'(/,0,76
0$;,080)250$/'(+<'((0,66,216,13$5763(50,//,21
352'8&7 &855(17/,0,7
+$5':22'3/<:22'9(1((5&25( +$5':22'3/<:22'&20326,7(&25( 3$57,&/(%2$5'

0(',80'(16,7<),%(5%2$5'
7+,10(',80'(16,7<),%(5%2$5'
9$/8(6,17+,67$%/($5('(5,9(')5207+26(63(&,),(' %<7+(&$/,)$,55(6285&(6%2$5'$,572;,&6&21752/
0($685()25&20326,7(:22'$67(67(',1$&&25'$1&(
:,7+$670()25$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,216((&$/,) &2'(2)5(*8/$7,2167,7/(6(&7,216
7+528*+

7+,10(',80'(16,7<),%(5%2$5'+$6$0$;,080
7+,&.1(662)
00

7$%/(92&&217(17/,0,76)25
$5&+,7(&785$/&2$7,1*6
*5$062)92&3(5/,7(52)&2$7,1*/(66:$7(5 /(66(;(037 &203281'6
&2$7,1*&$7(*25< 92&/,0,7
)/$7&2$7,1*6
121)/$7&2$7,1*6 121)/$7+,*+*/266&2$7,1*6
63(&,$/7<&2$7,1*6
$/80,180522)&2$7,1*6
%$6(0(1763(&,$/7<&2$7,1*6 %,780,1286522)&2$7,1*6 %,780,1286522)35,0(56 %21'%5($.(56 &21&5(7(&85,1*&203281'6 &21&5(7(0$6215<6($/(56 '5,9(:$<6($/(56 '5<)2*&2$7,1*6
)$8;),1,6+,1*&2$7,1*6 ),5(5(6,67,9(&2$7,1*6 )/225&2$7,1*6 )2505(/($6(&203281'6 *5$3+,&$576&2$7,1*6
6,*13$,176

+,*+7(03(5$785(&2$7,1*6
,1'8675,$/0$,17(1$1&(&2$7,1*6
/2:62/,'6&2$7,1*6
0$*1(6,7(&(0(17&2$7,1*6 0$67,&7(;785(&2$7,1*6 0(7$//,&3,*0(17('&2$7,1*6 08/7,&2/25&2$7,1*6 35(75($70(17:$6+35,0(56 35,0(566($/(56 81'(5&2$7(56 5($&7,9(3(1(75$7,1*6($/(56 5(&<&/('&2$7,1*6 522)&2$7,1*6 586735(9(17$7,9(&2$7,1*6 6+(//$&6
&/($5
23$48(
63(&,$/7<35,0(566($/(56
81'(5&2$7(56
67$,16 6721(&2162/,'$176 6:,00,1*322/&2$7,1*6 75$)),&0$5.,1*&2$7,1*6 78% 7,/(5(),1,6+&2$7,1*6 :$7(53522),1*0(0%5$1(6 :22'&2$7,1*6 :22'35(6(59$7,9(6 =,1&5,&+35,0(56
*5$062)92&3(5/,7(52)&2$7,1*,1&/8',1*:$7(5 (;(037&203281'6
7+(63(&,),('/,0,765(0$,1,1())(&781/(665(9,6('/,0,76 $5(/,67(',168%6(48(17&2/8016,17+(7$%/(
9$/8(6,17+,67$%/($5('(5,9(')5207+26(63(&,),('%< 7+(&$/,)251,$$,55(6285&(6%2$5'$5&+,7(&785$/&2$7,1*6 68**(67('&21752/0($685()(%025(,1)250$7,21,6 $9$,/$%/()5207+($,55(6285&(6%2$5'
',9,6,21 (19,5210(17$/48$/,7<

FRQWLQXHG

&$53(76<67(06$OOFDUSHWLQVWDOOHGLQWKHEXLOGLQJLQWHULRUVKDOOPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH&DOLIRUQLD 'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF+HDOWK6WDQGDUG0HWKRGIRUWKH7HVWLQJDQG(YDOXDWLRQRI9RODWLOH2UJDQLF&KHPLFDO(PLVVLRQV IURP,QGRRU6RXUFHV8VLQJ(QYLURQPHQWDO&KDPEHUV9HUVLRQ-DQXDU\ (PLVVLRQWHVWLQJPHWKRGIRU
&DOLIRUQLD6SHFLILFDWLRQ

6HH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF+HDOWK
VZHEVLWHIRUFHUWLILFDWLRQSURJUDPVDQGWHVWLQJODEV
KWWSV
ZZZFGSKFDJRY3URJUDPV&&'3+3'(2'&(+/%,$43DJHV92&DVS[ &DUSHWFXVKLRQ$OOFDUSHWFXVKLRQLQVWDOOHGLQWKHEXLOGLQJLQWHULRUVKDOOPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH &DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF+HDOWK6WDQGDUG0HWKRGIRUWKH7HVWLQJDQG(YDOXDWLRQRI9RODWLOH2UJDQLF&KHPLFDO(PLVVLRQVIURP,QGRRU6RXUFHV8VLQJ(QYLURQPHQWDO&KDPEHUV9HUVLRQ-DQXDU\

(PLVVLRQWHVWLQJPHWKRGIRU&DOLIRUQLD6SHFLILFDWLRQ

6HH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF+HDOWK
VZHEVLWHIRUFHUWLILFDWLRQSURJUDPVDQGWHVWLQJODEV
KWWSV
ZZZFGSKFDJRY3URJUDPV&&'3+3'(2'&(+/%,$43DJHV92&DVS[ &DUSHWDGKHVLYH$OOFDUSHWDGKHVLYHVKDOOPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI7DEOH 5(6,/,(17)/225,1*6<67(06:KHUHUHVLOLHQWIORRULQJLVLQVWDOOHGDWOHDVWRIIORRUDUHDUHFHLYLQJ UHVLOLHQWIORRULQJVKDOOPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF+HDOWK6WDQGDUG0HWKRGIRUWKH 7HVWLQJDQG(YDOXDWLRQRI9RODWLOH2UJDQLF&KHPLFDO(PLVVLRQVIURP,QGRRU6RXUFHV8VLQJ(QYLURQPHQWDO&KDPEHUV 9HUVLRQ-DQXDU\
(PLVVLRQWHVWLQJPHWKRGIRU&DOLIRUQLD6SHFLILFDWLRQ

6HH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF+HDOWK
VZHEVLWHIRUFHUWLILFDWLRQSURJUDPVDQGWHVWLQJODEV
KKWSV
ZZZFGSKFDJRY3URJUDPV&&'3+3'(2'&(+/%,$43DJHV92&DVS[ &20326,7(:22'352'8&76+DUGZRRGSO\ZRRGSDUWLFOHERDUGDQGPHGLXPGHQVLW\ILEHUERDUG FRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVXVHGRQWKHLQWHULRURUH[WHULRURIWKHEXLOGLQJVVKDOOPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRU IRUPDOGHK\GHDVVSHFLILHGLQ$5%
V$LU7R[LFV&RQWURO0HDVXUHIRU&RPSRVLWH:RRG
&&5
HWVHT

E\RUEHIRUHWKHGDWHVVSHFLILHGLQWKRVHVHFWLRQVDVVKRZQLQ7DEOH 'RFXPHQWDWLRQ9HULILFDWLRQRIFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKLVVHFWLRQVKDOOEHSURYLGHGDVUHTXHVWHG E\WKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\'RFXPHQWDWLRQVKDOOLQFOXGHDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJ

3URGXFWFHUWLILFDWLRQVDQGVSHFLILFDWLRQV
&KDLQRIFXVWRG\FHUWLILFDWLRQV
3URGXFWODEHOHGDQGLQYRLFHGDVPHHWLQJWKH&RPSRVLWH:RRG3URGXFWVUHJXODWLRQ VHH
&&57LWOH6HFWLRQ
HWVHT

([WHULRUJUDGHSURGXFWVPDUNHGDVPHHWLQJWKH36RU36VWDQGDUGVRIWKH(QJLQHHUHG :RRG$VVRFLDWLRQWKH$XVWUDOLDQ$61=6
(XURSHDQ6VWDQGDUGVDQG&DQDGLDQ&6$&6$&6$DQG&6$VWDQGDUGV 2WKHUPHWKRGVDFFHSWDEOHWRWKHHQIRUFLQJDJHQF\
5(6321 < 1$ < 1$ < 1$
3$57<
5(6321
3$57<
5(6321
3$57<
5(6321
3$57<

&$/,)251,$*5((1%8,/',1*67$1'$5'6&2'(
5(6,'(17,$/0$1'$725<0($685(66+((7
-XO\,QFOXGHV-XO\6XSSOHPHQW
< <(6 1$ 127$33/,&$%/( 5(63213$57< 5(63216,%/(3$57< LH
$5&+,7(&7(1*,1((5 2:1(5&2175$&725,163(&725(7&

$
&$/,)251,$
*5((1
67$1'$5'6
PAGE 297 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

7232*5$3+<
6,7(6859(< 7232*5$3+<
6&$/(

PAGE 298 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

:
:
33

6 6
6 6
6 6
6 60+
)+
67/,*+7
87,/,7<
67/,*+7
':
':
': ': ':
':
&21&
(;*$5$*(
(;*$5$*(
(;*$5$*(
(;+286(
(;+286(
(;+286(
/$1'6&$3(
/$1'6&$3(
2$.75(('5,3/,1(
2$.75(('5,3/,1(
2$.75(('5,3/,1(
))
522)(/(9$7,21
522)(/(9$7,21
522)(/(9$7,21
':

+&%:
+&%:
+&%:

+:)(1&(

+:)(1&(
32:(5/,1( /$1'6&$3(

+&%:
+&%:

+&)(1&(

+:)(1&(
5(7:$//

))

))
2$.
2$.
2$.
2$.

2$.
(;,67,1**$5$*(6/$%$1':$//6725(0$,1
72%('(02/,6+('
(;,67,1*5(6,'(1&($1'+$5'6&$3(
$
'(02/,7,21
3/$1
'(02/,7,213/$1
6&$/(

PAGE 299 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

SODQWHU

SODQWHU
'5,9(:$<
2OLYH7UHH2OHDHXURSDHD/
,ULVK0RVV*URXQG&RYHU6DJLQDVXEXODWD
3RURXV&RQFUHWH
&RQFUHWH
5LYHU5RFNSRURXVSDWKJUH\
'HFRUDWLYH1DUURZ0RGXODU3DYHUVSRURXV
+$5'6&$3(/(*(1'+$5'6&$3(/(*(1'
,ULVK0RVV*URXQG&RYHU6DJLQDVXEXODWD
'HHU*UDVV0XKOHQEHUJLD5LJHQV
%HUNHOH\6HGJH*URXQGFRYHU&DUH[7XPXLFROD
&UHHSLQJ)LJ)LFXV3XPLOD
0DLGHQ*UDVV0LVFDQWKXV6LQHQVLV0RUQLQJ/LJKW
)UDQ]RQVLQL$JDYH$JDYH)UDQ]RVLQL
3DUU\$JDYH$JDYH3DUU\
4XHHQ9LFWRULD$JDYH$JDYH9LFWRULD5HJLQDH
%OXH*ORZ$JDYH$JDYH%OXH*ORZ
7UHH$ORH$ORH%DLQHVL
*XLHQJROD$JDYH$JDYH*XLHQJROD
([LVWLQJ7UHHDVODEHOHGWRUHPDLQ
$
&20%,1('
+$5'6&$3(

/$1'6&$3(
3/$16
+$5'6&$3(/$1'6&$3(3/$16
6&$/(

PAGE 300 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

SODQWHU

SODQWHU
'5,9(:$<
),1,6+('*$5$*()/225(/(9$7,21

SODQWHU

SODQWHU SODQWHU
3/$17(5
2OLYH7UHH2OHDHXURSDHD/
,ULVK0RVV*URXQG&RYHU6DJLQDVXEXODWD
'HHU*UDVV0XKOHQEHUJLD5LJHQV
%HUNHOH\6HGJH*URXQGFRYHU&DUH[7XPXLFROD
&UHHSLQJ)LJ)LFXV3XPLOD
0DLGHQ*UDVV0LVFDQWKXV6LQHQVLV0RUQLQJ/LJKW
)UDQ]RQVLQL$JDYH$JDYH)UDQ]RVLQL
3DUU\$JDYH$JDYH3DUU\
4XHHQ9LFWRULD$JDYH$JDYH9LFWRULD5HJLQDH
%OXH*ORZ$JDYH$JDYH%OXH*ORZ
7UHH$ORH$ORH%DLQHVL
*XLHQJROD$JDYH$JDYH*XLHQJROD
3RURXV&RQFUHWH
&RQFUHWH
5LYHU5RFNSRURXVSDWKJUH\
'HFRUDWLYH1DUURZ0RGXODU3DYHUVSRURXV
+$5'6&$3(/(*(1'+$5'6&$3(/(*(1'
([LVWLQJ7UHHDVODEHOHGWRUHPDLQ
$
+$5'6&$3(
3/$1
+$5'6&$3(3/$1
6&$/(

PAGE 301 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

SODQWHU

SODQWHU
'5,9(:$<
),1,6+('*$5$*()/225(/(9$7,21

SODQWHU

SODQWHU SODQWHU
3/$17(5
2OLYH7UHH2OHDHXURSDHD/
,ULVK0RVV*URXQG&RYHU6DJLQDVXEXODWD
'HHU*UDVV0XKOHQEHUJLD5LJHQV
%HUNHOH\6HGJH*URXQGFRYHU&DUH[7XPXLFROD
&UHHSLQJ)LJ)LFXV3XPLOD
0DLGHQ*UDVV0LVFDQWKXV6LQHQVLV0RUQLQJ/LJKW
)UDQ]RQVLQL$JDYH$JDYH)UDQ]RVLQL
3DUU\$JDYH$JDYH3DUU\
4XHHQ9LFWRULD$JDYH$JDYH9LFWRULD5HJLQDH
%OXH*ORZ$JDYH$JDYH%OXH*ORZ
7UHH$ORH$ORH%DLQHVL
*XLHQJROD$JDYH$JDYH*XLHQJROD
3RURXV&RQFUHWH
&RQFUHWH
5LYHU5RFNSRURXVSDWKJUH\
'HFRUDWLYH1DUURZ0RGXODU3DYHUVSRURXV
+$5'6&$3(/(*(1'+$5'6&$3(/(*(1'
([LVWLQJ7UHHDVODEHOHGWRUHPDLQ
$
/$1'6&$3(
3/$1
/$1'6&$3(3/$1
6&$/(

PAGE 302 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

ILUHSODFH
287'225/,9,1*
SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU 1 6.</,*+7 '250(55,'*(
+,3 +,3
9$//(< 9$//(<
'250(55,'*(
+,3
9$//(<
+,3
9$//(<
'250(55,'*('250(55,'*(
9$//(<
9$//(<
9$//(<
9$//(<
7232)522)5,'*(
'250(55,'*('250(55,'*(
9$//(<
9$//(<
9$//(<
9$//(<
5,'*(
/,9,1*5220

ILUHSODFH
UHI
VLQN
UDQJH
SDQWU\
WYGUHVVHU
)2<(5
ORZFDELQHWUHFHVVHGWY
LVODQG
.,7&+(1
SDQWU\
(/(9$725
/,9,1*5220

ILUHSODFH
DUWSDLQWLQJ
0$67(5%('5220
0$67(5%$7+
VLQN
WRLOHW
WRLOHW
32:'(5
WXE SDQWU\
VWDLUZD\XSULVHUV ZLQGRZVHDW
VLQN
',1,1*5220
DUWSDLQWLQJ
ZG VWDFN
&/26(7 /$81'5<
SDQWU\
VLQN
OLQHQ
6+2:(5 VHDW
JODVVZDOO
%('5220
GHVNGUHVVHU
VLQN
%$7+
6+2:(5
WRLOHW
VLQN
SDQWU\
&/26(7

GUHVVHU
0$67(5&/26(7
LVODQG
ZLQGRZVHDW
*DWHZD\
'5,9(:$<
1(:75((72%(3/$17('
(;,67,1*725(0$,181',6785%('
1(:75((72%(3/$17('
*DWH
'250(55,'*(
9$//(< 9$//(<
3/
'5,9(:$<
3/
3/
SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU 3$7,2',1,1* *DWHZD\ SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU SODQWHU )5217325&+Z&ROXPQV $
6,7(3/$1
522)3/$1
6,7(3/$1 522)3/$1
6&$/(

6&$/(

PAGE 303 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

ILUHSODFH
UHI
VLQN
UDQJH
SDQWU\
WYGUHVVHU
)2<(5
ORZFDELQHWUHFHVVHGWY
LVODQG
.,7&+(1
SDQWU\
(/(9$725
/,9,1*5220

ILUHSODFH
DUWSDLQWLQJ
0$67(5%('5220
0$67(5%$7+
VLQN
WRLOHW
WRLOHW
32:'(5
WXE SDQWU\
VWDLUZD\XSULVHUV
VLQN
',1,1*5220
DUWSDLQWLQJ
ZG VWDFN
&/26(7 /$81'5<
SDQWU\
VLQN
OLQHQ
6+2:(5 VHDW
JODVVZDOO
%('5220
GHVNGUHVVHU
VLQN
%$7+
6+2:(5
WRLOHW
VLQN
SDQWU\
&/26(7

GUHVVHU
0$67(5&/26(7
LVODQG
)5217325&+
ZLQGRZVHDW
$
*5281'67
)/2253/$1
6(&21'/(9(/
3/$1
),567/(9(/3/$1 6(&21'/(9(/3/$1
6&$/(

6&$/(

PAGE 304 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

)LQ&HLOLQJ
)LQQG)O
)LQVW)O
7RSRI5RRI5LGJH
0D[+HLJKW

)LQ&HLOLQJ
)LQQG)O
,QWHJUDWHG*XWWHU+DUGL3DQHO6RIILW,QWHJUDWHG*XWWHU+DUGL3DQHO(DYH 3DLQWHG5RPDQ%ULFN

SURSOLQH
SURSOLQH
+DUGL3DQHO)DVFLD&RSSHU&KDLQOHDGHU
3DLQWHG:RRG3RUFK&ROXPQV
3DLQWHG5RPDQ%ULFN3DLQWHG5RPDQ%ULFN
3DLQWHG5RPDQ%ULFN
3DLQWHG+DUGL3DQHO
&RQFUHWH/LJKWZHLJKW7LOH &HGDU/LWH&RQFUHWH/LJKWZHLJKW7LOH &HGDU/LWH (;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216
$
)5217($67(/(9$7,21
5($5:(67(/(9$7,21

6&$/(

6&$/(

PAGE 305 of 360
6+((7180%(5

%5$'%85<52$'
6$10$5,12&$

'$7( 5(9,6,21 %<
52*(5652$'
81,7
$867,17;
3
(
GHPDULD#GHPDULDGHVLJQFRP
&$/,)251,$/,&12&
7(;$6/,&12
$5&+,7(&767$03
352-(&712

'2&80(17
5(/($6(
0$5&+

)LQ&HLOLQJ
)LQQG)O
)LQVW)O
7RSRI5RRI5LGJH
0D[+HLJKW

)LQ&HLOLQJ
)LQQG)O
3DLQWHG5RPDQ%ULFN
,QWHJUDWHG*XWWHU+DUGL3DQHO6RIILW
3DLQWHG5RPDQ%ULFN
2SHQLQJ
3DLQWHG+DUGL3DQHO,QWHJUDWHG*XWWHU+DUGL3DQHO6RIILW 3DLQWHG5RPDQ%ULFN
3DLQWHG+DUGL3DQHO&RSSHU&KDLQOHDGHU
SURSOLQH

&RQFUHWH/LJKWZHLJKW7LOH &HGDU/LWH
3DLQWHG5RPDQ%ULFN
&RQFUHWH/LJKWZHLJKW7LOH &HGDU/LWH
(;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216
$
1257+6,'((/(9$7,21
6287+6,'((/(9$7,21

6&$/(

6&$/(

PAGE 306 of 360

ATTACHMENT C
DPR 523 SERIES FORMS
PAGE 307 of 360
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code: 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
Attachments: ☐ NONE ☒ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☒ Continuation Sheet ☒ Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (List):

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information

Page 1 of 12 ends

San Marino City CouncilSeptember 25, 2026

San Marino City Council
September 25, 2026