At its Friday, June 28, adjourned meeting at the Crowell Public Library, the San Marino City Council denied an appeal of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a property at 1885 Virginia Road, allowing construction to continue, after an extension of a public hearing. The CUP allows the property to keep previously existing nonconforming side yard setbacks at the more than 80-year-old property, which at 4 feet are less than the 5 feet required by the current city code for legal nonconforming setbacks.
With Council Member Steve Talt having recused himself due to living close to the property, the council remained deadlocked 2-2 on whether to support the Planning Commission’s March approval of the CUP. The deadlock meant that the commission’s approval stands. Mayor Dr. Steven Huang and Vice Mayor Gretchen Shepherd Romey opposed the approval while Council Member Susan Jakubowski and Council Member Ken Ude supported upholding it.
The issue of the property located at 1885 Virginia Road owned by Marcol Young began in February 2018 when the Design Review Committee approved a request for 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 nonconforming side yard setbacks were identified and Young was not required to correct the issue. During the application process, Young provided an 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 after 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 nonconforming side yard setbacks would require a conditional use permit (CUP). The CUP was approved in March by the Planning Commission, which noted the legal nonconforming 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 who noted in a letter that he felt the new property with old nonconforming side yard setbacks would “damage the peace, privacy and property value of the neighbors as well as increase fire risk.” He also expressed that the application “failed to submit required drawings in the DRC application” and felt “both the DRC and Planning Commission evaluations have been compromised.”
The city staff noted that during the Design Review application process, Young submitted construction valuation data based on requirements by the former city code section 23.02.22. At the time, the code noted “building standards” published by an organization named the International Conference of Planning and Building Directors. It was discovered that the organization was no longer in existence during the process, so the city’s process was to accept an estimate from an engineer on the project construction cost based upon market rate and additional factors such as the applicant’s owner-builder status. In October 2018, the staff amended the city code section to remedy the potential for valuation data inconsistencies by utilizing a standardized approach.
At the June 28 meeting, Young shared that he had met with the Parwars throughout the design phase of his home and worked their concerns as neighbors into the plans. He said he relocated the second floor above his living room and recessed the second floor balcony to eliminate any direct sightlines into their home and planned a trellis at the rear of home at their request.
“The Parwars basically redesigned my home,” said Young. “I complied with every request that they made during the DRC process.”
Young noted that both his and the Parwar house have legal nonconforming sideyard setbacks. He did not feel that it was a fair compromise to have to move the walls after all the permits were approved.
“For the Parwars to ask me now after I’ve received my building permits and built my house to tear it down and move it 4 feet is unreasonable,” said Young.
Resident Chris Norgaard, speaking in support of the Youngs, told the council he didn’t see a chance to have a slippery slope of building concern because the code has been changed, addressing a previous concern brought up by Huang.
“I don’t think anyone would voluntarily stand in line to go through what the applicants have done in terms of time and money over the past two and a half years,” said Norgaard.
As the appellant, Parwar shared that he felt the issue was not about what happened at the DRC. He expressed a concern that demolition plans were not submitted during the DRC process, but after the approval was done and the appeal process was over.
“It’s a big process violation here,” said Parwar. “That’s what this is about—that the project was not represented to the DRC accurately. It was a much greater project.”
In explaining her support of the Planning Commission’s approval of the CUP, Jakubowski thanked the community for participating and showing their care and concern for the project. She pointed out a need to form a corrective action plan within the city due to the number of issues that arose through the project.
“I’ve never seen a project with so many issues that were either ambiguous, not clear, or just were left to interpretation,” said Jakubowski. “We need to look at code, we need to look at policies, we need to look at checklists and we’ve already seen some of the action, unfortunately after the fact, that the Planning and Building Department has taken. This will benefit every one of us in the future.”
Councilmember Ken Ude agreed with her feeling that Young followed all rules that were requested of him.
“I believe the homeowners acted in good faith as they moved forward through perhaps this flawed process and I think the responsibility for making sure this process is tight is more on the city than on the backs of the homeowners,” said Ude.
In her consideration to deny the approval of the CUP, Shepherd Romey said the granting of the CUP was “purely discretionary” and not an assumed thing. She expressed a concern with public safety with a setback of 4 feet, being less than the legal 5 feet and less than the modern 8 feet.
“Our community now must shoulder the burden with extra public safety concerns and so that to me is a problem,” said Shepherd Romey. “I’m not going to say anything other than that’s contrary to our city standards.”
Huang held with his motion to deny the approval of the CUP and hoped that the “neighbors could mend their fences and move on.”
“We all know this process was flawed from the beginning,” said Huang. “I want to thank the Youngs and Dr. Parwar for bringing this in front of us, because from this process we have tightened the valuation ordinance and hopefully we don’t see this again.”
