The San Marino City Council held a public hearing last week regarding a residential construction project at 1408 Wilson Ave. — a heated subject that a few residents were not in the mood to share the love for on Valentine’s Day.
City staff recommended the Council adopt a Planning Commission resolution, which would allow a 287-square-foot, one-story addition and a 131-square-foot, second-story addition to the property.
At the meeting, the residents in attendance asked the City Council for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Design Review Committee case at the property.
Some of the claims made by the appellants charged that the project is “not compliant” and “illegal,” with the applicant, Sigo Group Management LLC and workers on the site operating there without a business license. Representing the appellants that evening included neighbors Shirley Jagels and Brandon Cheng, who also read a letter on behalf of residents Kenneth and Beatrice Li.
Councilman Steve Talt opposed the appellants’ characterization of the project as being unlawful.
“I think the whole argument regarding that it’s illegal is specious,” said Talt, who clarified that the city has a licensed architect and a licensed arborist by the state of California, and if they find that there is an issue with licensing, it will be taken care of before further action is taken with the project.
According to Community Development Director Isidro Figueroa, both the Planning Commission and the DRC confirmed that the project met all the required findings — which addresses compatibility with the neighborhood, balances reasonable expectations of privacy by designing a project consistent with the city code, and has the colors of materials to match the existing building. But the appellants identified several points of contention for the basis of their appeal, Figueroa said, outlining those points.
Among those are concerns from appellants about the addition of the enclosed living space is that it could protrude and extend from the existing footprint of the house and directly block the view at 1406 Wilson Ave. Another concern is that the rear addition would block neighbors’ access to “light, air, openness and ambiance.”
“The city does not have an ordinance protecting views, light or air,” Figueroa explained. “However, the city code states that the zoning ordinance was adopted to require restrictions to height, bulk of buildings and the areas of yards and other open spaces for the purposes of providing adequate light, air, preventing overcrowding of buildings, avoiding undue concentration of population, preserving property values and encouraging the most appropriate use of land.
“In other words, if you provide a project that meets the requirements for that particular use, you are providing adequate air, light and so forth. The project is not requesting any deviations from the zoning ordinance and is complying with all of the applicable development standards.”
Meanwhile, the 74-square-foot addition to the existing two-car garage is believed to be a “loophole” to obtain a three-car garage, Figueroa said of the suspicions of the appellants, who also fear an increase in air pollution and noise for neighbors.
In response to this point and a few others that had overlapping sentiments, Figueroa reiterated that the project meets development standards. He also added that the additional space being requested for the garage is meant for storage, and if it were to be used for a three-car garage, there would likely be a basis for a code enforcement case to be opened.
The appellants contended that the applicant failed to communicate with neighbors regarding notification, to which Figueroa said city staff mailed out the proper notifications to all property owners as dictated by the city code.
Lastly, the appellants raised concerns of disturbing the root system of the oak tree at 1406 Wilson Ave.
“We cannot provide evidence now on the oak trees,” Jagels said. “These are massive, beautiful landmark oak trees, and the impacts do not manifest right away. We know this. That’s why our oak trees are protected, and we also know that later something could change with this addition to the garage and what it’s going to be.”
The project’s current design is consistent with the existing residence and has plans to contain a raised foundation, which will be less intrusive to the oak tree’s root system than other foundation methods, according to city staff. Also, noteworthy is that the existing residence is located on the majority of the oak tree’s dripline, and that area is not expected to be touched in the process.
The applicant’s arborist report indicated that the project would have minimal impact on the oak tree, if the tree preservation plan is implemented. The plan involves the tree near the neighbor’s residence, as well as seven other trees on the project site. Some details from the plan include installing protective chain-link fencing on the trees for the duration of construction, which would be at least 5-feet-tall and mounted onto 2-inch diameter galvanized iron posts and driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet at no more than 10 feet spacing.
The city’s urban forester has reviewed the plans and the arborist report and concurs with the findings in the applicant’s report.
Despite this, some Council members, including Vice Mayor Gretchen Shepherd Romey and Councilman Calvin Lo had lingering concerns about the local oak trees and expressed the opinion that more could be done to assure residents that trees will not be harmed during the project.
“What makes this property attractive and beautiful are actually the trees that are there, and I think one of the appellants pointed out, these are really landmark trees,” Shepherd Romey said. “They are huge. You can see them from the street, probably across the street and down the block and from the neighbors behind, etc. They are very massive, and it really makes the property really special and beautiful. I think we do have a tree protection already articulated in our own code, and I would like to see [this project have these] same tree protections drawn out before I could support moving forward with construction.”
Unlike his colleague Shepherd Romey, Talt initially said he was in favor of pushing the project forward.
“I understand that people don’t like construction that happens in their neighborhood … but I think they are really taking a house that needs improvement and improving it without tearing it down, and I think they should be commended in that regard,” Talt said. “So, I would vote to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.”
But after lending his ear to the rest of the City Council’s comments, Talt ultimately voted along with Shepherd Romey and Lo to instruct the city clerk to set the matter for a hearing within 75 days, when the case shall be heard and decided “de novo,” or from the beginning. Councilman Tony Chou recused himself from the vote and Mayor Steven Huang was not present at the meeting.
This vote was decided so that the City Council could revisit the subject and hold another hearing, where they could settle the issues at hand without sending it back to the Planning Commission. To pass, the City Council will need a 3-1 vote.
First published in the Feb. 22 issue of the San Marino Tribune
