On Wednesday, May 8 at City Hall, the San Marino City Council voted to schedule a de novo hearing for June 12 to discuss a property at 1885 Virginia Rd. following neighbors’ concerns that ordinances were not followed in the construction process.
In legal terms, de novo means “to start from the beginning,” indicating that the City Council intends on revisiting the permit application and construction processes for the home in question. The council also heard details on the first quarter crime report from the San Marino Police Department (SMPD). Eric Yang, 10, a fifth-grader at Valentine Elementary, served as ceremonial “Mayor for the Day” and opened the meeting with a gavel and reading of the meeting guidelines.
The issue of the property located at 1885 Virginia Road, owned by Marcol Young, began in Feb. 2018 when the Design Review Committee approved a request by Young to build a first and second story addition with remodeling and exterior modifications to the existing two-story home, according to assistant planner Christine Song. At the time, legal non-conforming side yard setbacks were identified and the owner was not required to correct the issue. During the application process, Young provided itemized project valuation data, which the city plan checked and approved. When the project was approved through the Design Review Committee (DRC), no appeals were filed. With a building permit from the city, Young commenced construction and reported that existing walls were “severely damaged” by dry rot and termites, according to Song. Young provided a structural engineers report which was reviewed and confirmed by city building officials.
Following the report, city staff found that reconstructing the damaged walls in the same location with the previously existing legal non-conforming side yard setbacks would require a conditional use permit (CUP). The CUP was approved in March by the Planning Commission, which noted the legal non-conforming side yard setbacks “wouldn’t intensify nor worsen any negative impacts to adjacent neighbors” due to it being a condition on the property since its original build.
In April, an appeal was filed to the City Council to reconsider the Planning Commission’s decision by adjacent neighbor Dr. Babak Parwar. He noted in a letter to the council that the construction of the “new house with old non-conforming side yard setbacks will damage the peace, privacy and property value of the neighbors as well as increase fire risk.” He also expressed that the applicated “failed to submit required drawings in the DRC application” and felt “both the DRC and Planning Commission evaluations have been compromised.”
At the May 8 meeting, the property owner’s wife, Jenny Young, asked the council to uphold the approval of the CUP, sharing that to tear down the home and restart the DRC procedures would add to an “already stressful and emotional process.” She said her family was seeking to keep what previously existed and to maintain the legal non-conforming side yard setback of less than 5 feet, which she said was the same as a neighbor’s property.
“If we would have to tear our house down and start over, it would just be so devastating,” said Young. “What would I tell my children? If you were in my family’s shoes, what would you do?”
In public comment, resident Kalia Petmecky of West Drive expressed that the numbers submitted for the permit were not “accurate and true.”
“I’d like to start by responding to the developer owner’s wife’s question as to what would you do,” said Petmecky. “As a mother of two, she said ‘what would you do?’ As a mother of four, I would start by telling the truth in my application for a permit. This is a permit. It was a permit for a remodel based on numbers that were completely inaccurate.”
Resident Justin Feffer expressed a sense of relief that city staff was open to considering a de novo review. He felt the city ordinances were ignored when the applicant provided valuation data that was “completely unrealistic,” noting the numbers were estimated and not done to a schedule, as is required by a city statute. He stated that the valuation data showed the owner “basically claimed he could build an approximately 3,900 square foot house in San Marino, in 2019, for $40 a square foot,” demolition was stated at $1,000 and the electrical system would cost $6,600.
“City staff based everything, this entire house of cards, is built on the 50 percent estimate of the value of the construction, that’s why we’re here,” said Feffer. “We’re here because these unrealistic numbers were not properly vetted. They were only mathematically checked. They were not vetted for reasonability, for accuracy or even plausibility.”
Resident Evette Ramsay of Chelsea Road shared that the “architectural preservation and charm” of San Marino are strong reasons the city is attractive and expressed that rules and ordinances are the “only tools we have to safeguard the appearance of San Marino.” She felt the owner or developer failed to follow the rules and she was surprised to watch the construction go from a remodel to a “completely new house.”
“If we start to let builders change their plan their course of action in the middle of a project, we’re really opening up ourselves to a whole can of worms of new construction that goes beyond what the initial expectations or approvals are,” said Ramsay.
The City Council unanimously voted for a de novo review hearing of the plans set for June 12, which will involve reviewing the Planning Commission’s decision of the CUP with a more comprehensive record of the matter. Council Member Steve Talt voluntarily recused himself from the vote due to owning property within 500 feet of the property in question.
“I feel strongly that this should be a de novo review,” said Vice Mayor Gretchen Shepherd Romey. “I appreciate that it is our responsibility of our city to take a hard look at what’s happened in the process and also we need to step up and do the right thing for the community.”
For the first quarter police report, SMPD Chief of Police John Incontro shared the city has experienced a 17.9 percent overall decrease in Part 1 crimes (murder and nonnegligent homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny-theft and arson, according to Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics) so far in 2019. Residential burglaries are down 23 percent, with six less than last year. Attempted burglaries are up 28 percent, with two more than the same time last year. Incontro noted that within the burglaries, the department has noticed that “about half of the homes have no alarm systems at all, no alarms, no cameras, nothing. That allows the burglars to spend more time in the home, take more items of value.”
Larcenies are down 24 percent. Incontro noted arrests have been assisted by surveillance video provided by residents.
“Generally for us our problems have been theft from vehicles, where people have items of value left visible from the outside, or items left on the front porch such as deliveries,” said Incontro. “You’ve probably heard the term ‘porch pirate.’”
For the year to date, the SMPD has delivered 27 search warrants and four arrest warrants, for burglary, theft of vehicle and grand theft of property. Three people have been arrested for burglary and two for larceny.
For staffing, the department hired two officers, from departments in South Pasadena and Los Alamos, New Mexico, who are currently in the field going through training. An additional two were hired May 13.
“Things are looking up and I really thank you all for your support and thank the city manager for her support in what we’re trying to accomplish,” said Incontro.
