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.

Please Refresh your browser for the most current information.

February 23, 2010

Three of our APG Board Members attended tonight's meeting (Chris, Mike and Nong), and together we addressed the DRB regarding a proposal to build a new home at 1105 S. Stoneman, designed by Sam Yum. Some of you may remember this project from prior attempts to put a two-story addition on the existing Spanish Revival style home, originally built in 1927 .

Since many of the DRB members at tonight's meeting have not been on the Board very long, I gave them a quick refresher on the history of the project. Sam Yum designed the two-story addition in 2008. It came before the Board at least four times that year. I don't think his design was ever approved by the DRB. Instead, a proposal to build a new home at this location came before the Planning Commission in March, 2009. The Planning Commission turned it down (in a 9-0 vote). The owner appealed, and it was again denied, with the PC raising issues of "detrimental alterations of the neighborhood character and stability; excessive bulk and massing; and lack of compatible proportion and scale with the surrounding area."

I spoke about the Design Guidelines, and the need to ensure that the new home will be compatible with the neighborhood. Mike provided photos of the neighborhood, to demonstrate its character and scale. He spoke about opposition to the former project by neighbors who showed up to fight it at the Planning Commission last year. We both share a common concern about the generic, tract-like design currently proposed for the new home.

Staff Architect Rick Abe pointed out that this project has been extensively reworked since the last submission, and should be considered on its own merits. He encouraged the property owner to rethink the proposed front yard fence/wall, and urged her to consider landscaping as an alternative. The DRB members expressed their desire to have more Spanish-style elements (i.e., casement windows, recessed archways, arched windows, etc.) incorporated into the design. The item was continued to a future meeting. I believe it may receive DRB approval at the next appearance, after which it will go to the Planning Commission.

Also -- a home at 1205 S. Sierra Vista is being redesigned, with an addition in the rear of the property and some changes to the front facade. It is currently a very simple and unadorned 1940's tract home, and it is being reworked to reflect a Spanish style. Since this redesign will improve dramatically the appearance of the home, I asked the Board to specify removal of the existing security bars on all windows, which give it the appearance of a crack house (No, I didn't use those exact words!). They agreed, and the project was approved with that condition.

NEXT DRB MEETING: Tuesday, March 9 at 7:30 p.m.

February 9, 2010

Tonight's agenda included a proposed second-story addition to the Tudor Revival residence at 1108 S. Ninth Street . The staff's written comments on the agenda indicated that the new addition was well-designed and well-integrated with the existing home. I asked the Design Review Board to examine the photos for the distinctive roof treatment on the existing home, which was originally designed to emulate the appearance of a thatched-roof English cottage. I expressed my hope that the second-story addition will incorporate the original roof design. Most of the Board nodded in agreement. The owner and her architect expressed dismay, however. Their plan had been to replace the entire roof with lightweight concrete tile. They said it would be too difficult and too costly to reproduce the old roof style.

Comments from the DRB members included statements to the effect that the house would lose its most charming feature as a result of the proposed change in roof style (Yung Kao); the removal of a major character-defining feature would reduce the home's value at resale (Gary Tse); and that such a major change in the home's character would necessitate a new, well-articulated and cohesive design (Megan Wang). Staff member Rick Abe referred to the proposed substitution of lightweight concrete tile as cheapening the design.

The project was continued, so that the owner can rethink her options. I met and spoke with her after the meeting. I suggested that she ask to see a copy of the Design Guidelines (she had never heard of them) at the Development Office, and recommended that she make an appointment to meet with Mr. Abe to get his input and suggestions. I gave her a copy of our APG brochure and my business card. She was friendly, but flummoxed.

This was a good save at the DRB, but it also indicates that property owners and their designers are not always informed about the Design Guidelines when they propose to add to their homes. We have work to do on this front.

Also -- for those of you who are interested in these matters, the Lucky Super Market at 1000 E. Valley has been sold. It will close on February 18, and reopen later in the month (after some remodeling to the entrance) as Cali Foods Market.

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

January 26, 2010

Not much to report from tonight's meeting. There were only 4 items on the agenda -- two cellular antenna installations, and two applications for signage in commercial buildings. There were no items relating to historic preservation.

However... you might be interested to learn about one of the sign applicants. If you've driven along West Valley Blvd. lately, you've probably noticed the ongoing renovations to a building on the north side of the street, between Ethel and Campbell (1819-1841 W. Valley Blvd.). This project has been under construction for more than a year. It's the one with the yellow banners out front, advertising Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and kickboxing lessons. Apparently, one of the main tenants in this building is an enterprise entitled Handcrafted Model Ships. They plan to open a maritime museum/showroom in this location very soon. Keep watching the site for a grand opening celebration.

Next DRB meeting: Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.

January 12, 2010

EXCELLENT NEWS TO REPORT AT LAST!

Thanks so much to the four APG members who turned out to provide support at tonight's DRB meeting, and to savor the good news. It's always more fun to share the experience with friends.

Our advocacy paid off tonight with the approval of two projects on which Alhambra Preservation Group members had previously weighed in. Both were historic homes in danger, due to inappropriate renovations which removed character-defining features.

1. 400 Winchester Avenue (), in Emery Park is a Spanish style home built in 1925. The current owner proposed to remodel, re-roof, and put an addition on the home that would have completely altered the character. This home is located in a historic neighborhood composed primarily of Tudor and Spanish-style residences. I spoke out against the project on October 27th. The DRB also had concerns about the project, and the item was continued multiple times for additional design work. The project was approved tonight, with the owner agreeing to maintain the front elevation and overall appearance of the home, with the new construction reinforcing the existing Spanish style.

2. 601 N. Dos Robles is the 1912 Craftsman bungalow at the northwest corner of Alhambra Road and Dos Robles. Several of our members addressed the DRB at its last meeting regarding their concerns about this project. Most of the character-defining detail on the home has been removed, and vinyl siding and windows have been installed. Since the last meeting, the homeowner has revised her proposal. She has now agreed to remove the vinyl siding, and replace it with wooden shingles similar to the original, stained a natural color. All the windows facing Alhambra Road and Dos Robles will be replaced with wood-framed windows, and the owner will work with the city architect to come up with an appropriate style. The owner was not present at the meeting tonight, but her new contractor was. I gave him my APG card, and asked him to encourage the owner call me to talk about the project. I told him that I understood it was upsetting to her, and that I was sorry for that. I suggested that we'd like to work together with her to figure out a way to make the whole process work better and more smoothly. If she received confusing or contradictory information from the Development Department, we'd like to address those problems so that others don't have the same kind of experience in the future that she did.

Tonight it really started to feel like we're making progress!

NEXT DRB MEETING: Tuesday, January 26 at 7:30 p.m.

December 8, 2009

DRB Meetings are seldom as spirited as they were on December 8th.

At least fifteen members and friends of APG showed up to protest the inappropriate renovations that have been done without City approval to the Craftsman bungalow at 601 North Dos Robles Place. The meeting room was packed. Councilman Yamauchi was there to observe the proceedings (he did not speak). So was our good friend, Professor Denise Lawrence from the School of Environmental Design at Cal Poly Pomona. The Alhambra Historical Society was well-represented. Seven people in the audience spoke out against the project -- including APG members, neighbors who live on Dos Robles, and a current Planning Commissioner.

Not a single person spoke in favor.

The Design Review Board agreed with all of us that the changes that have been made are not in character, and should not be permitted. They would not reject the owner's application outright, however. They made it clear that they believe their job is to work with the homeowner to come up with a solution that will be in the best interests of the owner and the neighborhood. They hope to find a compromise, and I respect that. The homeowner's representative, a new contractor who says he is not responsible for the work that has been done so far, claimed that $130,000 has already been spent by the owner on this project. He said that if the vinyl siding and the cheap vinyl windows are not acceptable to the Board, they will have to abandon work on the house. It seems to me that a good compromise will be exceedingly difficult to achieve. I'll keep you posted as this item appears on future DRB agendas.

In other news, the Board approved the application of the PEO Home to rescind prior approval of the design for the new Redstone project proposed for 700 N. Stoneman. The environmental review process is not yet complete. I expect to see a new design come before the Board early next year.

APG Board of Director Mike Lawrence spoke out against a project in his neighborhood, at 1216 S. Stoneman. The applicant wants to change the size and orientation of windows, in order to make his home more energy-efficient (through the installation of double-paned windows). While this is a goal we applaud, we feel that the project could benefit from some design counsel before it is approved. This item was continued, with a recommendation by the Board that the owner make some changes in his design and present more accurate drawings.

I spoke out regarding a new apartment complex (3 units) to be built at 912 N. Garfield Avenue. The lot is now vacant, but it once held a pair of 1914 Craftsman bungalows -- a large front house, and a smaller rear unit. These had been seriously neglected for many years, and they were finally demolished in 2009. I expressed my concerns about the proposed design of the apartments. I discussed the once-proud history of this neighborhood, and told the Board of its connection to General George Stoneman, the former Governor of California. I asked that they work with the applicant to come up with a well-conceived design that enhances the streetscape on one of Alhambra's most-traveled roadways. This project was continued, and I will keep you informed.

Those were the high points of a very involving and interesting meeting. Thanks to everyone who showed up to make a difference!

NEXT DRB MEETING: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.

November 24, 2009

Meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum and has been rescheduled for December 8th.

November 10, 2009

This was a very short agenda, consisting of only four items. The meeting lasted about 45 minutes.

Two items were new cellular antennae (and related screening) proposed for installation on rooftops of office buildings on Main Street and Valley Blvd. Both were approved.

Two proposals were for single-story additions to residences in the Almansor Park neighborhood. In both cases, the Board gave careful scrutiny to the floor plans. They expressed concern about general awkwardness and "lack of flow" (from room to room within the homes). They pointed out in one case that the proposed design appeared to make it quite easy to divide the single family home into two units. One of the projects was approved with some simple modifications, to which the owner readily agreed. The other project (at 1017 S. Hidalgo) was continued, with the Board recommending a reworked design. I very much appreciate the Board's careful attention to this issue. Too many neighborhoods are already zoned for multiple units, without offering up our single-family neighborhoods as well.

NEXT DRB MEETING: Tuesday, November 24 at 7:00 p.m.

October 27, 2009

Tonight's meeting covered a multitude of items. Here are highlights on just a few of them:

The owner of the property at 1701 S. 7th Street (in the East Ramona Tract) is proposing to demolish the existing home and build a new one. The home to be demolished has no significant historic or architectural merit, in my opinion. A combination of neglect, a history of inappropriate remodeling and a bad paint job make this one hard to defend from the wrecker. I think this is actually an opportunity to design a new residence that will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. The owner has chosen to go with a modified Craftsman design for the new home, but some of the proposed details need a lot more refinement, in my opinion. One element in the plan is a concrete tile roof -- the owner is adamant about her desire for this feature. This seems to me like the wrong roof treatment for a Craftsman home. The project was continued by the DRB. We'll see what happens at the next meeting, and whether the Board follows the recommendations of the Design Guidelines.

Sam Wong, the developer of Zen Terrace (the condo development nearing completion at Atlantic and Commonwealth), has proposed a major mixed use project for the northeast corner of Main and 3rd Streets. This will be a large five-story development, with commercial spaces (retail and restaurant) on the ground floor and residential units (a mixture of market-rate and senior housing) on the upper floors. The entrance to the parking garage will be on North 3rd Street. The design is roughly Mission style, with a tower on the corner of Third and Main and arches at the ground floor on Main Street. The name of the project is "Casita de Zen". Interesting. Neither term seems appropriate to me for this complex. The DRB continued the project, with their suggestions for design enhancements and modifications. My guess is that this will be approved at the next meeting, and then move on to the Planning Commission. Stay tuned.

A 1925 Spanish-style home in Emery Park is proposed for a remodel and addition -- 400 Winchester . The staff's comments indicated that the changes proposed by the owner would significantly alter the style of the home. I shared my photos with the DRB, and spoke about the history and character of the neighborhood. I referred to the Design Guidelines and their recommendations regarding window and roof design for Spanish-style houses. The Board listened carefully, and then made some recommendations for changes that will help to maintain the character of the home, while achieving the goals of the homeowner. The project was continued, so that the owner can present a reworked plan.

Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday, November 10 at 7:30 p.m.

October 13, 2009

Tonight's meeting of the DRB was delayed by almost an hour. Rick Abe had to employ heroic measures to obtain a quorum (of three people). When the third member arrived (from a work-related engagement) the meeting could finally proceed, and things moved very quickly thereafter.

I spoke out on a project to remodel a single family home located at 2135 S. Primrose, in the Granada Park Tract . The owner wants to remodel a two-story home, enclosing the original garage as living space and installing a curb cut from Montezuma Street so that an existing accessory building can be used as a garage. The home is located at the corner of Primrose and Montezuma.

I pointed out that this is a Spanish-style home, built in 1928. At some point in its history, the home has lost its terracotta tile roof, but its character is still clear from the orientation and placement of the windows and the presence of the arched garage door. I asked that the arch be retained and adapted, so that the character of the home will not be lost when this wall is permanently enclosed.

The Board agreed, and the project was approved with the condition that the applicant work with staff to design a suitable inset arch with appropriate window openings. I also met and chatted with a young APG member who was present at the meeting -- Mr. David Chan. He told me that he has an interest in historic architecture, which he developed in part when he was employed as a mail carrier at the South Pasadena Post Office, walking his route every day amidst beautifully-restored homes in that community. He suggested that we might better recruit younger Alhambrans to our organization if we had an APG page on Facebook or Twitter. Sounds like something to consider. We'll see David at our October membership meeting, later this week.

Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday, October 27 at 7:30 p.m.

September 22, 2009

What a short meeting! Only four items on the agenda, and one of the applicants was absent. Wish they were all like this!

One of the projects that received approval was a new two-story home to be built at 1812 Elm Street, in the Ethel Park area (one block east of Fremont). This will require the demolition of a 1927 Spanish style home which admittedly has lost most of its character over the last few decades. However, the R-1 neighborhood is filled with many fine examples of Spanish and Tudor-style homes of the 1920's and 1930's, with a few mid-century homes as infill. More than 90% of the homes in this neighborhood are single-story. Although the architect has done some significant modification on his initial design (presented at the last meeting), it still stands out as alien to the neighborhood. It also appears quite large for the 6,400 square foot lot. I think we should ask the Planning Commission to consider both the size of the project and whether it adequately blends with the neighborhood character when they are making their decision. Watch for this to appear on the Planning Commission agenda in October.

The audience at the DRB meeting was filled with young architecture students from East L.A. College. Since the meeting was so brief, the Board generously agreed to open it up for questions by the students. They had lots of questions about green building technology, which pleased me very much. They wanted to know whether Alhambra had any policies encouraging green building (NO). This provoked some excellent discussion about state standards that will gradually be put in place over the next several years, which will mandate green building practices. I was also interested to hear from Rick Abe that Alhambra's Design Review Board was established fairly recently, in response to the mansionization that was occurring in Arcadia in the 1980's.

NEXT DRB MEETING: Tuesday, October 13

September 8, 2009

Here are the results of last night's DRB meeting:

120 N. 4th St.
This Craftsman style home already had the wood siding removed and the windows replaced when a city inspector noticed the changes and caused the owner to come to the DRB. The DRB agreed to Hardiboard and asked that the front windows be replaced with wood.  The owner will consult with the city architect about window dimensions and the color to be used on the home. The DRB really tried to get the owner to do a quality job but I have my doubts.

700 N. Stoneman. This is the POE home project. The comments were mainly about the density and the massive appearance of the building but the architects had made cosmetic changes to the exterior and the DRB felt that since density and height are out of their purview they could do nothing but pass it on to the PC.

2620 El Paseo
This home is the log cabin style that so intrigued us. The owner will refinish the entire exteriorr ith Hardiplank with a synthetic wood shake roof. Unfortunately the windows have already been replaced with white vinyl.  This is about the best we could hope for.

Item 8 had the wrong address on the web site and should have been 1812 S. Elm St.  This a proposal for a new  two story home for which the web site info is correct.  The DRB is working with the architect to achieve a more articulated and less massive design

August 24, 2009

This was a fairly routine meeting but there were a couple of interesting issues.

2028 San Clemente Ave.
This was an application to add a full bathroom to the front of a home. Some interesting details came out of which the DRB was fully aware. The home already has 3 bedrooms and 2 full baths and one three quarter bath. The question was why more baths than bedrooms. The answer--so guests visiting in the living room would not have to walk through the rest of the house! The DRB suggested a powder room instead. She replied that why not build a full bath because there was room.

The DRB pointed out that on the previous plan the living room was marked bedroom and that one has to pass through a bedroom from the living room to access the dining room and kitchen. Rambling answer to this one. She argued on and on with the DRB with Gary losing his cool a bit. It was quite clear that she was angling to build rental rooms. He finally nearly had to beat her off with a stick and the item was continued.

1520 8th Street
The existing home was formerly a Spanish Style which had been changed so that it had no particular style, that adds nothing to the neighborhood. The proposed changes are a definite improvement to the property. The existing parapet which was the former remodel will be removed and a new roof line will be configured.

120 N. 4th Street.
This is a 1914 Craftsman. The wood shingles have already been removed and the owner intends to replace them with Hardie-board. The windows and the Craftsman details were at issue.

The windows have already been replaced with cheap paned windows. It didn't seem to me that the DRB was going to ask them to replace the paned windows with more appropriate ones. They asked the owner to keep all the existing craftsman details, to frame the windows with wood and to consider changing the color choice. They asked for new drawings to show exactly how the completed home will appear. I left to talk to the owners and I suggested that they drive around northwest Alhambra to look at existing Craftsman homes to get a better idea of what was an appropriate color. They seemed genuinely ignorant but willing to cooperate. This final item brought to mind a glaring omission in the education of our fellow citizens.

The DRB is trying to uphold the design guidelines but the problem is that there is no education forthcoming from the planning office. One of our goals could be to perhaps move that office in the right direction. I think it would be a really good idea to meet with the new Director of Planning early on, explain our organization, and offer our services to work with them in educating the public and perhaps some of the staff. We could put a positive spin on everything with no references to past goof ups and political collusion.

NEXT MEETING September 8, 2009.

August 11, 2009

Eleanor, Gregg, Susan and I attended the meeting last night and it was pretty interesting. Denise Lawrence, professor at Cal Poly Pomona took a lot of notes and seemed amused at the dog and pony show.

The suits were hauling in their display boards and I sensed politics and money was in the air- more on that later.  

Yung Kao, Meghan Wang, Adam Lau, Richard Abe and Gary Tse were the attending board members.

2608 Birch Street was up for the 2 unit addition in the back. The owner was very cooperative and listened to the advice of the board and was determined to make the addition match the existing front of the house. He responded to the concern for green space by stating that he hated concrete and would put in a green driveway with the web material allowing grass to grow in the paved areas. He said he took pride in his garden and would landscape the rear area in a manner similar to the front yard. This project looks like it will be eventually resolved in a way that will fit the design guidelines.

400 Orange Grove Avenue was another story. The owner had put in a weird gate and fence that was not up to code. She had also enclosed the porch in a Mickey Mouse screen that looked like crap. She blew a lot of smoke blaming the front desk of the Planning Department for all of her troubles. She was cited for several other issues involving construction material left in the front yard because " I   had no other place to put it"- oh that will work! LOL! She needed the gate and porch screen because her doors and windows had been broken and would not lock. Huh? She played dumb and the board did not buy it and told her to get a design that was in code and then come back with a drawing and they would advise her on what would be compatible to the neighborhood. She had to go to court over the citations and ask the board to give her more time. Interesting that they actually pursued these violations into the court system.

2620 El Paseo was the charming log cabin house with the deer in the front yard. I gave my spiel about what a unique home this was and   the board was very interested in the property and could see this was going to be a tough one to resolve. The owner had just bought the   house which was still in escrow. He was represented by a construction guy that could barely understand what was going on. The "contractor" said the entire house was falling down and he was just following orders from the owner to stucco the outside and put on an asphalt roof. He said the logs were beyond repair due to termite damage and that stucco looked good. He had no drawings and did not   understand what "character of the house" meant. If the logs are beyond repair, what would a coating of stucco do for the structural damage is beyond me.

Our friend Yung Kao mumbled that there was no historic preservation ordinance and these types of homes throughout Alhambra were not museum pieces to be preserved and the owners should be allowed to make them livable. That he is no friend of our cause was very evident and I really disliked his comments. The rest of the board seemed perplexed about how to approach this but firmly told him to come up with some drawings on what the owner intended and that the design should enhance the home. This looks like a lost cause, but I don't think they will let him just slap stucco on the outside and call it done. We shall see.

1004 S. Fourth Street. The owner had a long rap about "enjoying sitting outside to enjoy the garden" and tried to buffalo the board with a long winded story. They told her the corrugated steel porch would not match the house and neighborhood.  She just kept blabbing about enjoying sitting outside and how the neighbors like her flowers. Gary Tse finally cut her off and told her they had already heard her story and that she needed to come up with some drawings or plans, then come back. What a load she was!

700 South Stoneman. This is the PEO project that I mentioned that had all the suits bustling about. I was ready to leave at this point as it looked from all of the blueprints and pictures that it was going to be a long presentation. Eleanor and I stuck around for the opening statements and were surprised when 3 or 4 well-spoken neighbors and property owners got up and blasted the project for violating the city plan, zoning ordinances and the character of the neighborhood.  

One speaker had his facts together and really laid down the violations in a very logical and easy to follow presentation. The suits were squirming and had some very sour looks on their faces. He stated that the R2 code was very exact in the height limits and that "all the blue sky and puffy clouds on the pretty pictures was not going to change that." He thought that the addition of architectural details to mitigate the massing was bull and putting a dress on an elephant still left you with an elephant. The board was nodding their heads and chuckling, but GaryTse said their job was only to address the design and that the PC would deal with the variances and number of units. I believe only 150 units were allowed by the the ordinances and they were asking for over 200. Does all this sound familiar? I am firmly convinced that this is backed by some inside political connections. This is worth watching and it will be enlightening to see who on the PC and City Council is backing this. The old monopoly gang is still going strong in Alhambra.

July 28, 2009

I spoke out regarding two projects on this agenda:

1. The 1913 Craftsman farmhouse (with architectural elements that reflect a Victorian influence) at 1104 S. Campbell has been on the DRB agenda for a year and a half. The owners have been trying to put a giant addition on the home, located in the East Shorb tract. After much work and negotiation over many months between the DRB and the owner, with input from APG, the size and scale of the addition was reduced. The DRB agreed to a window replacement, but they told the owner he could not apply stucco to the home's exterior. The project received conditional approval last spring. Now that the addition is near completion, the owner requested that the Board reconsider the issue of stucco. He really wants a stucco exterior on this home. Since there are two new DRB members who are unaware of the project's long history at design review, I filled them in on the back story. I shared the photo I had taken of the home back in February of 2008, and pointed out distinctive features that would be eliminated by the application of stucco. I asked the Boardto again deny the request -- and they did. YES!

2. The 1941 Spanish Colonial Revival home at 2001 Westmont Drive, in the Midwick Park tract is a particularly fine example of this style, even though it was built after the period of its heyday. The current owner wants to put a single-story addition on the front of the home. I showed the Board my photo of the existing home, and pointed out its distinctive architectural features: the L-shaped arcade framing a brick courtyard; decorative scalloped arches repeated throughout; porte cochere extending across the driveway; large arched picture window facing the street; and a decorative weathervane atop the small central tower. The Board was clearly impressed by this lovely home, and the members were glad to have the photo to study. The proposed addition would have eliminated many of the distinctive features, but saved a portion of the front courtyard. The homeowner said that his wife admires a home nearby on Westminster, which recently won an Alhambra Beautiful Award. The couple is trying to replicate that house with their remodel (underscoring the value of preservation awards, in my mind). The Board worked hard to reconcile the needs of the homeowner with the desire to preserve the distinctive architecture of this home. In the end, some features were saved (the arches flanking the picture window, part of the courtyard, the porte-cochere) and some were lost (the interior arcade and its arches). A partial victory -- and the homeowner genuinely appreciated my admiration of his home. He took an APG brochure so that he can learn more about our organization. I shared information with the Board about the upcoming workshop in Pasadena (August 11), sponsored by the California Preservation Foundation, on the use and application of the California Historic Building Code. I asked Rick Abe to let the City Development Staff know about it also.Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday, August 11 at 7:30 p.m.

NOTE: I will not be able to attend the next 3 DRB meetings --8/11/09, 8/25/09, and 9/8/09. Anyone willing to cover one or more of these meetings for APG?

June 23, 2009

What a difference Design Guidelines make!

This meeting had a long agenda, primarily related to business signage, and was made even longer by the cancellation of the first meeting in June (no quorum). However, I was able to reference our newly-approved Design Guidelines on two residential projects, and in both cases the results were impressive.

The owner of a lovely 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival home at 412 N. Olive wants to build a single-story guest house in the rear. It will not be visible from the street. This house is located in a small area of R-1 homes on North Olive. The staff's comments on the agenda suggested that the proposed design of the guest house was a bit less accomplished than it might be. I made a quick presentation on the character of the home and its neighbors, and asked the Board to follow the new Guidelines in approving a design for the guest house that maintains the style and appearance of the primary structure, as well as respecting the historic character of the home and the neighborhood. They agreed, and sent the owner and his designer back to do some more work.

The owner of a 1923 bungalow at 217 N. Primrose wants to build a single-story addition. For some unknown reason, the agenda referred to this single family residence as a "modest non-descript structure in the neighborhood with no unifying architectural theme". I took issue with the staff's description of the home. I described its history and its neighborhood (originally known as Oneonta Park), and I characterized the home as a classic 1920's period revival of the craftsman bungalow. I explained that the neighborhood is a mixture of R-2 and R-3 zoning. I informed the Board that the new Guidelines allow them to apply these same principles to single family homes, whether or not they are located in R-1 zones, if they feel it is appropriate to do so. It's their call. The owner of the property wanted to stucco the structure and the addition, and to remove window trims. I referred the Board and the homeowner to the sections of the Guidelines that describe wood siding as an important feature of craftsman homes, which should be retained, not removed or plastered. I also talked about the need to maintain the look and appearance of the existing structure in the new addition -- with particular attention to exterior materials and window treatment. All of this came from the new Guidelines. The result? No stucco and no removal of window trims. Another win.

Finally, here's something for our "Hall of Shame". The owner of two units in what used to be Dolgeville added a second-story bathroom to the rear unit without a permit . The City discovered it while working the neighborhood, and required the owner to legalize the addition. This area is zoned for commercial use, but is primarily residential at this point. The item was on the consent agenda, and recommended for approval by staff. Part of the justification for approval was that it is in the rear, with reduced visibility. I had no trouble getting a photograph from the adjacent street (Cypress).

Honestly, this is a new low -- even forAlhambra!

Next DRB Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 14 at 7:30 p.m. I won't be able to attend. Can someone cover this one for APG?

May 12, 2009

There's not much to report. There were only a few items on tonight's agenda, most of them related to new signage for churches and
businesses. The slowdown in construction continues to be good news for Alhambra preservationists.

More good news: I overheard some discussion amongst Board members about the still-vacant seat on the DRB. Apparently former Board member Paul Coleman is being encouraged to return.

NEXT DRB MEETING: Tuesday, May 26 at 7:30 p.m.

April 26, 2009

There's not much to report from tonight's meeting of the Design Review Board... The agenda covered a few small residential projects, a front yard fence, wall signs for a church, and a couple of commercial projects.

The property owner of 1104 S. Campbell Avenue continues to try to get approval to put a large new addition on his 1913 Craftsman farmhouse in the East Shorb Tract. This project would also involve the removal of the historic home's wood siding, and replacement with stucco. This has been on the agenda multiple times in the last year, and I've previously spoken against the project. It appeared on tonight's agenda, but the owner didn't show up. Another continuance. Stay tuned.

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

April 14, 2009

Tonight's agenda included six items on the consent agenda, which were approved by the Board with one vote. Additionally, two items on the hearing agenda (an industrial building, and an office addition) were approved after some discussion by the Board. Several of the items on the consent agenda were previously discussed at a meeting on March 24, at which a quorum was not present (I missed the meeting also).

They included an application to build a second unit at 1840 S. Fifth Street, in the Ramona Park area. It is a nicely-maintained 1920 bungalow, with two bedrooms and 1 bath (1,056 square feet). The staff's comments indicate that the proposed second home will be located in the rear of the property, and will follow the design of the existing home with regard to materials, window treatment, roofing, architectural style and proportions. I haven't seen the plans, but it sounds pretty good to me. Let's watch for this at the Planning Commission, and keep an eye on the construction process -- to make sure the rear unit is as promised. If so, this will be a small victory for us.

Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday, April 28 at 7:30 p.m.

March 24, 2009

There was no APG representative at this meeting.

March 10, 2009

I attended tonight's DRB Meeting, but no historic or architecturally significant structures were threatened. Consequently, I didn't have to speak on any item. It was a very short agenda -- there's not much development happening in this town right now.

Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday March 24th at 7:30 PM.

January 27, 2009

The most noteworthy item on tonight's agenda was the approval of a design by Sam Yum, for a new two-story residence at 1216 S. Campbell Avenue (in the East Shorb Tract).  The existing small home on the lot will be retained, but slightly reduced in size, in order to qualify as a "mother-in-law" unit.  The proposed new home is a very large two-story, with 4-5 bedrooms.  This project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board at five separate meetings (dating back to last August), and Michael Abe, the City Architect has also provided his active assistance and expertise to the designer.  Now it's up to the Planning Commission, as to whether or not they approve this giant home and second unit in an R-1 neighborhood, with a bare minimum of landscaped area. As you can see in this aerial photograph, it literallly is the last patch of green in the entire block. Let's keep an eye on this one. 

Next DRB meeting:  Tuesday, February 10 at 7:30 p.m.

January 13, 2009

Tonight's agenda contained a mixture of commercial and residential projects.  One was especially noteworthy -- a proposed two-story addition to a residence in Lindaraxa Park (515 North Cordova).  The existing home is a typical post-WWII ranch style, in a neighborhood that contains a mixture of single-story Tudor revival, Spanish, and ranch style homes.  This addition was originally proposed in 2006.  After multiple appearances at the DRB, a design was approved by the Board on 9/26/06.  The Planning Commission refused to give their approval to the project.  They expressed concerns about neighborhood context and compatibility, and they sent it back to Design Review, with a recommendation for redesign. 

Both the homeowner and the contractor were angry about the forced delay of their project.  They could not understand how they had met all the requirements of the DRB in 2006, but were subsequently rejected by the Planning Commission for design reasons.  The contractor in particular was angry to the point of combativeness -- he walked out of the meeting in frustration.  It seems to me that if the City of Alhambra had an approved and published set of Design Guidelines, there might be more clarity for homeowners and contractors (not to mention Board and Commission members) about the issues of neighborhood context and compatibility.  What's our City Council waiting for?  When can we expect them to vote on the Design Guidelines that were presented to the City more than 14 months ago by Downtown Solutions, and have since been thoroughly vetted by staff, boards, commissions as well as the community at large? 

Next DRB Meeting: Tuesday January 27 at 7:30 PM.

December 9, 2008

At tonight's meeting, the Board approved a design for a new residence to be built at 1805 S. 8th Street, in the East Ramona Tract (with Monica Kao recusing herself from the vote).  You may remember that this project has appeared previously (see notes and photo from the 2/12/08 and 4/8/08 meetings).  This will involve the demolition of an authentic 1922 bungalow. 

The previous design was approved by the Board in April, but the Planning Commission rejected it as incompatible with the neighborhood.  The newly approved design was prepared by Monica Kao's firm (a change of designer, and a new direction for the project).  Staff comments refer to clearly executed details, effective use of the Craftsman style vocabulary, and good choice of materials.  This will now move on to the Planning Commission, probably in January.  If you have concerns about this project, you can study the plans at the City Hall Development Office, or attend the next Planning Commission meeting.  Although I am distressed at the loss of an historic structure, I am pretty confident that Monica Kao has presented a high quality design that will enhance the neighborhood aesthetic. 

A nearly identical design (also prepared by Ms. Kao's firm) for a new home to be constructed at 1600 S. 7th Street (southeast corner of 7th and Norwood) was also approved.  This will involve the demolition of a non-distinctive 1939 structure. 

A project designed by Sam Yum was continued again.  This will involve the construction of a very large new home at 1216 S. Campbell, in the East Shorb Tract.  No historically-significant buildings will be altered. 

Several college architecture students attended tonight's meeting to observe the proceedings -- a few from ELACC, and a graduate student from Cal Poly Pomona.  The Cal Poly student was there at the suggestion of our own APG member, Professor Denise Lawrence, who encouraged her to connect with a representative of Alhambra Preservation Group (yours truly!) and learn what's happening. 

That's all, folks!  Next DRB Meeting will be Tuesday, January 13, 2009. 

Happy Holidays!

November 28, 2008

Meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum.

November 12 , 2008

I attended tonight's meeting, but didn't have to speak on any item.  It was a very short agenda -- there's a noticeable slowdown in development in this town. 

Next DRB meeting:  Tuesday, November 25 at 7:30 p.m.

October 28, 2008

This meeting was a mixed bag, with one major win and one major loss to report.  I'll start with the win:
1.  The owner of a 1913 Craftsman bungalow, located at 407 S. 4th Street () in the Alhambra Vista Tract, submitted an application to replace his existing asphalt-shingle roof with concrete tile.  The City Architect made the determination to send this item to the Design Review Board, since the proposed replacement material was not in the character of the existing home ("an excellent example of period architecture that would be significantly affected by the use of a nonstandard material").  The roofing contractor made his presentation to the Board, using samples of the proposed replacement tiles as visual aids.  These are heavy concrete tiles in a medium gray color palette, very different from the existing low-profile asphalt shingles.  The contractor claimed the new tiles would last for 50 years, and would improve the value of the home.  The DRB wasn't buying it.  After much discussion and consideration, the Board rejected this item outright (Monica Kao made the motion to reject, Meghan Wang seconded it).  Good for them!  The proposed change in roofing material would have made this classic Craftsman stick out like a sore thumb, and I applaud the Board's decision. 

2.  The owner of the Fred Marshall home, a classic 1907 Arts & Crafts mansion located at 1601 S. 4th Street [] appeared for a second time before the Board regarding her proposal to remove all the exterior wood clapboard siding and shingles from this distinctive home, replacing it with cement fiber material (Hardie plank and Hardie shingle).  The owner believes this will make the structure more fire-resistant, and will eliminate the need for future painting.  Oscar and I spoke out against this plan at the July 8, 2008 meeting of the DRB (see previous notes and photo).  At tonight's meeting, the contractor was present, and provided technical information regarding how the shingle can be applied to the curved and mitered areas of the front facade.  After much discussion, the Board approved the project.  Sadly, this will radically compromise the integrity of this historic building, in my opinion rendering it no longer eligible for landmark status on the National Register of Historic Places.  This is a major loss for historic preservation in the Ramona Park neighborhood. 

Next DRB Meeting:  Wednesday, November 5 at 7:30 p.m. (note the different date, to accommodate November holidays)

September 23, 2008

There were several items of interest on this agenda, but I'll report on three of them: 

1.  The owners of a 1924 bungalow, located at 1425 S. Monterey, wish to remove the original redwood siding and replace it with stucco.  They feel very strongly about this.  They want a stucco house (but they have a Craftsman bungalow!)  The DRB felt equally strongly that they wanted to preserve the distinctive architectural character of this bungalow -- to replace wood siding with stucco would reduce its value.  The Board lobbied hard for maintaining the siding, or if necessary, replacement with Hardee Plank.  After much discussion, the Board continued the project, and asked the applicant to consider the cost-benefit ratio before this returns to the agenda next time. 

2.  A new owner has recently purchased the distinctive 1935 Spanish bungalow motor court located at 2800 W. Valley Blvd. ().  He proposes to renovate the twelve units, remove window trims and shutters, replace wood windows with vinyl, and paint the place yellow.  The intention is to once again operate this as a motel. 

I got up and spoke about the potential for preservation, and the ability to take advantage of tax benefits available to commercial projects.  I said that I was confident of the ability of this property to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places -- a representative of the pattern of American migration during the Great Depression.  As a National Register property, a rehabilitation project for commercial purposes would allow the owner to recoup up to 20% of his investment in federal tax credits, provided that the project meets the appropriate guidelines for historic preservation.  This definitely got his attention!  He took my card, and promised to call for more discussion.  I would hate to lose this local landmark through an inappropriate renovation. 

3.  A proposal by Sam Yum to build a new two-story residence at 1216 S. Campbell was again continued.  This would be a very large home in a residential neighborhood, with almost no landscaped area.  Monica Kao pointed out, as she has previously, that the design shows a very high probability of being converted to two separate units -- which would be innapropriate in an R-1 neighborhood.  More design work is needed, and a reduction in the massing. 

Next DRB Meeting:  Tuesday, October 14 at 7:30 p.m.  I won't be able to attend.  We could definitely use a volunteer to attend this meeting on behalf of APG.

August 26, 2008

I requested that an item be removed from tonight's Consent Agenda, so that I could raise the issue of appropriate color selection for the Board to consider.  The owner of a large two-story Arts & Crafts home located at 1515 S. Sixth Street (in East Ramona) plans to build a second unit in the rear -- also two-story.  I am assuming that this project will require a variance at a future Planning Commission meeting, since the property is located in an R-1 neighborhood, and the second unit is large.  Regardless, the City Architect's comments indicated that the second unit utilizes architectural elements from the existing home, as well as its color scheme.  The existing home is yellow, with brick red trim.  I tried to make the case to the Board that this is a complete departure from the historically and architecturally-appropriate colors for Arts & Crafts home of this period (1922).  I suggested that this might be a good opportunity to increase the value of the property (and the neighborhood) by recommending a period-appropriate color scheme for both units.  The Board seemed curiously averse to having this discussion.  Ultimately, they suggested repainting the red trim in a brownish color, a solution with which I am not happy.  I believe more education is needed here... 

After six appearances before the DRB, Sam Yum received conditional approval for a project to put a two-story addition on a small Spanish-style home in Ethel Park (1716 S. Primrose Avenue -- see prior notes).  He is required to work with the staff architect to resolve a number of design issues before this project moves on to the Planning Commission.  Look for it to appear next month. 

NEXT DRB MEETING:  Tuesday, September 9 at 7:30 p.m. 

August 12, 2008

Disappointing news:  I have it on good authority that Paul Coleman has resigned his seat on the Design Review Board.  He will definitely be missed.  Paul was an effective member of the Board, who was never shy about challenging applicants to obtain the best possible design for their projects.  He understands the vernacular of both historic and modern architecture, and is an excellent communicator.  I hope his replacement (to be appointed by Councilmember Yamauchi) will be as skilled as he has proven to be. 

The design was approved for a new home to be built at 105 E. Adams (just east of Stoneman, in the Martha Baldwin Tract).  This will involve the demolition of a postwar tract home of little architectural significance.  The new home will be a "hybrid of Mediterranean and Spanish" design.  I haven't seen the plans (this passed without comment on the Consent Agenda), but am concerned about the size of the new home and its compatibility with this well-established neighborhood.  Watch for this project to appear before the Planning Commission soon. 

Several items on the LONG agenda involved front yard fences, many of them already completed or under construction.  As Monica Kao observed, "it appears that Code Compliance has been very busy in the last few weeks!"  In all cases, the Board worked with property owners to revise their designs to achieve the best possible outcome.  Still, I am concerned about what seems to be the trend toward "fortification" of front yards within previously open neighborhood landscapes. 

Designer Sam Yum appeared again to discuss his plans for two-story additions at 1105 S. Stoneman and 1716 S. Primrose.  These projects have appeared multiple times before the Board, and still did not receive approval at this meeting. 

NEXT DRB MEETING:  Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. 

July 22, 2008

Meeting cancelled due to lack of quorom.

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 1930. The owner wants to put an addition on the rear of this 1,206 sq. ft. home that will more than double its size. I made a presentation on the house and its architectural features, and I distributed the photo(s) to the DRB members. There was an excellent discussion about how to maintain the character of the existing home. The item was continued, but it will be back -- and it will be BIG!

The design of a new home at 328 E. Los Higos (corner of Sierra Vista) was approved tonight. The architect has made many revisions since the project was first submitted, and it has vastly improved. Our members have spoken out on this project at least three times. The approved design is now more identifiably Spanish-style, with a hand-troweled stucco finish, exposed beams, and wrought iron ornamentation. The DRB members liked the improved design a lot. Watch for this at a future Planning Commission meeting. The existing home on this small lot will be bulldozed (no great loss, in my opinion).

Another item of discussion tonight was a two-story addition to a home at 515 N. Cordova Street (just south of Alhambra Rd.). This is a non-distinctive 1948 stucco house. Most of the houses on the street are one-story homes -- some are quite nice. The proposed addition is designed to max out the allowable floor area ratio at more than 2,500 sq. ft. This is considerably larger than most of the homes on the street. Something to keep our eyes on...

February 28, 2006

The Design Review Meeting on Tuesday, February 28 was blessedly brief --only six items, and I was home before 9:00 p.m. YES!!!

The most interesting item on the agenda was a proposed two-story secondunit, to be built behind an existing home on a very deep lot at 316 East Norwood (between Chapel and Sierra Vista). This appeared on the agenda for the first time last month, and the DRB members had some serious concerns about lack of compatibility with the existing home. However, the photos presented by the applicant at that time were not easy to decipher. This time, I brought my own photo of the property to share with the Board, and I gave a brief presentation on the existing Tudor cottage, built in 1926. In no way does the design of the proposed second unit relate to the front house -- and the Board agreed with me. They gave the applicant some clear direction about ways to bring these two structures into agreement, and asked him to return with revised plans.

It's worth noting that Planning Commissioner Stephen Sham was in the audience at this meeting -- it's the first time I've seen him there. I couldn't tell if he was there just to observe, to support friends who had an item on the agenda, or to do some early glad-handing in advance of the City Council election (he's a candidate for District 1).

That's all for now... The next meeting of the Design Review Board will be on Tuesday, March 14th. Hope to see you there!

January 24, 2006

Last night's DRB meeting was a breeze... There are only a few items worth noting:

1) The property owner at 316 E. Norwood (R-2 zone) wants to put a second unit at the rear of the property. The front house is a cute little English cottage, vintage 1926. The proposed back house is 2-stories tall, and seriously ugly. The DRB had a lot of problems with this project, and sent it back for redesign. Their chief reason was the incompatibility of styles. Good for them!

2) There is an application for a 2-story addition to a 1912 Craftsman, located at 108 S. Hidalgo. The current home is already larger than average (2,032 square feet). It appears that the proposed design for the addition attempts to match the existing house -- not entirely successfully. The applicant was not present last night, so this item was continued. We need to keep our eyes on this one when it comes up again for review.

3) Approval was given to the design of a one-story addition at 1621 S. Hidalgo. There are no significant preservation issues related to this 1947 home, but there was very little discussion at last night's meeting before they voted to approve. At two previous meetings, the DRB has had issues regarding the absence of a landscaping plan, the size of the project, and the ease with which the house could be separated into two units. It would be a good idea to watch for this at Planning Commission.

4) I spoke last night to the DRB regarding the issuance of the RFP related to Design Review guidelines for R-1 zones, and encouraged them to let their colleagues know about this bidding opportunity -- especially those who have expertise in historic preservation issues!

January 10, 2006

(

Last night's DRB meeting was another enduro event. I left at midnight, while an active conversation about the final agenda item was still going on. I had hoped to end the evening by reporting to the DRB members about the Council's issuance of our long-awaited RFP regarding design guidelines. By midnight, with the meeting winding down but still not over, the timing didn't seem right. I wanted to have their full attention, so that we could solicit their input and support. I'll hope that the next agenda (1/24/06) is shorter, so that we can have some real discussion about this.

In brief, here are some highlights from the meeting:

1) There were four APG members present, including Oscar Amaro, Eleanor Carter and Mike Lawrence. Thanks so much for coming -- it's always more fun to do this job in community! I

2) A new member has been appointed to the DRB by Councilmember Yamauchi. His name is Paul Coleman, and last night was his first meeting. My first impression of him was favorable. He's not shy about criticizing bad design, and he made a statement last night about not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the past in this community (in reference to projects that have received approval). He had some very helpful input to offer on several items, and I look forward to hearing more from him in the future.

3) There was a proposal on last night's agenda to demolish a 1910 Craftsman bungalow located at 329 S. 4th Street (between Commonwealth and Mission), and to build two new houses on this lot. We made a brief presentation, using photos of the house and the streetscape taken from the APG web site, that was well-received by the DRB. Additionally, they hated the proposed design of the new houses to be built (referring to them as "barracks-style"). This project isn't going to be approved anytime soon -- stay tuned for more details!

4) The final item on the agenda was a new, 351-unit residential development proposed for the old C.F. Braun complex at Mission and Fremont. Initially, I went into the meeting with a negative feeling about this high-density housing. I left feeling quite supportive of the project. It is a very sophisticated modern design ("elegant industrial"), but one that blends well with the feeling of the existing brick campus. The developer proposes to build live-work spaces in a variety of models (mostly 1- and 2-bedrooms) in low-rise and mid-rise buildings on ten acres at the northeast corner of the site (the Date/Orange corner). There are quality materials proposed, lots of open space and beautifully designed landscapes, including mature trees and specimen plantings. One designer cited the old Lawry's California Center as an inspiration. They are planning to market these units for sale to young professionals (architects, designers, accountants, etc.) and mature adults -- not families with children. They don't plan to exclude kids, but there are not a lot of kid-friendly amenities in the plan (no pool, no playground). It's not like anything we've seen before in Alhambra -- and I mean that in a good way! Keep your eyes on this project as it progresses through the decision-making process.

November 22, 2005

Thanks to Mike Lawrence for attending last night's meeting and speaking out on a number of issues.

24 E. Commonwealth was approved with conditions. There were no fireworks this time. 1407 Westmont Dr. was deemed unacceptable by Monica Kao; she stated that the design was unacceptable and there was nothing to discuss. The home was designed as a box and has a FAR that exceeds the standard .35 FAR.

Only 916 E. Beacon Street was approved with conditions. All other items were continued. We might want to look at 916 E. Beacon St.; this lot is being split to build two houses. The other house faces on Clay St. There are a number of trees on the lot; some effort is being made to save some. The meeting adjourned after 11:00 PM when all concerned were getting slap happy. I am really impressed with the dedication and professionalism with which this board works. By the way, Mike, the board will have input into the joint W. Main meeting on Dec. 5 but will not have a vote. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

October 11, 2005

A HUGE thank you to all the APG members who showed up to participate in the dialogue at last night's Design Review Board meeting (Barbara Beckley, Eleanor Carter, Mike and Nong Lawrence). Our presence in such a large group, and our constructive criticisms really helped to frame the DRB discussion. All three of the items we addressed last night were continued without approval. These projects will, no doubt, return to the agenda in the future -- but our comments have already affected their eventual outcome.

I think we all were impressed by the fact that it can be so easy to make a difference in the process -- just by showing up and participating. I am attaching photos of two homes on Palmetto Drive that will be demolished to build an 8-unit development. One of them is a beautiful 1915 bungalow (208 Palmetto Drive). This is an area that is zoned for multiple units, and most of the properties in the neighborhood are apartments or condos. I spoke briefly about the history of the Alhambra Acres tract, and the need to create a development policy for our city that includes a provision for the preservation of historic structures wherever they are located -- even in R-3 zones. I talked about how our community is diminished when its history is erased.

There followed an excellent discussion of preservation issues by the DRB and city staff, and they actually spent a significant amount of time trying to convince the applicant to incorporate the preservation of this historic structure into his project design! Ultimately, he refused -- but the fact that this conversation happened at all is because we raised the issue. Of course there is much work to be done, but this is real progress, when the DRB is pushing for preservation!

August 23, 2005

1) 2625 Montezuma Avenue
This is a project that has appeared several times on previous agendas of the DRB. The homeowner wants to put a second-story addition on a small 1926 bungalow that was long ago stuccoed-over. The home retains very little of its original architectural integrity, but the proposed design for the add-on is really quite awful. After several atempts to work with the homeowner to revise the project, the DRB finally came right out and recommended that she hire a licensed architect to start over from the beginning. They suggested that she study applications that have been approved in the city within the past year, and select an architect from that group who can design a project that blends with the neighborhood. This suggests that the DRB believes that maintaining neighborhood character is important, and that something has been changing in the last year. I wonder if perhaps we have something to do with that change?

2) 1516 S. Chapel Avenue
This was originally a proposal to put a giant, two-story addition on a small (1,156 sq. ft.) 1927 English cottage. We have spoken out on this one in the past. As first proposed, it was to be a 6-bedroom/6-bath montrosity. Now, the project has been reduced to 4 bedrooms and 4 baths, and one story only (at the rear of the existing home). After some discussion, the DRB approved the project as redesigned. Let's take a look at the plans for this home when it comes up at Planning Commission. We may still need to speak out on the size issue. Any members in this neighborhood?

3) 423 S. 8th Street
This little bungalow was built in 1915, but it has been altered almost beyond recognition. The owner wants to enlarge the home to 2,800 square feet, with six bedrooms and a three car garage. This would be a one-story addition, and it would almost completely fill the lot with house and pavement. The DRB continued this item, recommending that it be down-sized and redesigned to allow for more landscaping. Let's watch for this at a future DRB meeting.

August 1, 2005

Eleanor Carter and I attended last night's Design Review Board meeting, and I think we both felt very positive about the outcome. Both items of concern to us were continued to a future agenda, with recommendations to the architects or designers to modify the plans. In particular, the DRB members were very supportive of preservation issues with regard to the California bungalow at 1410 S. Olive. I spoke out on this one, and I felt that my comments were addressed by all the Board members.

They were unanimous in calling for a complete redesign of the proposed project, so that the character of the existing historic architecture is maintained, and echoed in the new structures. They rejected plans to remove the wrap-around porch, and they hated the idea of a stucco addition on a bungalow with wood siding. They sent the guy back to the drawing board with clear direction to come back with something different than he had presented.

June 28, 2005

1) 404 S. Fifth Street (photo)
The owner wants to tear down this 1907 bungalow, which is located on a block with many other bungalows of the same vintage, and replace it with a large 2-story residence (5 or 6 bedrooms) and attached 3-car garage. The proposed design was big and ugly and seriously out of character with the neighborhood. Oscar got up and made a brief but very impressive presentation, displaying photos he had taken of other historic homes on 5th Street, photos of intact historic neighborhoods nearby in South Pasadena and Angeleno Heights, and an image of how this house on 5th Street could look if it was simply painted appropriate colors. The visual aids were quite effective. There was much discussion by Board members regarding the massive size of the project, and the small percentage of lot to be landscaped. The project was continued, with a recommendation that the applicant work with staff to reduce the size and alter the style of the project, the better to make it fit into the neighborhood.

This was a temporary victory, in that the project was not immediately approved as submitted. It is likely, however, that the applicant will return to the DRB (perhaps as soon on July 12 or 26) with revisions that still call for the demolition of this bungalow. There will be more opportunities for public comment (at Design Review and at Planning Commission), but without a historic preservation ordinance in Alhambra, we may not be able to save this structure.

That said, it seems to me that we do have at least a couple of avenues for organizing and activism.

1. We could organize our APG members to walk the neighborhood on Fifth Street, trying to educate residents about the issue, and encouraging them to show up and speak out at public meetings about saving this house.
2. We could organize our APG members to show up and speak out in opposition at the Planning Commission Meeting when demolition of this house is on the agenda.
3. We could take photos of successful remodeling/expansion projects that have maintained the character of historic homes, and use them to educate the DRB and the homeowner about alternatives to demolition.

2) 1514 S. Seventh Street (photo)
This is a 1928 English cottage-- the owner wants to add another bedroom and bath to the rear of the home, to demolish the existing garage, and build a second unit at the rear of the property, with garages for both units on the first floor and a residence upstairs. We spoke with the architect, who confirmed that the house is currently for sale. It is expected that the seller will obtain approval for the project, and the new owner will pull the building permits.

I gave a brief presentation about the history of the house and the surrounding neighborhood, putting it in the context of the early settlement of Alhambra, the evolution of the Arts & Crafts movement, and the social and cultural changes of the early 20th century. I asked that the DRB give special attention to the integration of the proposed new addition with the existing structure, and with other homes in the neighborhood. After some discussion by DRB members about the need for more work by the architect on design integration, this project was continued to a future meeting.

May 24, 2005

1)  1000 W. Valley Blvd. (no photo)
The planned commercial development at the southeast corner of Atlantic and Valley is moving ahead, although Design Review Board members still have some concerns about the proportion of several elements of the design. They have given their approval to the project, so that it can move on to the Planning Commission, but they have asked the applicant to return to the DRB within 90 days for a review of continued design development. Look for this on the agenda of the next Planning Commission meeting. If you're interested in learning more, you can go to City Hall and ask to see the plans.

2)  616 North Olive Ave. (no photo)
The owner of this property wants to demolish the existing small home and garage, and build a 2,500+ sq. foot home with five bedrooms. This home was built in 1921, but its original architectural character has been erased as a result of inappropriate additions and neglect by previous owners. 

This address is located in my neighborhood. Last September, Eleanor Carter and I spoke at a Planning Commission meeting regarding the planned development. The plans had previously been approved by Design Review, and reflected a very contemporary design, with stucco walls and a gabled concrete tile roof. Based upon our comments and criticisms, the Planning Commission sent this project back to Design Review, with a recommendation that it be redesigned in a Craftsman style more compatible with the historic neighborhood. The owner was plenty angry, as she had already spent months in the design review process.

Last night, I spoke again on this project, which has been redesigned (in a more or less Craftsman style). I asked the DRB members to consider the character of the neighborhood when reviewing the plans. I described the features and history of other homes nearby, focusing on the issue of compatibility. The DRB generally liked the redesign presented by the owner. They made a few good suggestions for how it could be improved, and they gave it a conditional approvall. 

Afterward, the owner sat down next to me for a brief, friendly chat. She expressed an interest in finding out more about our organization, and asked if she could come to a future meeting. I invited her to the June 16th meeting at the Gamble House, and directed her to the APG web site for more information!

3)  33 South Elm Street (photo)
The homeowner has proposed to put a second story addition on this 1926 Spanish-style bungalow, and to add a second unit at the rear of the property. The plans he presented are generally consistent with the existing architecture. DRB members approved the project with a few conditions, including a reduction in height of the second unit. On his way out, the owner stopped to talk to me briefly. He said that he has lived in the same neighborhood for 31 years. He thanked me for being there and speaking up for historic homes, and he told me he was glad that APG is doing this important work of preserving homes and neighborhoods.

May 10, 2005

This meeting was lengthy, so I'll summarize just a few of the items that I think will interest members of our group: 

1)  1000 W. Valley Blvd. (no photo)
This is not a preservation issue per se, but I think some of you may be interested in the planned commercial development at the southeast corner of Atlantic and Valley. The architect (Mr. Simon Lee) has designed a two-story multi-unit retail project that will take the place of the existing gas station and fast food restaurant, and will involve exterior alterations to the Asian grocery store and another existing building. The proposed design has a Spanish or Mediterranean theme. City staff supports the project design, but a few of the Design Review Board members are concerned about the size and scale of the project. Discussion on this item went on for nearly an hour. It was continued, with a recommendation that the applicant work with staff to address the numerous issues raised. I'm sure the project will appear on a future DRB agenda. Check with the City if you're interested in seeing the plans. 

2)  101 North Third St. (photo)
The project proposed for this site (at 101-103 North Third, in the first block north of Main) is a three-story, multi-unit senior residential development ("Alhambra City Garden II"). The design for the new structure is modular, cubic, and very modern. The DRB members mostly loved it, and the project was approved with a few minor conditions. They did not discuss the fact that building it will necessitate the razing of the front house at 101 N. Third, a 1913 bungalow. There are currently a few remaining vintage structures on this block, along with many larger condos and townhouses. Watch for this item to appear soon on the agenda of the Planning Commission. 

3)  308 South Meridian (photo)
The homeowner wishes to add a second story to this small, 1924 Spanish-style bungalow in Emery Park. The plans he has presented call for the elimination of its remaining design features (the flat roof, with tiled parapet). The house will simply be a nondescript two-story box, with a hipped roof. DRB members took issue with this, and continued the project without approval. They encouraged the applicant to work to achieve more design articulation, in order to make the project more "street friendly".

April 26, 2005

Here's a report on some of the highlights of last Tuesday night's Design Review Board meeting: 

1)  209 North Primrose Avenue (photo)
The applicant has proposed to tear down the garage, located at the rear of the property, and build a small "granny unit" with detached garages (for the front and back units). The original structure is a 1925 bungalow (although it may be hard to appreciate in my photo, with the lattice hiding the front porch). The architect, Mr. Nick Wang, was present at the meeting to discuss his design. He talked about having researched some of the older homes in Pasadena before presenting his drawings -- which are generally consistent with the period of the front house. The homeowners indicated that they plan to work to rehabilitate the front house after construction on the second unit is completed. This project was approved, with the condition that the front house be painted to match the color scheme proposed for the second unit. 

2)  634 North Olive Avenue (photo)
The applicant has proposed to tear down the existing garage, and put an addition on the rear of this 1922 Craftsman Bungalow. This was the second appearance of this item at Design Review. I made a brief presentation on the project, as a concerned resident of the neighborhood, and a representative of the Alhambra Preservation Group. I talked about APG's mission, and thanked the DRB members for their efforts to preserve the design integrity of Alhambra's older homes and neighborhoods. I spoke very briefly about the architectural history and character of the homes in this neighborhood. I brought along with me some snapshots I had taken of the house immediately adjacent to the applicant (630 N. Olive), which has undergone a major rehabilitation over the last few months, while the square footage has been increased. I talked about this a preservation success story, and pointed out the salient architectural features. I mentioned how this rehab project enhances the neighborhood by increasing property values, encouraging other property owners to preserve their homes, and attracting buyers who know that their investment in historic preservation will pay off. I encouraged the DRB members to work with the applicant at 634 North Olive to refine the design of the proposed project without sacrificing the architectural assets of the existing historic home. After considerable discussion and negotiation with the architect regarding particular design details, the DRB approved the project. 

3)  904 North Stoneman Avenue (photo)
This property is located on the east side of Stoneman, between Pine and MacLean. It was built in 1911, and it must have been a pretty impressive Craftsman in its time (2,000 sq. ft., 3 bedrooms, 1 bath) -- now, it appears to be in bad shape. A few of the original homes still remain on this block, but most have been replaced by condos. The proposed development would add a huge new facade to the front of the house (with tower/rotunda elements), and a second unit in the back. The DRB members criticized the proposed streetscape as far too massive and overpowering. This was continued without approval. Neighbor interest and involvement could make all the difference in saving this structure. 

4)  1516 South Chapel (photo)
This house was built in 1927. It appears to be a Tudor cottage. The owner is proposing a massive second story addition, which will more than double the square footage (from 1,156 to 2,737). Most of the homes in the neighborhood are much smaller, with two or three bedrooms. The new house would have 6 bedrooms, 6 baths. The DRB members are very reluctant to approve this project. They've sent it back to the drawing board four times now. They've criticized the size of the addition, and expressed the opinion that it just seems "stuck-on" to the existing home, with virtually no integration of old and new designs. They have also been concerned about how easily this proposed design could, at some point in the future, be broken up into two separate units. The project was continued without approval.

April 12, 2005

The interest and participation of APG members in the Design Review process has definitely been noticed by Board members and City staff. A formal procedure has now been instituted at DRB meetings to solicit public comment about agenda items, and I think this is a positive sign

2)  634 North Olive Avenue (photo)
The homeowner has submitted an application to put a one-story addition at the rear of this 1922 bungalow, and to replace the garage structure. Comments of the City architect (printed in the agenda) referred to other older homes of the same vintage in this neighborhood being well-maintained, and encouraged the owner to bring this home into that category. DRB members worked with the applicant to suggest a revised floor plan, improved entry design, removal of metal window bars, appropriate paint colors, and a garage door that better fits the Craftsman style of the bungalow. This item was continued, but will reappear soon on a future DRB agenda. 

3)  1028 South Fourth Street (photo)
The applicant has submitted an application to replace the current home (originally built in 1920) with a two-story residential unit. DRB members expressed their concerns about compatibility of the new design with other homes in the neighborhood (mostly 1930's Spanish Colonial), and discussed a reduction in the size and massing of the project. This item was continued, with a recommendation that the applicant work with staff to address these issues. 

4)  1148 South Fourth Street (photo 1 | photo 2)
The applicant wants to put a two-story addition on this 1931 Spanish Colonial home, located in the Mayfair area. Eleanor Carter and a neighbor both spoke about this project as concerned residents of the neighborhood. The Design Review Board approved the project with three conditions, including a recommendation that the applicant attempt to restore the front entry of the house to its original design.

March 8, 2005

1)  107 North Hidalgo Avenue (photo)
This item was continued from the previous meeting on 2/22/05. The homeowner wants to put an additional two-story unit in the rear of the property, behind a classic 1912 Craftsman bungalow. At the last meeting, DRB members criticized the proposed design as incompatible with the front house. The architect did a substantial amount of redesign on the project, and presented revised drawings. DRB members gave approval to the project, with the condition that the applicant check with City staff to verify that adequate space has been allocated for guest parking. 

2)  329 East Ramona Road (photo)
This item was continued from the 2/8/05 meeting. The property is located at the corner of East Ramona Road and Sierra Vista. The homeowner wants to put a substantial one-story addition on this tiny (800 sq. ft.) 1940's-era home. At the previous meeting, DRB members had many criticisms of architectural details (proposed quoining at corners of building, asymmetry of window size and placement, lack of window sills, etc.). All concerns have been dealt with by the general contractor, and a new set of drawings submitted. DRB members approved the project, with two conditions: that the bars are removed from the windows; and that the garage is painted the same color as the house. This project will next go to the Planning Commission for approval, and I see no reason on earth for us to oppose it. 

3)  1514 S. Seventh Street (photo)
This item was not approved at last night's meeting, but I include it purely as a "heads up". I'm sure it will be back on future agendas. The homeowner wants to put a second-story addition on this 1928 bungalow, and to add a two-story residential unit in the rear of the property. DRB members had lots of concerns about poor design integration. They recommended that the architect work with City staff to substantially redesign the project. 

February 22, 2005

I attended my second Alhambra Design Review Board meeting on Tuesday, February 22nd. There were three items on the agenda relating to home construction which received approval (228 S. Meridian Avenue (photo), 1515 S. Marengo Avenue, and 1524 Sierra Vista Avenue (photo). I'll try to drive by these places early next week to get photos of the current structures -- in case we want to have an APG member speak about any of these projects when they come up before the Planning Commission.

Additionally, two items on the DRB agenda received heated discussion by board members and homeowners, and were continued (without being approved):

1)  2625 Montezuma Avenue (photo)
This is a small (1248 sq. ft.) bungalow, originally built in 1926. At some point in the past it has been stuccoed-over. The homeowner wants to add a second-story addition. The Design Review Board generally felt that the design presented was awkward, with a lack of modulation and balance. Board members were also concerned about the issue of compatibility with the character of other homes in the neighborhood. The DRB recommended that the owner hire a design professional to address these issues. 

2)  107 North Hidalgo Avenue (photo)
This application for construction of two single-family residences on a lot was also approved, following some discussion by the DRB members.  The existing structure appears to be a 3-unit apartment building, originally constructed in 1906.  It is located across the street from "The Kensington" (Episcopal Home).  At this moment, it still is recognizably an Arts & Crafts structure, with four columns framing a generous front porch, and many original windows. 

This is a classic Craftsman bungalow, originally built in 1912. The homeowner wants to put an additional two-story unit on the lot (in the rear of the existing home). Apparently, state law currently permits the construction of a second unit like this one -- until a new Alhambra city ordinance goes into effect in late March, 2005, which is more restrictive than state law. Because this addition is governed by state law, rather than city ordinance, it does not have to go before the Alhambra Planning Commission. However, it must get the approval of the Design Review Board before the end of March, 2005.

The DRB members were quite vocal in their feeling that the proposed second unit must be more congruent with the existing Craftsman bungalow. In particular, Monica Kao was very clear with the applicant that she would not approve the project unless the compatibility issues were resolved. Board members recommended changes in the front entry, attic vent design, roof pitch, and window treatments. Neither the homeowner nor the architect seemed to me to have a clear understanding or appreciation of Craftsman design. They left the meeting angry and frustrated.

February 8, 2005

On Tuesday night, I attended the meeting of Alhambra’s Design Review Board, to see what I could learn about the process of design approval as it relates to home construction or remodeling in this city. Four items on the agenda were approved that involve either second-story additions or other new construction, and two of these involve bungalows (1612 South Fifth Street, and 24 South Cordova). I drove past all four homes this morning, and took some quick snapshots -- I hope to have a few moments later today to print them out, so that I can bring them to tonight's meeting for discussion. Since the designs have now been approved, I think the next step in the process will be approval by the Planning Commission.

At the end of the meeting, I identified myself to the City Architect Rick Abe and the Board members as a representative of the Alhambra Preservation Group. I told them I was there because I was interested in learning about the process by which the Board makes its decisions, and asked if there were any published guidelines for the design review process -- in particular, any guidelines that relate to historic preservation. Mr. Abe replied no written guidelines are in place. I was told that, because "there are not neighborhoods with high concentrations of historic structures..." , the city made a decision several years ago not to establish historic preservation overlay zones.