Advertisement

Case leads to questions about hillside development in Burbank

Share

The homes on Joaquin Drive in Burbank might look a bit like Mike and Carol Brady’s mid-century modern split-level home from the “Brady Bunch” — low-slung, offset gabled roofs; brick piers; and exposed rafters — with a few glaring exceptions, such as a boxy Cape Cod and ornate Spanish Revivals.

Last week, neighbors and other area residents seeking to preserve the character of Burbank’s neighborhoods rallied to block a home addition proposal from “slipping through” and resulting in what they say would be out-of-character with the surrounding homes and an encroachment on nearby residents.

NEWSLETTER: Stay up to date with what’s going on in and around your neighborhood >>

The case, which amounted to a disagreement between neighbors who sought the city’s help in finding a resolution, raised a number of questions about how the city handles hillside development, which may help to inform the reworking of Burbank’s single-family residential design standards throughout the city.

It’s a situation that has pitted neighbors against one another in the hillside area for more than a year, as George Abboud sought a hillside development permit for an addition he said believes will beautify and update the neighborhood while providing him a place to “live comfortably.”

Next door, Fidel Fayad, an engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, found issues with Abboud’s application and other discrepancies he felt revealed a lack of “due diligence” on the part of city staff in vetting the project. Fayad said the proposed addition was too large, and a threat to his privacy and his view of the Valley.

During a hearing last week, the City Council sided with Fayad and a group of activists who have previously lobbied the city to enact policies to prevent what they call “mansionization” — the construction of homes critics feel are too large in neighborhoods where they don’t fit. Abboud will have the chance to redesign the project and seek approval again.

The project had originally been approved by the city’s community development director in January 2015, but Fayad appealed the decision to the Burbank Planning Board, which denied the appeal in September. Fayad appealed again, this time to the City Council.

Ultimately, the council was swayed by Fayad’s presentation and another by a second appellant, Jim Casey, a real estate agent and leader of the group Preserve Burbank, which has fought against mansionization in the city. In a slide show, Casey used the nine-block opening from “The Brady Bunch” show to demonstrate the 8-to-1 ratio of “Brady homes” to others on Joaquin Drive.

The graphic seemed to help persuade the council.

“Who in here wasn’t thinking, ‘That looks like the Brady house?’” Councilman Will Rogers asked.

Casey said he wasn’t against allowing the homeowner to build a beautiful home, but he said allowing the project to move forward as envisioned would diminish the overall beauty of the neighborhood and decrease home values for Abboud and his neighbors.

Fayad outlined a number of problems with the project, such as its inconsistency with a covenant in the area, but focused on deficiencies in a city staff report responding to his appeal, as well as a questionable rendering submitted by his neighbor in the application for the proposed addition, which seemed to skew it to look considerably smaller.

While some council members questioned whether the house would encroach on Fayad’s privacy or detract from his view, all said they were unable to find it consistent in size and character with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Council members questioned some of the procedures that led to the approval of the permit in the first place and the Planning Board’s denial of the first appeal, but the presentation also brought to light several elements of the city’s code that were adhered to, but which may be out of date.

Casey said it’s “ludicrous” how Burbank calculates the allowable size of a hillside home, based on a ratio of floor area divided by lot square footage. On hillside lots, where much of the land may not be suitable for building and therefore probably shouldn’t be factored in, it could allow considerably larger homes than intended.

Councilwoman Emily Gabel-Luddy said she felt the rules were followed in initially permitting the addition, but she said she has a “real problem” with some of the rules. She had queried staff about things like calculation of set-back at the project site, which was complicated by the shape of the lot, and staff told her they had followed the Municipal Code in doing so.

For example, interim Community Development Director Patrick Prescott said the code does not specify how the city determines predominant character of the neighborhood, or even how to define the neighborhood.

Outgoing City Manager Mark Scott said the council’s objections were valid and will need to be addressed. He added that the case highlighted the impact of turnover on the city’s planning staff, and he argued for the Planning Board to have a more “robust” part in the process.

Prescott said the existing hillside development permit process has not worked well, and “people aren’t happy.”

--

Chad Garland, chad.garland@latimes.com

Twitter: @chadgarland

Advertisement