A $12,000 check went straight from signed to delivered at the latest Planning Commission meeting on June 22.
The signature on the check belonged to Raymond Zhong, owner of 1001 Rosalind Road, who decided to pay his fee to the City of San Marino in front of the five-member commission.
Zhong paid the fee six days late and after his lawyer sent the city a letter challenging the validity of certain violations.
The fee is a consequence of 12 violations committed by Zhong and his staff, most of which were documented and reported to the city by neighbors.
The owner’s son, Peter Zhong, contested the neighbor method of reporting violations. He asked that the commission only consider violations that were observed and reported by city staff.
Planning and Building Director Aldo Cervantes informed the Zhongs that having city staff present to observe violations is not required by city code.
Cervantes also notified the commission that he recently asked the San Marino Police Department to “patrol the area more often than not.”
The drama at the 1001 Rosalind Road informational briefing was not abnormal in what has become a very unusual and drawn-out case.
The eight-year struggle to build an approximately 10,000 sq. ft. home, tennis court and subterranean garage on the 1.37 acre-property has resulted in strong feelings of distrust from neighbors, commissioners and city staff toward the owners.
Twelve mutually-agreed-upon conditions spawned from that air of distrust and were enacted by the planning commission and city council to keep the project on track toward a timely completion.
Those conditions, plus other city codes, have been violated by the owner, including several instances that were not included in the $12,000 fee, according to Commissioner Susan Jakubowski.
She felt “let down” by the owners’ inability to comply, an inability which Commissioner Howard Brody described as “not operating in good faith.”
“This is all we can do to remind you that your neighbors have rights, too,” Jakubowski added.
Commissioner Marcos Velayos characterized the matter as a “credibility issue,” noting a track record of noncompliance.
The commission decided to file the city’s updated report regarding the property, but continued the item to its meeting next month, when it will receive another report on the owner’s compliance record.
1470 Virginia Road
Commissioners approved a proposed teardown at 1470 Virginia Road. The home was before the Planning Commission for a third time last week.
The owners plan on replacing the 3,398 sq. ft., four-bedroom Tudor Revival home with a 6,845 sq. ft., six-bedroom Spanish Colonial Revival home.
The new proposal represented a 20 percent reduction in square footage from the first draft of the home, which included eight bedrooms.
Rob Tyler, principal architect of Tyler Gonzalez Architects, who is the designer of the project, also reduced the lot coverage of the home, three-car garage and cabana from 17 percent to 13.7 percent, leaving 5,904 sq. ft. of the home above ground.
“I feel like we’re doing a very good job with respect to our neighbors’ privacy,” said Tyler in his assessment of the changes, which also included moving a maid’s quarters to the basement.
City staff found the new plans appropriate, except for an 18-inch high wall near the front of the home.
The commission decided to keep the wall, which will be surrounded by heavy planting. “The step-up wall is very typical,” said Brody, regarding the Spanish Colonial style. Commissioner Velayos noted, “[the home is] so far from the street, there is no wall effect.”
Tyler explained that the wall will serve as “a layering from public to private” and added to the home’s “elegant entry.”
Commissioners also considered the historic value of the home, which was designed in 1938 by Theodore Plestch. Plestch designed homes in Southern California in the early to mid-20th Century.
A new ‘historic resource report’ confirmed the Planning & Building Department’s conclusion that the home does not have historic value.
However, Commissioner Velayos asked that one of the conditions for approval of the proposed home be that the owners conduct a photographic assessment of the existing home and submit it to the Pasadena Museum of History.
Commissioner Susan Jakubowski said, “I have not loved an existing home more than this one.” She ultimately voted for the proposed home, noting that there have been “a fair number of concessions made.”
“It is certainly the right of the owner to build,” she added.
2630 Lorain Road
The Planning Commission continued an appeal of a Design Review Committee decision for 2630 Lorain Road, but not before attempting to send the project back to the DRC.
The Design Review Committee approved the proposed teardown of a 2,005 sq. ft. one-story residence with an attached two-car garage by a 3 to 2 vote in April. The existing home, which rests on two tied lots, could be replaced with a proposed 3,068 sq. ft. two-story Cape Cod-style home.
The lots were untied with the condition that Francis Tang, the owner of the two lots, receive building permits for both lots at the same time. The inability to consider both lots did not sit well with the commission.
Commissioner Marcos Velayos asked the question, “So what happens if six months from now, or a year from now, we get the other house on appeal and we find it can’t meet the requirements and then we’re accused of ‘well if you don’t approve this, you’re blocking my other house, which already was approved.’”
Given that circumstance, city staff recommended continuation of the appeal to allow more time for Tang, who is also the home’s designer, to reduce the number of roof pitches from five to four.
Despite the staff’s recommendation, some commissioners wanted immediate action.
Commissioner Howard Brody and Susan Jakubowski voted to send the project back. “I grew up in the Northeast. I’ve seen a lot of Cape Cods. This is not a Cape Cod,” said Brody, a former Design Review Committee member, who advised that staff and Design Review Committee members should learn more about the procedures.
Commissioner Ben Lundgren and Se-Yao Hsu voted against upholding the appeal in agreement with Commissioner Marcos Velayos, who said that there is a need for “further procedural clarifications.”
Commissioners, challenged by Tang’s attorney, were uncertain whether their hearing could look at all the facts or just those mentioned by the design review committee.
“The lot division is not legally before you,” said Tang’s attorney Jimmy Gutierrez. The city’s associate planner, Amanda Merlo, assured the commission that, after speaking to the city attorney, it could completely reassess the case.
Despite the commission’s ability to reassess the case, Velayos observed that the project’s supporters and opponents had “diametrically opposed arguments.”
“It would be helpful to have some actual concrete data,” he said, choosing to abstain from the initial vote.
Facts appeared to have been swayed by each side’s focus. The nine appellants, none of whom live within the home’s legal neighborhood, had a particular trend in mind when they filed their appeal.
Resident Laurie Barlow explained it as a “financial model running through our community” of people replacing one-story homes with two-story homes, then selling them for a profit within two years.
Tang, 70, responded by saying that he has lived at 2630 Lorain Road with his wife since 2000 and will continue to live there.
The appeal will be before the commission again at its next meeting on Wednesday, July 27.
