These reports of public meetings express only the opinions of their authors, and do not represent the organizational positions or policies of Alhambra Preservation Group.

July 8, 2008

Board members/staff present: Richard Abe, Gary Tse, Meghan Wang, Carla Pemberton, Monica Kao
Not present: Paul Coleman

Most of tonight's meeting was devoted to a spirited discussion of the proposal to redo the exterior of the Fred Marshall Home, located at 1601 S. Fourth Street ..

This classic 1907 Arts & Crafts home was one of the very first homes constructed in in the Ramona Park district. The 1984 Historic Resources Survey singled it out for special mention, identifying it as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The current owner wants to remove all of the exterior wood shingle siding, and replace it with a cement product known as Hardie-shingle. She believes this will help to preserve the home, making it more fire-resistant and eliminating the need for any future painting.

Both Oscar and I addressed the Board with our concerns. We provided information about the history of the neighborhood and the issue of integrity of building materials as a measuring stick for historic significance. I also mentioned it's connection to the Althouse Brothers, who were contemporaries of the Greene Brothers, as well as their architectural work in the West Adams District of Los Angeles are listed as Historic Landmarks. Alhambra was their next area in the development of Los Angeles County at the early turn of the century choosing Ramona Park in 1907.

I think our arguments were very compelling, and the Board was reluctant to approve the project. When the owner gave the reason for the Hardi plank citing fire concerns, Board member Carla Pemberton made the point that the existing redwood siding has been quite resistant to fire for the last 101 years! Board member Megan Wang inquired about the cost of replacing the old shingles with new redwood shingles. Board member Monica Kao asked the contractor if it were possible to replicate the craftsmanship and detailing such as the mitered corners and curved features of the home with the Hardi plank, and the contractor said that he didn't know but would look into it. The Board asked lots of questions.

At the bottom of it, however, the Board could not justify a complete rejection of the owner's proposal, since the City of Alhambra has no policy in place regarding historic preservation and no landmark ordinance to protect the integrity of historic buildings. They continued the item until the next meeting, requesting that the applicant return with technical information about how Hardie-shingle can be applied to the challenges of this particular building. My guess is that it will ultimately be approved.

Next DRB meeting: Tuesday, July 22 at 7:30 p.m.

June 24, 2008

Not much to report from this meeting of the Design Review Board.

Designer Sam Yum appeared for the fourth time to discuss his proposal to build a large two-story residential addition at 1716 S. Primrose (see notes and photo from 5/27/08, 3/11/08 and 1/8/08 meetings). He failed to get approval for his project at this meeting, although the Board spent a long time analyzing his plans and drawings. Yum's current plan is to maintain the Spanish style of the existing home. The staff's comments refer to a "reasonably successful attempt at a Spanish style of architecture." The Board felt that he still hasn't adequately captured the Spanish design vocabulary, and they also feel that the proposed design could be easily split into two units (this is an R-1 zone). I'm concerned that the drawings show the two-story home in a lime green color palette. The project was again continued. Stay tuned.

Next DRB meeting: Tuesday, July 8 at 7:30 p.m.

June 10, 2008

Thanks to APG members Mike Lawrence and Oscar Amaro for joining me at this meeting. 

City of Alhambra Development Services Director Mike Martin and a representative of the Downtown Solutions firm were also present at the meeting for a discussion of the proposed Alhambra Design Guidelines. 

The Board generally approved of the Guidelines as written, and expressed their hope that this will be the first step in the process of educating the public about the variety of Alhambra's architectural styles and the importance of designing for neighborhood compatibility.  They discussed their frustration with the fact that many applicants never consult with an architect in the development of plans for a new home or addition, until they arrive at a DRB meeting.  The availability of written and illustrated guidelines should help to communicate a design standard for the community, and to apply it consistently.  There was agreement among the Board and APG members present that the Guidelines could go even farther in establishing landscaping standards that address the importance of green space (as opposed to open space), and that the city's anti-mansionization policy could use some revision. 

In another matter, the project proposed by Sam Yum for 1105 S. Stoneman was continued for the third time.  This 1927 Spanish-style home in the Martha Baldwin Tract currently contributes to a historic neighborhood of homes built in the mid-1920's through the 1930's.  With only one exception, all the homes are single-story.  Mr. Yum has proposed a two-story addition that will completely alter the streetscape.  The DRB has referred to this project as "generic tract home construction", and "out of character with the neighborhood".  Both Mike Lawrence and I spoke out against the proposal, suggesting that the applicant get some design assistance from a licensed architect.  A true Spanish-style home is more than a tile roof and a few wrought iron elements. 

Next DRB Meeting:  Tuesday, June 24th at 7:30 p.m.

May 27, 2008

231 S. El Molino Avenue -- This project will replace a single-story 1926 Spanish-style home in the Alhambra Tract with a large two-story home (see my previous report, dated 4/8/08) The project designer has attempted to work with Alhambra Preservation Group to come up with a revised plan that better fits the neighborhood context. Revised drawings reflect an improvement, but the home is still quite large. The Board was concerned about maximizing the landscape area, and reducing the floor area ratio. The project was approved with conditions.

1716 S. Primrose -- The existing home in the Ethel Park Tract is a modest Spanish-style structure (see photo, attached). Designer Sam Yum has proposed a new two-story addition, with a complete change of style. This item has been on the DRB agenda twice previously. Both times, the Board has told Mr. Yum that he completely fails to capture the Craftsman vernacular that he is going for. There is also concern among Board members about the size of the project, the number of bedrooms, the presence of two dining rooms, and the proposed lack of green space. In response, Yum has proposed to revise the project back to Spanish-style. Stay tuned for future developments -- this item was continued again.

1000 S. Fremont -- This project is a revision of the previously-approved Village at the Alhambra on the former C.F. Braun campus. Largely in response to the downturn in the economy, the project has been downsized from 350 to 311 units. This is conceptualized as a destination landscape (think Lawry's California Center or the Ambassador College campus). Core design principles for the project include maximization of public space and open space. Gardens will include mature trees (gingkos, king palms, date palms, orange groves, etc.), reflecting pools and riparian elements. There will be a community garden for residents on site, as well as a BBQ center, and outdoor fireplace. It's pretty impressive, and the Board approved the proposed changes.

Finally, a new TARGET store is proposed -- for the same Main Street location as the existing store. The plans include underground parking, and a much larger retail space. The new design was approved, and this should appear soon at the Planning Commission.

NEXT DRB MEETING: Tuesday, June 10 at 7:30 p.m

May 13, 2008

Board members/staff present: Richard Abe, Gary Tse, Meghan Wang, Carla Pemberton
Not present: Monica Kao, Paul Coleman

617 N. Hidalgo; Application for a new 2-story residence
The architect for this project submitted an extremely professional 20x30 inch photo-realistic rendering of the proposed home that was well received by the DRB staff. The home will have wood siding on the top half with stucco on the lower portion painted in earth-tone colors. Even more remarkable, and as was shown in the rendering, was that all existing trees on the property will remain intact! This design will certainly complement the streetscape.

2400 Charnwood Avenue was a no show.

2128 S. Meridian Avenue –
Basically a nondescript building added to the rear of a nondescript home. While it was approved, it was suggested by the DRB that the existing front fence be removed.

1104 S. Campbell –
This item garnered the most discussion as the DRB grew frustrated with the ''designer’s'' inability (who was present along with the owner) to grasp the concept of ''architectural'' design. The Board stated that the homeowner had had the opportunity to replace the existing home (a 1906 farmhouse) with something that would complement the neighborhood, but instead, the design submitted was (in the words of City Architect Richard Abe), ''one long box.''

The Board also commented that the plans submitted were not very detailed and in fact, contained errors such as columns and windows that didn’t match, prompting Abe to remark that this was ''…something a licensed architect would know.'' Again, whether due to a language barrier or the fact that the designer was more of a draftsman than a professional designer/architect, he asked if what they wanted was the property surveyed? ''No,'' replied the DRB, that the proposed design simply needed ''some type of architectural style.'' Abe's closing comment was that the design needs to improve significantly and that the owner needed additional help (i.e., a professional designer). The item was continued.

1216 Stoneman Avenue
The owners (their architect was not present despite telling the couple that he would be there) wish to enclose and expand the existing front porch to what the DRB described as a home ''lacking in architectural significance.'' The DRB pointed out that the proposed design not only had aesthetic issues, but also structural problems that would inevitably surface later such as bad roof drainage and potential ponding. The DRB also said that the proposal would look like ''an add-on.'' It was continued.

1105 S. Stoneman Avenue
This is an application for a 2-story job so totally lacking in any kind of design, that the DRB had been sent back pleading for some type of architectural style — ANYTHING other than what it is -- a characterless box.. The DRB asked Mr. Sam Yum, the ''designer'' several questions such as, ''can you tell us what kind of design this is? ''What ties the first floor to the second floor?'' – but it appeared that Mr. Yum could not understand what was being asked. Finally, he said that he would submit a ''Spanish design.'' There was some dialog between Mr. Yum and the DRB, but from where I was sitting, I could not understand what he was saying. It was continued.

2338 Midwickhill Drive
The DRB was pleased with this design and it was approved.

1500 S. Olive Street
This is an application to build a 1-story, second residential unit behind a very nice Spanish style home and as stated on the DRB report regarding the previous submittal, ''no effort [was] made to architecturally integrate the two structures.'' The DRB suggested making changes to the windows to match the front house as well as rearranging the layout of the kitchen to accommodate a more integrated design, but the owner said that he liked looking out over the driveway while in the kitchen. The owner asked if these suggestions had been mailed and Mr. Tse of the DRB replied no, that he should have made notes the last time he presented his plans. It was continued.

139 E. Valley Blvd.
No show.

112 W. Main Street
Continued.

2904 Park View Drive
Approved with condition that window treatment match existing home.

600 N. Garfield Avenue
This is an application for a mural at a gas station located at the intersection of Alhambra Road. The owner has 105 other gas stations throughout Southern California and many, if not all, have exquisitely painted murals at each one. The representative presented the DRB with a color printout of the proposed mural -- a beautifully rendered, stylized landscape done in both tile and paint. The DRB were in awe of the artwork and said that they were looking very forward to its completion.

April 22, 2008

Happy Earth Day!

Tonight, the Design Review Board continued a proposed project to develop a second unit at 2128 S. Meridian, in the Midwick Park Tract. They told the applicant that it appeared that too much of the lot will be covered by concrete under the proposed plan. They required him to return with a landscape plan that minimizes paving. Good for them. What a great way to celebrate Earth Day!

A small Craftsman home at 1104 S. Campbell , in the East Shorb Tract, continues to be threatened by a remodel. This is a lovely little 1913 farmhouse, which was modified in 1925 but still retains its distinctive character. The owner expressed his opinion that the house is "old and ugly", and he intends to improve it with a new addition. The DRB is of the opinion that the proposed addition does not consider the design of the existing house in any way. They recommended that the owner seek the services of a skilled architect. This item has been on the DRB agenda for two months, with no noticeable improvement. Stay tuned for further developments.

The design for a new home at 2236 Whitney Drive, in the Midwick Tract was approved. This will be a two-story Spanish-style home, in a neighborhood that primarily consists of single-story 1950's tract homes. The new design sounds great, but I am concerned about its size and neighborhood character. Watch for this to appear before the Planning Commission soon. It's a shame that the project will require demolition of a very nicely-maintained ranch-style home, originally built in 1951.

Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday, May 13 at 7:30 p.m.

April 7, 2008

Tonight's Design Review Board meeting was a mixed bag -- some good, and some bad. Here are two of the highlights on a long agenda:

1) 1805 S. 8th Street
The design for a new home to be built in the East Ramona Tract has been approved. This will result in the demolition of an authentic 1922 bungalow (see previous reports for photo). APG members and supporters have addressed the Board on three previous occasions, requesting that the historic home be preserved and enlarged if necessary. The project will now come before the Planning Commission -- look for it to appear on the 4/21/08 or 5/5/08 agenda. If you are concerned about the loss of historic fabric in this neighborhood, you should take this opportunity to make your case to the members of the Planning Commission.

2) 231 S. El Molino Street
The existing home is a 1926 Spanish style, located in the Alhambra Tract. The owner proposes to demolish it, in order to build a very large two-story home with a three-car garage at the front. There is no distinct architectural style to the new home. It looks like it could be built in any Southern California development. The neighborhood, in contrast, has some distinctive character. I spoke about the character-defining features of the homes in the Alhambra Tract, which were built in the early 1920's. I asked the Board to consider neighborhood context when reviewing this proposal. After considerable discussion about particular design features, they continued the item. It will appear on a future agenda.

Afterward, the project designer met me in the hallway to talk. He says he wants to work with our group, in order to develop a proposal that will enhance the neighborhood. I suggested he do some research on true Spanish Colonial Revival design. There are some fine examples of two-story homes in this style throughout our community.

Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday, April 22 at 7:30 p.m.

March 25, 2008

Due to a lack of quorum, this meeting's agenda items were postponed to April 7th.

March 11, 2008

All of the projects of Sam Yum were continued as expected and as Chris has reported, he does not have a clue about design. This guy is like our own Katrina in Alhambra. I can only say each of his designs were the worst pieces of s&*^% I have seen at the DRB. During my first rant about the first project on the agenda, I was interrupted by Abe and was told that the board was in complete agreement and could understand all of my points. I really don't see how anything of quality can come from this "designer."

825 Mission was a 2 unit project that looked like 2 monopoly boxes. Monica Kao spotted the attempt to design these as 2 houses with the intent of making them R4 housing. The upper floors had a "wet bar" that was a full kitchen and laughed at the crude attempt. She ask why a single family house needed 2 full kitchens. He was sent packing and told to come back with a design that was not so obvious.

The charming little couple with the kid presented their revised drawings for the 1805 S. 8th Street house that was to replace the Craftsman they want to bulldoze. They and their architect cannot understand what a "Craftsman-styled home" means and had a design that was a basic "half ass" Craftsman as Monica called it. It sort of resembles the Ralph's market on Huntington and Garfield. There was much discussion about the meaning of Craftsman and Abe said it would be more strategic ( to pass the PC) if they came up with a real Craftsman design to replace the significant house they were destroying. They were willing to try to do this, but their architect did not seem to understand something as basic as true a Craftsman window. The design had french doors and a concrete roof. They will come back one more time, but the owner seemed to think that they had done their best and might just hope he can get it by the PC as is. We have a chance at the PC if we muster the troops to either save the house or force them to replace with a true craftsman house. 7th Street was approved and 8th street was continued.

I was very impressed with the Board and their desire to steer these projects to a higher level.

The theme of the evening was if you are going to take out a historic home, then you better replace it with something that will be better.

February 26, 2008

There was an excellent turnout of APG members and residents of the Ramona Park neighborhood at tonight's meeting, to address the Design Review Board regarding a proposal to stucco the 1920 Craftsman bungalow located at 1836 S. Fifth Street.

Joanne Camperi discussed the ways in which historic neighborhood designation enhanced her ability to find appropriate tenants for her rental unit, located in this same Ramona Park area.

Joan Whitmore discussed the ways in which Alhambra's neighborhoods have been negatively impacted for decades by inappropriate remodeling.

Oscar Amaro displayed photos of the Ramona Park area, especially the houses on South Fifth Street, and discussed their significance. He refuted the claims of a contractor, who claimed that the application of stucco would make the home more thermally efficient and less combustible in a fire. I discussed the issue of property value; while the application of a stucco exterior might make the home cheaper to paint, the potential cost savings would be negated by a dramatic reduction in the home's resale value (a loss of up to 20%). This would also have a ripple effect in reducing the value of other homes in the neighborhood.

The DRB considered all these issues, as well as input from the homeowner, and they voted to maintain the Craftsman aesthetic of the home. The homeowner may not stucco the bungalow. He may remove the existing wood siding, but he must replace it with an acceptable alternative (not vinyl). The possibilities include a cement fiber material (like Hardie Plank), or new wood siding.

Thanks so much to everyone for showing up to speak! Together, we are making a real difference in our community!

Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday, March 11 at 7:30 p.m.

February 12, 2008

This lovely 1922 bungalow , located at 1805 S. 8th Street in the Ramona Park area is proposed for demolition. The owner plans to build a two-story home with three-car garage on this site. The drawings presented at tonight's meeting show a proposed box-like tract home with some "Craftsman-lite" characteristics applied, almost as decorative elements. The Board spent a long time working with the applicant to develop a more authentic Craftsman design for the new home. They discussed massing and proportion issues, and ways to accommodate the owner's needs within the design aesthetic of the Craftsman style.

Speaking on behalf of APG, I discussed the character-defining features of the existing historic home. I expressed my understanding of the owner's need to have a larger home. I argued that it would be better city planning policy to retain the historic fabric of the Ramona Park neighborhood by enlarging this existing home in a compatible way -- rather than to demolish an authentic historic structure, and trying to approximate the architecture. I expressed my confidence that residents of the neighborhood and members of APG will contest this project when it appears before the Planning Commission.

The project was continued to a future meeting, so this will have another hearing at the DRB before it moves on to the Planning Commission. Essentially the same plans are proposed for a second new home to be built in Ramona Park -- at 1600 S. 7th Street. This lot is located at the southeast corner of 7th and Norwood. The home to be demolished at this second location is not architecturally distinctive. Situated on a corner, however, it will have an impact on the neighborhood.

Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday, February 26 at 7:30 p.m

January 22, 2008

Not much of interest on this meeting's agenda -- primarily applications for front yard fences and signage for commercial buildings. One item worth noting, however: the owner of an historic home in the Lindaraxa Park area (15 E. Halsted Circle) has proposed some modifications to his home's front entrance. This is not a major addition, but because the project does involve changes to the way the house addresses the street (and alters the streetscape), it first came to the Design Review Board for approval. We are pleased to note that the proposed remodel has taken into account the distinctive Spanish-style architecture of the 1925 home, and the addition blends nicely with the existing structure. The DRB approved the project.

Next DRB meeting: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.

January 8, 2008

The historic First United Methodist Church of Alhambra has plans to make some improvements and additions to their campus, located at the corner of Main Street and Almansor. At the recommendation of the Design Review Board, the project architect will make some modifications to his proposed design, in order to more closely match the style of the other secondary buildings on site. This item will appear at least one more time on the DRB agenda before it receives design approval. Watch for it!

A small, but elegant Spanish-style home at 1716 S. Primrose is proposed for a complete makeover -- in a pseudo-Craftsman style! The Board expressed their opinion, however, that the proposed design fails to adequately capture Craftsman details (i.e., too much use of stucco, not enough siding, columns too thin, inappropriate window design, etc.). Here's a case where Design Guidelines could really be useful, giving the applicant some idea of what might possibly be acceptable. The new home will be more than twice the size of the existing, and it will be two stories tall. Watch for this project to appear again at a future DRB meeting, before it moves on to the Planning Commission.

Next DRB meeting: Tuesday, January 22 at 7:30 p.m.

December 13, 2007

I attended this last Design Review Board meeting of the year. Thankfully, the agenda was light, and so there's not much to report. There is some good news, however -- the owner of the Midwick Park property located at 2739 W. Ross (see the 11-27-07 report below) seems to be reconsidering his plans. He asked for a continuance until a future meeting, so that he can re-evaluate his options. Let's hope that demolition of the 1928 Tudor home is off the table!

November 27, 2007

The Design Review Board voted to approve the project at 28 Halsted Circle [], which will involve the demolition of a 1926 Spanish-style home in the historic Lindaraxa Park neighborhood (see my last two postings regarding this address). A few local residents turned out to object, including Steve Perry, who made an excellent presentation to the Board regarding the importance of preserving the character of the neighborhood. He said that he was sure he could count on his neighbors and the Alhambra Preservation Group to scream loudly to the Planning Commission when this comes up on the agenda. I hope you'll prove him right. Watch for this to come before the PC in early January, and plan to show up to speak if you think the home should be saved.

2). 2739 W. Ross Avenue Another threatened home located in the Midwick Park neighborhood. This area was developed in the late 1920's through the 1930's, and contains a mix of styles. There are many elegant Spanish Colonial Revival homes here, a few Tudor Revival, and some Ranch-style homes from the forties and early 1950's. Homes are generally well-cared-for, and surrounded by significant green space. The 1928 Tudor home is proposed for demolition, in order to build a large two-story residence on a lot that will be almost entirely paved. The applicant was not present, and so this item was continued for discussion at a future meeting. Stay tuned.

Hope to see you next time -- December 11 at 7:30 p.m.

November 13, 2007

Two items on the agenda of this very long meeting related specifically to the proposed demolition of historic homes:

1) 28 Halsted Circle: This project was previously listed as an application to build a wall around the property, located in the historic Lindaraxa Park area of Alhambra. Now it appears that the owner plans to completely demolish the 1926 Spanish-style home here, at the northeast corner of Halsted and Vega, and build a new 2-story home on the lot, encircled by a wall. The members of the DRB generally liked the proposed design of the new home, but recommended some changes to bring it more into the Spanish theme. This large home will be situated on a prominent corner north of Main Street, and will definitely have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If you live nearby, you'll want to check out the plans for the project. This will appear at least one more time on the DRB agenda before it goes to the Planning Commission for approval.

2) 1610 S. Fifth Street: This 1921 period revival bungalow in the Colonial style is a contributing member to the Ramona Park Historic District. It looks to be in very good condition. The owner proposes to demolish it, and construct two new homes on the lot. The proposed front house is a massive, two-story box with a tower and large piers accenting the entry. The rear home is designed to be built over a 4-car garage. Most of the lot's green space will be eliminated.

APG had three speakers present at the meeting to oppose the demolition -- the next-door neighbor, Oscar Amaro (who lives in the immediate neighborhood), and myself. We addressed issues of neighborhood compatibility, historic preservation, disappearing green space, and absentee landlords. The DRB listened carefully to our concerns. They especially noted the neighborhood opposition, and pointed out that this project is likely to be challenged at the Planning Commission. The DRB continued the item to a future meeting, and strongly suggested to the architect that he find a way to preserve the historic structure as a part of his plan to develop the lot.

Showing up and speaking out can make a real difference! Hope to see you at a future meeting of the DRB -- the next one is scheduled for Tuesday, November 27 at 7:30 p.m.

October 23, 2007

1) 1836 S. Monterey Street: This is a 1930 Spanish-style home located just north of Ramona Road. Over time, it has been modified in ways that are somewhat awkward. However, it is still identifiably Spanish, and retains some distinctive architectural features. The owner wants to remove a low arch that extends over the driveway (he can't get his truck down the driveway), and replace the tile roof over the front facade of the home. This item was approved, but the Board required the owner to replace the roof with clay tile to match the existing 2-piece red Spanish tiles (instead of the gold-colored single layer tile of his choosing, which did not match the character of the historic home).

2) 28 Halsted Circle: This is a large Spanish-style home, built in 1926 and located in a historic area north of Main Street (near "Artists' Alley" -- where Norman Rockwell and Sam Hyde Harris maintained studios). The home sits on the northeast corner of Vega and Halsted Circle. The owner has proposed to build a wall around the entire property. There are very few front yard fences in this neighborhood, and this home's location on a corner (and slightly above street level) will make it a prominent feature. The applicant was not present at the meeting, so this item was continued to the next meeting. Let's be sure to give a careful look at the design of the proposed wall when this comes up next time.

The Design Review Board will participate in a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on Monday, October 29 at 6:00 p.m. in the downstairs lobby area at City Hall. One topic of discussion will the design guidelines for the City of Alhambra.

Next regular meeting of the DRB: Tuesday, November 13 at 7:30 p.m.

October 9, 2007

Not much to report from this meeting. Most projects on the agenda involved commercial structures. One proposal to remove character-defining features from a historic home was opposed by the DRB, and they continued the item with the suggestion that the owner consult with an architect.

One item that did receive approval: a proposed project to raze the structures located at 2300 W. Main Street, and replace them with a four-story mixed-use development. The current tenant here is an organization providing residential services to multi-handicapped blind people (C.L.I.M.B.). It does not involve an historically- or architecturally-significant structure. The new project is a collaboration between Key Community Housing and the East Los Angeles Regional Center. It will build 60 residential units for seniors and developmentally-disabled adults. Office space on the ground floor will provide supportive services to the residents.

I like what I have seen of the design for this project -- it is well-modulated and visually interesting, and includes lots of garden space and trees. Look for this project to appear at the Planning Commission soon.

NEXT DRB MEETING: Tuesday, October 23 at 7:30 p.m.

September 25, 2007

First, the bad news:

The DRB gave design approval at this meeting to the construction of two new 2-story residential units at 425 S. Fifth Street. This project will involve the demolition of a classic 1922 bungalow kit home, apparently in good condition (see photo).

APG has made two prior presentations to the Board on the significance of the home to be demolished -- on 8/22/06 and 6/12/07. The Board's decision to approve the project was based entirely upon the design merit of the proposed 2 unit project. Later, during a lull in the meeting, Councilmember Messina approached me and asked why I had not objected to the project on behalf of APG. I explained that we had previously addressed the Board twice on this issue. The DRB is empowered to make recommendations regarding design only -- not to decide whether proposed demolition is permitted or advisable. They have, in fact, previously expressed their interest in saving this little bungalow. In the absence of a City board or commission dealing with historic preservation, the Planning Commission makes decisions regarding whether to approve projects that involve demolition of historic structures.

Ms. Messina indicated to me that she will do what she can to see that this bungalow is saved. Let's be sure to show up at the Planning Commission meeting when it is on the agenda, and do what we can to educate the Commission (and any Councilmembers who attend) regarding its significance.

Now, the good news:

The historic YMCA building, located at the northeast corner of Main and Almansor, is being prepped for painting (see photo). As a commercial structure, this requires approval from the DRB. I was concerned when I did a site visit, and determined that many of the window trims and details were in the process of being painted purple. I made a presentation to the Board on the historic and architectural significance of this building, including the fact that it was singled out for special mention in the 1984 Historic Resource Survey as possessing local landmark status, and potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. I asked the Board to give special consideration to the proposed color scheme, to make certain that it was appropriate to the architecture. After much discussion, the Board gave conditional approval to the project. Painting will begin this week on a "test area" of the building, using a palette of colors mutually agreed upon by the Board and the designer -- no purple. All DRB members will visit the site to sign off on the painted sample area. If they approve the colors on site, the entire building can be painted. If not, the item will return to the DRB agenda for more discussion. This is a positive outcome -- extra attention given to an historically significant building, to be sure that the color selection is right.

September 11, 2007

No Report Filed

August 28, 2007

For those of you who have been watching for the new Circuit City development on Main Street, its design was approved at the 8/28/07 meeting. This retail mall-style project will take the space of the vacant auto dealership at 2121 W. Main. My guess is that it will appear before the Planning Commission at its next meeting.

Atherton Baptist Homes is expanding again! This time, they will be building 50 units in a 3-story structure with underground parking at the northwest corner of Commonwealth and 6th. This will require the demolition of a 1921 bungalow on that site. The bungalow has been stuccoed-over, and its wood windows replaced with vinyl -- but it still retains many of its distinctive features. A clock tower will replace it.

The design plans were approved for 4 new 2-story residences to be built at 200 and 204 S. Almansor. The new homes will be (roughly) in the Spanish style. The two bungalows (1914 and 1915) currently on these adjacent lots will be demolished. They appear to have been neglected over time, and many of their character-defining features altered or removed. Watch for this item at the next Planning Commission meeting.

I requested that one item be pulled from the consent agenda for more scrutiny -- a one-story addition to a 1925 bungalow at 1620 S. Sierra Vista. The staff's comments on the agenda described the proposed addition as well-integrated with the existing home. When I drove past the property, I could see a recently-built stucco addition in the rear, awkwardly attached to the bungalow (which has wood siding). I wanted to be certain that the new addition will respect the character of the historic home. The Board was surprised to hear about the stucco, and asked plenty of good questions. The homeowner indicated that this 6-month-old addition was poorly-constructed (by a previous owner, perhaps?). It will be demolished, in order to construct a new addition more in character with the bungalow -- with wood siding to match the front. Good news.

Several of the items on this agenda dealt with the issue of window replacement. This is a recent change -- just in the last month or so. Apparently, it is now the City's policy to refer window replacement projects to the DRB when the windows in question face the street. I think this is a step in the right direction. It seems to me that more mistakes are made with window replacement than most other "improvement projects". Better to have homeowners receive guidance from the architects on the DRB than the salespeople at Home Depot.

Finally, you might be interested to learn that there is a project in the works to build another condo project on Main Street. This one with be at the southeast corner of Main and Monterey -- two levels of underground parking, with 3 floors of condos (25 units). It is unclear if the First Commercial Bank building will be involved. More later.

August 14, 2007

The August 14th meeting of the Design Review Board was quite long, owing to the fact that there were 22 items on the agenda! Still, it moved fairly quickly through the usual suspects: commercial signage, window replacements, front yard fences and second story additions. Two items on the agenda were particularly noteworthy, and I have attached photos of these addresses.

33 Elm Street: [photo] Strictly speaking, this item should have been continued without a vote. The address printed in the published agenda was 30 Elm (across the street), and that's the property I researched to discuss. Since adequate public notice was not given, a case could be made that the vote to approve the project design was improper. The photo shows this lovely 1926 Spanish-style home as it appeared in May, 2005.
At that time, the property owner received design approval to put a second story addition on this home, and to build a second unit in the rear. Now, two years later, this historic home is gone. Nothing remains on the lot but the bare skeleton of studs and joists.

How did this happen, you ask? Good question.

The current proposal under consideration involves a brand new, 2-story home in front, and a garage in the rear with a second unit above. This was approved, and will now go to the Planning Commission.

1620 S. Stoneman: [photo] This is a 1924 Colonial Revival bungalow, located on the edge of the Ramona Park tract (between Glendon and Norwood). It definitely has some "issues". It needs paint and maintenance, and there is a poorly-integrated second-story addition at the rear (which cannot be seen in the photo). The owner wants to remove all the wood siding, and replace it with stucco, which will be cheaper and easier to maintain. I gave my "just say no to stucco" speech to the board. They considered the various alternatives, and finally agreed to let the owner do the stucco job. They have required him to retain the porch columns and wood treatment of the front portico, remove the prison bars from the doors and windows, and to keep the wood window trim.

July 24, 2007

Oscar and I attended tonight's DRB meeting, but it was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum.

July 10, 2007

A full agenda, but not much of significance to report from this meeting of the Design Review Board. One item that did receive approval was a plan to replace windows and remove wood siding from a 1920 bungalow at 1805 W. Lemon Street. This area north of the SCE yard is zoned for industrial uses, but contains a number of small bungalows -- most of them currently in very poor condition. The rear unit on this property has already been stuccoed-over, and now the front unit will match it.

There is a plan in the works to demolish 2 bungalows at 200 and 204 S. Almansor (adjoining properties, located where Bay State deadends at Almansor), and to build two houses on each lot. The existing bungalows, built in 1914 and 1915, are also in pretty bad shape, having had many of their significant architectural features removed or changed. The Board did not approve the new plan tonight, commenting that the project designer had missed an opportunity to provide more than a generic design that could be found in any developer-designed neighborhood in Southern California. Watch for this at a future meeting of the DRB.

June 12, 2007

Thanks to Joyce and Oscar for attending this meeting with me!

It was an extraordinarily long meeting of the Design Review Board, still going strong when I left the building after 11:00 p.m. APG members gave presentations on two separate items involving the proposed demolition or significant alteration of historic structures.

425 S. Fifth Street [photo]
This 1922 Craftsman bungalow is a classic example of a kit home, constructed from plans and materials purchased from the Pacific Ready-Cut Homes catalog during the post-WWI housing boom of the 1920's. Although it appears to be in near-original condition, the owner has proposed to demolish the structure, in order to build 2 two-story residences on the lot.

We have addressed the DRB on this matter at a previous meeting (August, 2006). Oscar gave an excellent presentation on the aesthetic and commercial value of saving this important community asset -- including a graphic presentation of the original advertising for the home. While the DRB members seemed to agree with us, they indicated that the Board does not have the power to require the owner to preserve this local treasure -- their charge is to make recommendations on his proposed design, while the Planning Commission and City Council set policy regarding planning decisions. The item was continued for additional design work.

402 S. Eighth Street [photo]:
The front house on this large lot is a 1915 Craftsman bungalow, which appears to be in need of cosmetic improvements, but is otherwise in excellent, near original condition. The owner proposes to cover the structure in stucco, replace original windows, and alter the roof architecture. I made a presentation regarding the current value of this property as a prototypical Craftsman home, vs. the significant depreciation that would be caused by inappropriate remodeling.

The DRB agreed whole-heartedly, and refused to approve the proposed changes. Still, the owner states that he does not want a Craftsman home, and is determined to remodel in some other style. The item was continued, to enable the owner to return to the Board with another plan.

The next meeting of the DRB will be June 26, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.

May 22, 2007

A common theme expressed by the Board to applicants at the 5/22/07 meeting was: pick a particular style of architecture for your new home or addition; familiarize yourself with its characteristics (going to a library or bookstore, if necessary); and then follow this theme throughout the project. Do not, for example, pick a detail from one style of architecture, and try to "stick it onto" another style. Instead, present a unified design. Be sure that the design of your addition and your existing structure are congruent.

This issue came up more than once -- especially with regard to projects that were described by their designers as Spanish-style (or "sort of Spanish"). There's a lot more to a Spanish-style home than just a stucco box with a red tile roof. It's great to see the Design Review Board making such a clear statement as this, in my opinion. Our community deserves buildings that reflect true quality design, rather than cheap, characterless construction.

Also, a lovely 1923 Tudor cottage at 1815 S. Fremont Avenue (photo) was on the agenda for a second-story addition. I presented a brief analysis of its character-defining features, and requested that the proposed addition be compatible with the existing home. The Board agreed, and this item was continued.

May 8, 2007

The May 8th meeting of the Design Review Board dealt with two different projects that involve tear-downs of historic structures, both of them in neighborhoods zoned R-3 (multiple family residential):

132 North Curtis Avenue [photo]
The attached photo shows the front residence at this address -- a tiny (840 square foot) 1924 Spanish style home which retains most of its distinctive original features. The back house on this lot (not pictured) was built in 1907. At one time, it must have been a lovely bungalow, but its character-defining features have been removed, and it is now clad in stucco. The proposed construction of four apartment units will demolish both structures. In a rare turn of events, I did not oppose the demolition. The proposed design for the apartments is sophisticated and modern. It involves two buildings, each of them 2-story, with a courtyard in between, and parking below ground level. The buildings are well-modulated and visually interesting. I think they are well-designed, and would be a welcome addition to the community. The project was approved tonight at the DRB. It will be interesting to see whether it receives approval at Planning Commission -- it's not the kind of thing they're used to seeing.

501 North First Street [photo]
This 1923 bungalow (see photo), located near Alhambra Road, is threatened by two large single-family residences to be built on one lot (7,500 square feet). The required seven parking spaces (!) will virtually eliminate any green space on the lot. I spoke out against this one, providing information about the history of the home. I described its significant architectural features, its original owners, and discussed neighborhood context. The Board spent a long time on this one, offering their suggestions to the project architect on modifications to design and layout that would enhance the project as well as permit more landscaping. This item was continued.

April 10, 2007

Oscar and I attended this meeting together, and we addressed the Board on several items relating to historic properties and neighborhoods:

1116 S. Third Street
This is a home located in the historic Mayfair district, a 1930's development of predominantly Tudor Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival homes. The neighborhood still retains a cohesive sense of design, and the homes are large and well-maintained. The owner of the property hopes to add a second story. I expressed concerns regarding roof slope consistency and window details, and asked the Board to evaluate whether the proposed design maintains the original Tudor design elements.

1521 S. Eighth Street [photo]
236 S. Electric Avenue [photo]
These are two small 1920's bungalows, both located in areas of the city which are zoned for multiple units. Their owners wish to build second units at the rear of the two properties. The same architect has been hired to design both new homes, and their plans are not consistent with the existing historic architecture. In one case (the Electric Avenue home), the owner wishes to stucco-over the existing bungalow, in order to match the proposed rear unit. My comments to the Board on these two properties were as follows:

Regarding 1521 S. Eighth) —
Here is a photo of the existing home on this property. It is located in the historic Ramona Park district, and was built in 1922 – during the second major homebuilding boom in this area. It is representative of the Period Revival of the California Bungalow style. Character-defining features include original redwood siding, a small front porch flanked by two wooden columns, original wood windows (the two large windows in front are each divided into three sections), gable roof with clipped gables along the main axis, as well as two smaller front-facing gables – one over the covered porch, and one with a louvered attic vent at its peak. This simple design may have been a kit home, constructed by its original owner from plans sold by Sears or Aladdin. I would simply ask that the new home to be built at the rear of the property reflect the existing architecture, which is so evocative of the Craftsman era and represents a distinctive period of California architecture.

Regarding 236 S. Electric —
Here are three photos that I took last year, when this attractive 1922 Craftsman cottage appeared previously on the agenda. The Design Review Board has requested a unified design for the project – one that respects the architectural aesthetic and character of the existing home. This bungalow was built in 1922. It is located near Commonwealth – and there are several other similar homes on Electric, indicating that they were most likely all built from the same plans, with the addition of individual design features by their separate owners to make each one unique. This bungalow features its original redwood siding, and a low gable roof with clipped ends – a design which is repeated over the entry. The front-facing gable surmounts a decorative arch over the porch, supported by corbels and grooved pilasters. It is a small home, but gracefully proportioned. I hope the second unit will echo these features, so that it can be an enhancement to the neighborhood. To stucco-over this bungalow in order to match the proposed rear unit would be to deface both the home and the neighborhood, in my opinion.

1833 S. Sixth Street [photo]
This is a tiny post-WWII home, located in the Ramona Park historic district. The house is located at the very back of the property; the owners wish to build a larger home in front, raze the garage, and reduce the size of the existing structure so that it can serve as a legal second unit. Oscar spoke as a concerned neighbor, and raised issues of design consistency and the maximization of green space.

His presentation can be viewed here.

All these items were continued to a future DRB meeting, with more design work required before the applicants can receive approval.

NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, April 24, 7:30 p.m.

March 27, 2007

1305 S. Primrose Avenue
This home is located just east of the intersection of Fremont Avenue and Mission Road. It was an application for a new two-story single family residence to replace a home that was destroyed in a fire. The applicant was proposing a Spanish-styled home stating that there were a number of Spanish-styled residences in the area and he admired the style. The Board was pleased with the design; however, suggested a number of detail changes which would make the new home even more Spanish in style. The applicant was very open to all their suggestions/changes and promised to meet with staff to make the necessary changes. There were quite a few neighbors and family members present to support the applicant. This item was approved (to the enthusiastic applause of the neighbors and family members) with the condition to meet with City staff to review alterations.

3215 Commonwealth Avenue
This home is located in the historic Emery Park area of Alhambra. The design presented was a hodge-podge of architectural styles and the Board expressed concern that the design had not changed significantly from the last time the Board had reviewed it. The Board suggested rendering the entry with a different type of material to provide more architectural detail and wanted to change the front round column design to square columns. One of the Board members asked if the applicant/architect was "...trying to design a Craftsman home." The item was continued with the conditions that the applicant and architect meet with staff to go over the ideas and conditions discussed at the meeting.

Oral Communications
Although I was the only person sitting in the audience at this point, the Board did mention the Design Guidelines joint meeting at 5:00 p.m. on April 16 at the Joslyn Center.

Next Meeting: April 10, 2007

March 13, 2007

Mike Lawrence and I attended the March 13 meeting of the DRB, and spoke regarding the proposed front yard fence on South Monterey Street (near Shorb). This was the same item we discussed at the last meeting (see my 2/27/07 report), but the only change in design since last time was the removal of wrought iron spikes not permitted by city code. When I drove past the property today before the meeting, it became clear to me that a major remodeling of the home is now in process, which will significantly alter the front elevation (and, potentially, change the character of the home and the streetscape). Although the addition is large, and extends across the entire front facade of the home, it did not trigger a design review because it does not represent an increase of more than 50% of the current square footage. To my way of thinking, this is a loophole in our planning and design process, which should be addressed as we develop design review guidelines.

As far as the fence at 1150 South Monterey Street was concerned, DRB members made it clear that the style of the fence must match (and complement) the style of the home. They asked the applicant to provide more information (i.e. drawings, plans, etc.) regarding the redesigned home, so that they can make an informed decision regarding his proposed fence. The project was again continued -- look for it at the next DRB meeting, on March 27 at City Hall.

February 27, 2007

The February 27 meeting of the Alhambra Design Review Board was attended by APG members Mike Lawrence and myself. Mike addressed the Board regarding a proposal to build a front yard fence at a neighbor's home on South Monterey Street. This home is located on a block of predominantly Spanish-style homes of the 1920's and 1930's. None of the other homes in the neighborhood have front yard fences. The fence proposed by the owner would be constructed of concrete block, with wrought iron between the pilasters.

Mike pointed out to the Board that this fence would not be consistent with the style of the home, and it would negatively alter the streetscape. He displayed photos of the neighborhood to illustrate his point, and he asked if there might be a landscaping solution to the owner's desire to provide safety and security for his family (i.e., a hedge instead of a fence). The Board agreed with our points of concern, clearly stating to the owner that the design of the fence must be appropriate to the style of the home. They discussed possible alterations to the design that would make the project more acceptable, and clarified that wrought iron spikes on a front yard fence do not comply with current city codes, and will not be approved. This project was continued, and will appear again at the Design Review Board before it can be built.

February 13, 2007

816 N. Marguerita Street:
This home is located in an area of mostly craftsman homes and the design submitted seemed to fit into this genre. The DRB found it acceptable and not too large. Aurelio M. was present and found the design acceptable. He was mostly concerned about "mansionization" and since this will not be a mansion he found it acceptable. I gave my spiel about the nature of that neighborhood and was greeted with much head nodding.

200-204 S. Almansor
This was continued for a better design. There were problems with the massing and the lack of articulation.

1410 S. Olive Ave:
This was on the agenda over a year ago for a second unit addition. At that time Chris and I advocated for maintaining the craftsman character of the existing house as to keeping the wood windows and the front porch pillars. Since then the house has been boarded up and the pillars removed. Now the owner wants to add a second story. The DRB found the design acceptable and I yet again asked for wood windows and restoring something resembling the original pillars. The applicant agreed but I have my doubts. This place is such a mess!

2405 El Paseo:
This is a teardown and I need to have a look at the existing house. The proposed replacement is a home of high quality but modern design. I liked it but I need to look at the neighborhood in order to picture it in that context. The owners are very concerned that the PC will reject their project.

My personal opinion is that a modern home can fit into an existing traditional neighborhood if it is of sufficient quality, well designed and integrated as to color and materials. After all we don't what to stifle genuine creativity. I look forward to this one at PC.

January 23, 2007

(

There was a very short meeting of the Design Review Board on Tuesday, January 23 -- three items on the agenda, and only two applicants were present to discuss their projects.

746 S. Stoneman
This will involve a demolition between Park and Los Higos. This is an R-3 zone, comprised almost entirely of condos and apartments. The two tiny bungalows that will be demolished are about all that's left of the original Alhambra Acres single-family neighborhood of the mid-1920's. These two little homes were recently purchased, with the intention of razing them to build a 14-unit condo development. The architect on the project is Simon Lee, a well-respected local professional. The Board was impressed with the project. They praised its modulation and massing, the carefully designed planned landscape plan, and the detailed plans and renderings.

Although the loss of these bungalows is sad, they are neither remarkable nor distinctive -- and I do think this project will benefit the neighborhood. Watch for it to appear on the next agenda of the Planning Commission.

January 9, 2007

Oscar and I attended the January 9th meeting of the Design Review Board, and there were two items on the agenda that we believe will be of concern to our members -- and to all those who value Alhambra's historic resources. One of them involves a possible demolition, and the other a remodeling project in a historic neighborhood.

822 North Monterey Street: (photo)
This 1904 cottage may be demolished to make way for six condo units, if the proposed project is approved. The home is a quaint cottage, representing the transitional architecture between the Victorian and Craftsman eras. The 1985 Historic Resources Survey singled this structure out as a local landmark, possessing outstanding architectural merit, and potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It is located in an R-3 (high density residential) zone in North Alhambra, and is surrounded by multiple unit buildings.

Oscar and I both spoke out about the importance of saving this structure. The DRB and the City Architect all seemed dismayed at the prospect of losing it to demolition. The developer responded to these concerns by saying that he believed the new owner would be amenable to working with the City to see if it could be sold for relocation. In the meantime, the DRB criticized the proposed design of the condo development (too generic, needs a lot more character, not enough green space, etc.). My guess is that this project will appear at least one more time on the DRB agenda before it can move on to the Planning Commission. We will need to mobilize significant community support at that Planning Commission meeting (and probably bring pressure upon the Development Department and the City Council) if we want to save this structure. Please consider what you can do to help.

816 North Marguerita Avenue:
This is a modest (1,069 sq. ft.) bungalow, located in the North Alhambra neighborhood featured in APG's first historic home tour. The owner plans to add a second story. There is nothing especially significant about this 1922 bungalow -- no special architecture, no famous architect -- but it is a home which contributes to the continuity and character of a cohesive historic neighborhood. I spoke to the Board about the importance of maintaining that integrity when designing the addition. The Board believes that the owner has done a fairly good job with the exterior changes, but the floor plan is awkward, and needs reworking. They asked for revisions to his design, and so this item will appear at least one more time on the DRB agenda before it is approved. If you own property in this area, or are concerned with this historic neighborhood, I urge you to find out more about the project, and make sure to attend the DRB meeting when it is next reviewed.

December 12, 2006

The December meeting of the Design Review Board was short and sweet. Only four items on the agenda, and one of them didn't show up! Eleanor and I were out of there by 8:30 p.m.!

We're getting some excellent feedback on the contributions of APG members at Design Review. One of the two City Architects commented to Eleanor Carter this week that he always respects our knowledge and our input at meetings. After tonight's meeting, a member of the Design Review Board approached us both to personally express his appreciation for our input and suggestions. I think we're making some headway!

Two items were approved at this meeting that may warrant our attention when they appear at Planning Commission:

500 W. San Marino Avenue
Will involve a tear-down of this 1938 home in the Mayfair Tract, and the construction of a two-story Spanish style residence. The new home will be large, but within the 35% floor area ratio (F.A.R.) allowed without a variance. Eleanor asked the architect some excellent questions about the design of a wrought iron gate and wall. He was very willing to accept her input, and volunteered to consult with her and with APG about the final design.

904 North Stoneman
Involves the division of a 1911 Craftsman into two units. This home has been quite badly treated over the last several decades, and much of its architectural significance has been erased. The proposed new construction, however, is very poorly designed. The DRB has worked very hard with the project designer to try to improve it -- without much success. At tonight's meeting, one member of the Board referred to the "completely substandard service areas" -- such as the kitchens and bathrooms. They are pretty much in agreement that this space is not really designed to be functional. They approved it tonight, I think, believing that it will not get approved by the Planning Commission (it has already been turned down there previously).

I'm pretty sure this was the last DRB meeting of 2006.

November 14, 2006

Here are a few of the highlights from the Design Review Board Meeting of Tuesday, November 14th:

409 S. Second Street (east side of the street, between Beacon and Mission):
This proposal to put a second story addition on the front house and make minor alterations on the rear house was approved with conditions. The existing house is unremarkable, but it sits on a block with a mixture of character homes from the 1920's and 30's (Spanish, Tudor and Craftsman). It appears to me that the project will be an improvement -- but we will want to keep our eyes on this when it comes to Planning Commission (and ask questions about landscaping and neighborhood compatibility).

411 Lindaraxa Park:
This proposal to build a GIANT new home at the edge of the San Pasqual Wash, east of Story Park, was approved. At 4,500+ square feet, this may be one of the largest homes in Alhambra. It sits on a huge half acre lot, so the size will be permitted under current zoning requirements. The design (now sort of Spanish Colonial) is much improved from the last time it appeared -- and the designer also plans to retain most of the heavily-wooded section of the lot. Watch for this at Planning Commission!

1149 S. Chapel Avenue (just north of Shorb, on the west side):
This proposal to build an addition on a 1928 Tudor home was approved. Most of the construction will be at the rear of the property -- not as visible from the street. Still, the Board members required, as a condition of their approval, that the new addition must match the existing in roof treatment, eaves, windows and doors, and stucco finish. When it comes to Planning Commission, let's ask our questions about the landscape plan.

October 24, 2006

This was a long meeting, but the agenda included many different kinds of items, such as commercial signs, cellular antennae, and front yard fences. There were really only three items worth our serious further attention:

1) 825 North Hidalgo:
This is currently a fairly non-descript stucco tract home in the Bean Tract, originally built in 1938 and quite well-maintained, on a street with primarily single story homes. The owner proposes to build a second story addition that is set back from the street. However, the proposed new design reflects a complete change in style. The new home will be Spanish style. The Board members commended the owner and the architect on the refinements and revisions in the project since it was first proposed. They approved the project, but with a caveat. They told the owner that this will be the only Spanish style house in his immediate neighborhood, and that he may face questions at the Planning Commission regarding the neighborhood context. In my experience, this statement was unprecedented! I've never known the Board to do this before. I think it's a step in the right direction.

2) 628 North Atlantic:
This project was approved last night -- a multiple unit residential development in an R-3 neighborhood just north of Alhambra Road. There are at least 16 units in four (two-story) buildings, with subterranean parking and well-landscaped common spaces. The architect is Simon Lee. The DRB has previously expressed very high regard for his work. This project will involve demolition of five buildings currently on the site, including at least two that date back to 1923. However, they appear to be in very poor repair, with no particular architectural significance. I'm certain this project will be approved at the Planning Commission.

3) 411 Lindaraxa Park:
This is a property located at the extreme western end of this street, where Lindaraxa Park meets the San Pasqual Wash (just east of Story Park). The property is huge -- about a half-acre, with a small nondescript 1935 home on it that is not easily visible from the street. The owner wants to build a GIANT 4,600+ square foot two-story home here, with five bedrooms and a six-car garage. Because the lot is so large, the size of the home is permissable under code. The proposed style is "quasi-Mediterranean" (with emphasis on the "quasi" part). The Board members offered plenty of constructive criticisms on this one, including the observation that the proposed design is far too generic, and looks like it could fit in any new tract, anywhere in Southern California. They asked the architect to do more work to emphasize and refine the Mediterranean features before he comes back again to the DRB.

Thanks to Eleanor for attending this one with me!

October10, 2006

Tonight's Design Review Board meeting was cancelled, due to the lack of a quorum. What a lovely gift, to have the evening off, unexpectedly! I had hoped to have an opportunity tonight to extend a personal invitation to the DRB members to attend our Candidates Forum. I ran into Board Chair Gary Tse in the parking area, though, and encouraged him to attend. I'm hoping he'll pass the word to all the other Board members.

September 26, 2006

Well, it was a very long agenda at the September 26 Design Review Board meeting, but the meeting moved along at a steady pace, and was adjourned by 10:15 p.m. Thanks to Oscar and Eleanor for showing up to relieve the moments of boredom! Oscar had a great presentation ready to give about the project at 425 S. Fifth Street, but that item didn't come up on the agenda

401 W. Mission
Those of you who remember (it must be long ago!) shopping at the little white clapboard, neighborhood store at the northwest corner of Mission and 4th better take a quick walk down memory lane...it will soon be demolished to make room for a condominium development. This one isn't the worst condo development I've seen (which is not saying all that much, actually!). It's a two-story development, in three separate buildings, all of which face Mission (six units total). The subterranean parking is accessed from 4th Street. At least the three buildings are separated by generous landscaped common areas. It's an R-3 (high density residential) zone. I'm thinking this project will be easily approved at Planning Commission. The store has been closed for quite awhile, and I'm guessing that there's not much of an argument to be made for saving the market structure (it appears to have been altered many times since it was originally built in the early 1900's).

1149 S. Chapel
The owners of this house proposed a 1-story addition to their home. I drove by this place to take a look at it before the meeting -- it has been quite badly altered since it was originally built in 1928. Most of the character-defining features of its Tudor style have been eliminated over time. Now it just looks awkward. I didn't bother to make a presentation, since the staff's comments indicated that the proposed project was unlikely to receive approval at this meeting. However, I was extremely pleased that Monica Kao pointed out to the owners that the original design was Tudor (before it was remodeled), and suggested that they might consider restoring some of those stylistic features to the house when they rework their design to submit again for consideration. Good for her! Some of our education efforts are bearing fruit, at least!

September 12, 2006

The big item on the agenda was the "Alhambra Place" development project, a mixed use project surrounded by Garfield Ave. (west). Monterey St. (east), Main Street (north) and Bay State St. (south).

The proposal involves the demolition of all but one building (the Bank of America) and the construction of parking structures, retail stores, food establishments and tiers of multi unit residences above. Snyder Co. gave an hour long presentation with graphics and a 3-D model which presented their vision of the project. It was an excellent presentation and showed that a lot of thought was put into it. There are water features in the central area and lots of greenery and landscaping. The DRB was very exicited about it and I have to say I was very pleased with it. I only wish that the rest of the West Main project was as well thought-out.

A proposed second story addition at 1209 Benito (R-3) zone was approved. This is a well-maintained Spanish style home in a rather rundown area. The entire property is surrounded by a 6 ft. wrought iron fence (understandable in this area). The second story addition was well conceived and integrated into the existing house -very unusual- and was approved by the DRB. At 10:00PM I left with 5 items remaining on the agenda.

August 22, 2006

A few of the highlights from the August 22, 2006 meeting of the Alhambra Design Review Board meeting:

425 S. Fifth Street (three doors north of Mission)
This modest bungalow is to be demolished . The owner plans to build two massive (2-story) stucco boxes on this R-2 lot, with heavy finishes and concrete roof tiles. I gave a presentation to the Board on the human and architectural history of the home, using this photo as a teaching tool. Thanks to Joyce's research assistance, I was able to tell the DRB a few interesting details about the home's first owners (Mr. & Mrs. George W. Hinton). I spoke about the home's significant architectural features, and the characteristics of the neighborhood. I talked about the loss to the community that occurs every time a historic home is demolished, and the need to pass a historic preservation ordinance. I asked the Board to work with the applicant to come up with a design that will blend with the neighborhood, and that will maintain its integrity over time -- as this house has for 84 years.

Without going into too much detail here, I can say that the DRB criticized the applicant's design as being too heavy and massive. They described it as two concrete boxes, with a few "stuck-on" details. Paul Coleman said that it looks very much like tract-home construction, identical to thousands of others throughout Southern California -- whereas the existing home has some delicacy to its design. Finally, the discussion ended with a suggestion from City Architect Rick Abe that the applicant give some serious consideration to saving and rehabilitating the historic home, and building a second unit at the rear of the property to meet his family's housing needs. The item was continued to a future meeting.

The last item on the agenda was the proposed development of Alhambra Place -- the block of downtown that is bounded by Main St., Garfield, Bay State, and Monterey. This is another mixed-use development, that will involve the demolition of everything on the block, with the exception of the Bank of America. Mysteriously, the Chair announced that the City asked that this item be removed from the agenda. It will be considered at the next DRB meeting, on 9/12/06.

June 27, 2006

It was standing room only at the 6/27/06 DRB meeting -- a rare occurrence. Thanks to Barbara, Joyce, and Eleanor for attending, as well as Rosemarie from the AHS. Also in the audience were our City Manager, Julio Fuentes, and Director of Development Services, Mike Martin. While our APG members were interested in a variety of items on the agenda, Mr. Fuentes and Mr. Martin seemed to be focused exclusively upon the development of Main Street, and another large mixed-use project on N. Garfield.

Despite another attempt by Joyce to stimulate discussion about the size, scale, and generic quality of the design, the giant mixed-use project for the current library site (Main Street, between 4th and 5th) was approved without any further comment. Perhaps the DRB members liked the plans, perhaps they thought this was the best design they could achieve under the circumstances, or perhaps they felt pressure to expedite matters. We'll probably never know for sure. This project will now move on to the Planning Commission in July, and I think we can expect speedy approval there, too. I'm guessing they'll break ground on this site by fall, 2006.

Another multi-use project is planning for 210 N. Garfield. This is the old telephone company building (now vacant), between Elgin and Woodward (around the corner from the threatened Victorian). This will involve subterranean parking, ground floor commercial lease space, and 3 levels of residences above street level. The design is (sort of) Moorish. It's better than some we've seen, but that's not saying much. The basic design was approved at DRB, but the Board members want to see a comprehensive landscape plan for the courtyard and rooftop areas before this project proceeds to Planning Commission.

Green space and landscaping were common concerns at this meeting, expressed by our members and selected DRB members (Monica Kao especially). Barbara spoke out on the proposed design of a second unit in her neighborhood.

June13, 2006

The first DRB meeting of June was even more fun than usual! We had four of our members in attendance: Eleanor, Joyce, Zelda and myself. It's always more interesting to share our impressions and compare notes on what's happening than it is to go it alone. Here are a few of the highlights from the meeting --

One of the first items on the agenda was the mixed-use development proposed for the Library site, at 410 W. Main Street. This is a five floor building, with ground floor commercial space and four floors of condo units. The project was reviewed by the DRB last month, and the Board members requested more openness at the main entry (so that the green space at the central courtyard could be visible to the street). The DRB was not entirely happy with the revisions that were made (one of them called the project disappointing, generic and formulaic), but they were acting like they might approve it anyway. They actually had a motion to approve on the table, when the Chair realized that there had not been an opportunity for public comment. Joyce then got up and gave a brief, impromptu speech about the poor quality of the proposed design, and its negative impact on Main Street. Her unplanned comments had a huge affect. The DRB was no longer willing to approve the item as currently designed. The motion died for lack of a second. The Board sent it back for still more redesign work (which could result in a slight reduction in density). I think this is an illustration of the fact that each one of us can make a difference -- just by showing up and speaking out. Good job, Joyce!

Two items that did receive approval were located on Hidalgo Avenue:

108 S. Hidalgo
This is a large, two-story Craftsman home that the owner wants to enlarge further. The original design was criticized at the last meeting for being completely out of character with the existing home. The owner has redesigned the project, and the addition now reflects a Craftsman theme. The Board thanked the applicant for taking their criticisms and suggestions seriously. The project is still quite large, and APG members should watch for this item at Planning Commission, to ask questions about floor area ratio (F.A.R.) and lot coverage.

301 N. Hidalgo
A project in Lindaraxa Park that we have criticized at three previous appearances. The property owner plans to build a two-story Spanish style house. The design is much improved, and the size has been reduced to 35% F.A.R. It still looks large to me. I recommend watching for this at Planning Commission, and asking questions about a landscaping plan that might soften the impact on the neighborhood.

May 9, 2006

It was another fun night at the Design Review Board, and everyone left happy! Thanks to Eleanor, Mike and Oscar for showing up -- APG members completely outnumbered the property owners. Seriously! Only two items on the agenda were covered (both of them approved). The remaining five items were continued until the next meeting, since their representatives did not show up to speak. The meeting adjourned by 7:45 p.m.

The project at 308 S. Meridian was one of the items approved. This is a proposed second-story addition to a 1924 Spanish-style home in Emery Park. The design has been reworked several times since it was initially proposed one year ago. APG members have weighed in quite a few times with our criticisms and suggestions. Finally, the approved design is one that honors the architecture of the existing home, and the size and scale seem appropriate to the neighborhood. We feel good about this one -- it's come a long way.

April 25, 2006

Tonight's Design Review Board Meeting was, on the whole, quite positive. Eleanor Carter, Mike Lawrence, and former City councilmember Efren Moreno joined me in the audience -- and we got through the agenda by 9:15 p.m.

Only one item was approved -- a second unit at 316 East Norwood. This project had appeared on the agenda at least four times previously, giving us plenty of opportunities to educate the Board and the applicant about the style of the existing home (a 1926 Tudor cottage), and to work with them on the issue of design compatibility.

All the other items on the agenda were discussed, and sent back for more design work. Our members spoke out on at least three of them. We raised the issues of size, zoning, neighborhood compatibility, and architectural style. I think we were very well-spoken and effective, and the DRB members gave our criticisms thoughtful consideration. The new appointee to the Board, Paul Coleman, was particularly helpful in articulating and expanding upon our concerns. In one case, he clarified Mike's criticisms of a project that proposes to put generic, tract-home style architecture in a mature neighborhood (Lindaraxa Park), and offered specific remedies to the owner.

That said, we still have much work to do. The owner of a 1910 bungalow at 329 S. Fourth Street (photo) still wants to tear it down and build two new units. The owner of 236 S. Electric is still talking about applying stucco to the exterior of his lovely little 1922 bungalow, to match the second unit he plans to build at the rear of the property. The owner of a 1913 bungalow in Lindaraxa Park wants to tear down his house and build to the maximum allowable size (larger than the majority of homes in the neighborhood). All of these things are allowed by current city ordinances. A historic preservation ordinance, and another to require green space/landscaping are desperately needed in this community. There's no time to waste!

April 11, 2006

Eleanor and I both attended the 4/11/06 DRB meeting, and spoke out on a few agenda items.

I think that the most noteworthy item is the home at 236 S. Electric Avenue, a cute little 1922 Craftsman cottage (photos attached). This is located in an R-3 zone, and the owner wants to put a 2-story second residence at the rear of the property. The staff report pointed out that the proposed second unit (a plain stucco box) bears no resemblance to the design of the existing home. I spoke about the architectural significance of the home, showed the attached photos, and pointed out a few of the interesting details. It was apparent that the DRB members agreed with me, and wanted to see the plans for the second house revised to be more in line with the Craftsman aesthetic. In response, the designer replied that the owner plans to stucco over the front bungalow, to make it look more like the home he wants to build at the rear.

I'm not kidding -- a horrified hush descended on the room when he said this. It felt like we we all observers of a violent crime. Finally, Paul Coleman (the new member of the DRB) spoke up and said that he felt it would be a complete tragedy to stucco the bungalow. After some mildly heated discussion, the item was continued without approval. It will be back, however, and we need to stay on top of this. In the meantime, if we have any APG members in the neighborhood, it would be a good idea to watch for signs of stucco...

March 15, 2006

Tonight's DRB meeting was short and sweet -- just how we like it! Adjourned by 8:30 p.m.! I think it's probably a record, or something! I think that something for us all to be concerned about is the increasing number of projects that come before the DRB (and the Planning Commission), which are specifically designed to cover the maximum allowable square footage. This phenomenon will soon be coming to your neighborhood, too. Tonight, there were at least three such projects on an agenda of only six items.

For example, the existing house located at 1150 S. Chapel -- an attractive Tudor cottage built in