01-17-2006 - Appeal of Administrative Use Permit #05-36, Applicant: Jose & Vivian Campis, Location: 915 S. Fircroft Streeti
* •
City of West Covina
Memorandum
TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager AGENDA
and City Council
4
FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Planning Director ITEM NO. E-
DATE January 17,2006
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO.05-36
(Maximum Unit Size Exception)
APPLICANT: Jose and Vivian Campis
LOCATION: 915 S. Fircroft Street
Q,7SSLLA-noM N o - 2 oo(v - 3
DISCUSSION: � ` 15PV 1N G7 " "P Ma ' OS
An administrative use permit (AUP) was required for this proposal since it exceeded the
maximum allowable floor area by less than 25 percent. AUP's are generally acted upon
administratively unless an interested party requests a hearing. Notices were mailed to 53
property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius and requests for a hearing were
subsequently received from two homeowners who reside to the rear of the property.
Their main concerns related to the impacts that the proposed second -story addition would
have to their privacy due to bedroom windows looking into their back yards.
The Planning Director held an administrative hearing on October 26, 2005; however, no
agreement could be reached between the project applicant and the neighboring
homeowners on how to resolve their concerns. The matter was therefore referred to the
Planning Commission, and on December 13, 2005 the Commission voted to approve the
addition as proposed. The item was subsequently appealed to the City Council on
December 21, 2005.
The existing single -story house is 1,741 square feet with a 400-square foot attached
garage on a 9,086-square foot lot. Based on that lot size, an administrative use permit is
required for houses that propose an addition that exceeds the allowed floor area of 3,180
square feet. The house with the proposed addition would be 3,253 square feet.
The applicant is proposing to add three bedrooms and two bathrooms as a second story to
the exiting home. As originally designed, the second story would be built toward the rear
of the house with all three bedrooms having windows facing the rear of the property
approximately 25 feet from the rear property' line. Two of proposed bedrooms also have
windows on the front elevation, thus not requiring a window on the rear elevation.
However, with the current design, the third bedroom (which is in the middle of the
addition) is required to have a window on the rear elevation for fire egress.
The neighbors have expressed objections with any windows on the rear elevation and
were requesting a redesign of the proposal. The neighbors are situated on a slightly lower
grade than the subject property and felt that the design will impact their privacy. The
applicant did not wish to construct the addition on the first floor as they felt this would
take away too much of their rear yard area. The applicant also did not desire to move the
second -story addition more toward the front of the house as they felt this would be too
costly from a structural design standpoint. The applicant did, however, agree to have the
least amount of window space on the rear elevation as allowed by the building code. A
condition of approval has been added to remove all windows on the rear elevation, with
the exception of the window for the center bedroom.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
On December 13, 2005, the Planning Commission voted 2-1 to approve the proposed
addition at 915 S. Fircroft Street with the condition the windows be altered as discussed
above. Chairman Roe and Commissioner Sotelo voted "yes" and Commissioner Rozatti
voted "no." The Commission recognized that the applicant was willing to alter the
project to reduce the impact as much as possible, without a complete redesign.
Commissioner Rozatti voted against the project because she felt that the size of the
addition was not compatible with the neighborhood.
Appeal of Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36 •
January 17, 2005 — Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is not anticipated that the proposed project would have any significant fiscal impact to
the City with the exception of a slight increase in property tax revenues due the
reassessment of the property due to the addition.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommend that the City. Council .adopt.the. following resolution:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY'- COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE
USE PERMIT NO. 05-36 ON APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION.
Prepared by:
Jo oreland
Planning Aide
Reviewed and approved by:
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Resolution of Approval
Attachment 2 —
Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 13,'2005.
Attachment 3
— Letter from Ms. L. Cronk dated 1011105 (922 S. Shasta).
Attachment 4 —
Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Hirsch dated 10/3/05 (916 S. Shasta).
Attachment 5
— Letter from Ms. L. Cronk dated 10/27/05 (922 S. Shasta).
Attachment 6
— Letter from Ms. L. Cronk dated 11 /21 /05 (922 S. Shasta).
Attachment 7
— Appeal letter dated 12/21/2005.
Z:\Case Files\AUP\2005WUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S Fircroft\City_Council\Staff Report_CC.doc
� ATTACHMENTI �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 05-36 ON
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO.05-36
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Jose and Vivian Campis
LOCATION: 915 S. Fircroft Street
WHEREAS, there was filed with this Council a verified application on forms prescribed
by the Council, a request for an administrative use permit to approve a maximum unit size
exception to allow a 363-square foot first -story addition and a 749-square foot second -story
addition to an existing 2,141-square foot single-family home (including a 400-square foot
garage), on that certain property generally described as:
Assessor's Parcel No. 8484-030-016, as listed in the records of the office of the Los
Angeles County Assessor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 13th
day of December, 2005 conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution No. 05-5086 approving the
application; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2005, an appeal of the Planning Commission action was filed
by Louise Cronk; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 17th day of January, 2006, conduct a duly
advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the
Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties.
WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Council and in its behalf reveal the
following facts:
1. The applicant is requesting the approval of a maximum unit size exception administrative
use permit for a single-family residence in the "Single -Family Residential" (R-1) Zone,
Area District IIA. The proposal consists of the construction of a 3,253-square foot home,
including a 2,104-square foot first floor, a 749-square foot second floor and a 400-square
foot attached garage.
2. Appropriate findings for approval of an administrative use permit for a maximum unit
size exception are as follows:
a. The lot and proposed development is consistent with the general plan, zoning, and
meets all other applicable code requirements.
b. The development utilizes building materials, color schemes and a roof style which
blend with the existing structure, if any, and results in a development which is
harmonious in scale and mass with the surrounding residences.
C. The development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of
circulation for pedestrians and vehicles.
ZACase Files\AUP\2005\AUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S Fircroft\City_Council\CC Reso.doc
Q
Resolution No.
Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36
January 17, 2006 -Page 2
d. The development can be adequately served by existing or required infrastructure
and services.
e. The design of the structure has given consideration to the privacy of surrounding
properties through the usage and placement of windows and doors, cantilevers,
decks, balconies, minimal retaining walls, trees and other buffering landscaping
materials.
f. The development is sensitive to the natural terrain, minimizes necessary grading,
de-emphasizes vertical massing which could disrupt the profile of a natural slope,
and does not impede any scenic vistas or views open to the public or surrounding
properties.
3. The project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, since the project consists of
one single-family residence in a residential zone.,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows:
l . On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the City Council makes
the following findings:
a. The proposed residence is consistent with the "Suburban Residential' (2.1-4.0
units per acre) land use designation of the General Plan. The project meets all
applicable requirements of the "Single -Family Residential' (R-1) Zone, Area
District IIA.
b. The house is proposed at 22 feet in height and includes a hip roof with flat tiles.
The proposed house has a stucco exterior. A condition has been added to provide
alternative material on the front elevation. The house is designed to comply with
side yard setback requirements and with various roof elements to provide
articulation on the front elevation.
C. Access to the site is provided via Fircroft Street. The proposed home is set back
26 feet, nine inches from the front property line and the second story is set back
79 feet from the front property line. Therefore, the development has
demonstrated sensitivity to circulation patterns and will not be detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles.
d. The existing residence and development is already adequately served by existing
infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.). The addition to a single-family
residence is not anticipated to require additional infrastructure or services beyond
that provided by the existing residences nearby. Therefore the development can
be adequately served by existing infrastructure and services.
e. The project proposes substantial front, side and rear setbacks. The setbacks
around the building meet the minimum standards of the Municipal Code. No
balconies or retaining -walls that require an administrative use permit are
proposed.
f. The property is currently developed with a 2,141-square foot house (including
400-square foot garage). The lot is relatively flat and will require little grading.
The project proposes construction of an addition that would not impede any
scenic views from surrounding properties.
2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further
based on the findings above, Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36 is approved subject to
the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code, provided that the physical
development of the herein described property shall conform to said plan and the
conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly indicated, shall be fully
Z:\Case Files\AUP\2005\AUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S Fircroft\City_Council\CC Reso.doc
1 • •
Resolution No.
Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36
January 17, 2006 - Page 3
performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the
Planning Director, before the use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before
the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and the violation of any of which shall be grounds
for revocation of said precise plan by the Planning Commission or City Council.
3. That the administrative use permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of
the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the
Planning Director, his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this
precise plan as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of
the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with the
processing of this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690.
4. The costs and expenses of any enforcement activities, including, but not limited to
attorneys' fees, caused by the applicant's . violation of any condition imposed by this
approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be paid by the
applicant.
5. That the approval of the precise plan is subject to the following conditions:
a. Comply with plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 22, 2005.
b. That the project comply with all requirements of the Single -Family Residential
(R-1), Area District IIA, and all other applicable standards of the West Covina
Municipal Code.
C. Include the size of all existing and proposed porches on the "Project Data" area
and recalculate lot coverage. Second -story overhangs are also counted towards
lot coverage.
d. Indicate the front setback and parkway on the plans.
e. Provide alternative materials on the front elevation, existing wood siding can be
used, but if removed, provide a new alternative material on the front elevation.
f. Reduce second -story windows facing west to clerestory or eliminate on the north
and south bedrooms.
g. That any proposed changes to the approved site plan, floor plan or elevations be
reviewed by the Planning Department, and the written authorization of the
Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation.
h. This development shall conform to all applicable Municipal regulations, Fire,
Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing codes and recognized, approved,
standards of installation.
The approved use shall not create a public nuisance as defined in the West Covina
Municipal Code Section 26-416 regarding landscape maintenance and property
maintenance.
j. This Administrative Use Permit approval shall become null and void if the building
permit is not obtained within one (1) year of the date of this approval.
6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Resolution.
ZACase Files\AUP\2005\AUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S Fircroft\City_Council\CC Reso.doc
Resolution No.
Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36
January 17, 2006 - Page 4
PASSED AND APPROVED on this 17`h day January, 2006.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF WEST COVINA )
I, Laurie Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina,
California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17rh day of January, 2006.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATE: January 17, 2006
EXPIRATION DATE:
January 17, 2007
if not used.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
City Attorney
ZACase Files\AUP\2005\AUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S Fircroft\City_Council\CC Reso.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
AGENDA
ITEM NO. C-3
DATE: 12/15/05
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 05-36
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Jose and Vivian Campis
LOCATION: 915 S. Fircroft Street
I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION
The applicant is requesting an addition to an existing 2,141-square foot single-family
home (including a 400-square foot garage). The proposal is to add a 363-square foot
first -story addition and a 749-square foot second -story addition. The house with the
proposed addition would be 3,253 square feet (including a 400-square foot garage).
The administrative use permit is required for a. Maximum Unit Size Exception (a
home that exceeds the allowed floor area of 3,180 square feet by no more than 25
percent). The project is located in the "Single -Family Residential' (R-1) Zone,
Area District IIA.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving
Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, since the project consists of
one single-family residence in a residential zone.
ZACase Fi1es\AUP\2005WUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S FircroffiStaff Report PC 12 15 05.doc
Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36
915 S. Fircroft St.
December 13, 2005 - Page 2
IV. SUMMARY OF DATA
STANDARD
EXISTING
PROPOSED
ALLOWED
Lot Area
9,086 sq. ft.
No Change
M.U.S.E.
First Floor Living
1,741 sq. ft.
363 sq. ft.
Second Floor Living
N/A
749 sq. ft.
Garage
400 sq. ft.
No Change
Proposed Overhang
N/A
250 sq. ft.
3,180 sq. ft. or
Total
2,141 sq. ft.
3,253 sq. ft.
35% FAR (a
conditional use permit
FAR (floor area ratio)
15.9%
35.8%
is required for 3,975
percentage
sq. ft. or 43.75% FAR)
Lot Coverage
23.6%
30.3%
35%
Height
Stories
1
2 (22 feet)
2 max.
25 feet max.
Setbacks
Front
I51 floor
26 ft., 9 in.
26 ft., 9 in.
25 feet
2"d floor
N/A
79 ft.
30 feet
North Side
I' floor
10 ft., 5 in.
5 ft., 11 in.
5 feet
2°d floor
N/A
10 ft., 5 in.
10 feet
South Side
I' floor
16 ft.
16 ft.
5 feet
2nd floor
N/A
16 ft.
10 feet
Rear
I' floor
35 ft.
23 ft., 6 in.
25 feet (5 feet
minimum)
2°d floor
N/A
25 feet
25 feet
Zoning: "Single -Family Residential" (R-1), Area District IIA
General Plan Designation: Suburban Residential (2.1— 4.0 units per acre)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
North: Single -Family Residential (R-1), Area District IIA
South: Single -Family Residential (R-1), Area District IIA
East: Single -Family Residential (R-1), Area District IIA
West: Single -Family Residential (R-1), Area District IIA
Notices of Public Hearing have been mailed to 53 owners and occupants of properties
located within 300 feet of the subject site.
V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
The existing house is 1,741 square feet with a 400-square foot attached garage. The
subject property is 9,086 square feet. Based on that lot size, an administrative use
permit is required for houses that propose an addition that exceeds 1,250 square feet
(Large Expansion) or for a home that exceeds the allowed floor area of 3,180 square
feet. Since this proposal will increase the size of the house to 3,253 square feet, an
administrative use permit is required.
During the administrative public notice period, staff received two letters in
opposition to the request. The Planning Director then held an Administrative
Hearing on October 26, 2005. At this hearing, the interested parties were unable to
Z:\Case Files\AUP\2005WUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S Fircro$\Staff Report PC 12 15 05.doc
Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36
915 S. Fircroft St.
December 13, 2005 - Page 3
come to a consensus and the Planning Director felt that it was appropriate to
forward the project for review to the Planning Commission.
Staff review of the neighborhood surrounding the subject property found that the area
consists mostly of single-family, single -story houses constructed in the late 1950's.
The proposed house is located on Fircroft Street, north of Vine Avenue. The house is
proposed at 22 feet in height and includes a hip roof with flat tiles. Most of the
second -story addition is located on the rear portion of the existing house. The
proposed house has a stucco exterior on all elevations. The existing house has wood
siding on the front elevation. It is unclear whether this material will be removed.
Staff believes that if the wood siding is removed another type of alternative material
should be added to the front elevation. This is included as a condition of approval.
Staff conducted a survey of 20 homes surrounding the subject property. This
survey includes homes on Shasta Street and Fircroft Street. The following chart
shows the mean and median lot size, square footage of the homes, number of
bedrooms and floor area ratio. The mean is the average of all 20 homes and the
median is the number that falls directly in the middle if listed in numerical order.
LOT SIZE
FLOOR
NUMBER
FLOOR
AREA
OF
AREA
BEDROOMS
RATIO
AR
MEAN
9,220 Sq. Ft.
2,143 Sq. Ft.
3.4
23.3%
MEDIAN
9,120 Sq. Ft.
2,104 Sq. Ft.
3
22.7%
SUBJECT
9,086 Sq. Ft.
3,253 Sq. Ft.
5
35.8%
PROPOSAL
There are two, two-story houses within the survey located next door to the subject
property at 909 S. Fircroft Street and 921 S. Fircroft Street. While the median size for
homes in the area is 2,104 square feet, house sizes range from 1,572 square feet to
2,636 square feet. Floor area ratios range from 16.8 percent to 28.3 percent.
On October 26, 2005, the Planning Director held an Administrative Hearing in
attempt to bring consensus between the interested parties. At this hearing, neighbors
located to the rear of the subject property expressed concerns about their privacy from
the proposed second -story bedroom windows. The applicant is proposing three
bedroom windows on the westerly elevation. These bedroom windows are located
approximately 25 feet from the rear property line. Additionally, there are no windows
on the side elevation. Two of the three proposed bedrooms also have windows on the
front elevation, thus not requiring a window on the rear elevation. However, with the
current design, the third bedroom needs to have a window on the rear elevation for
fire egress.
The neighbors did not want any windows on the rear elevation and were requesting a
redesign of the proposal. The applicant did not want to redesign the plans, as this was
the most economical way to add three bedrooms and meet City Code. The applicant
agrees to have the least amount of window space on the rear elevation as allowed by
the building code. A condition of approval has been added to remove all windows on
the rear elevation, with the exception of the window for the center bedroom.
The proposed addition is in compliance with all zoning requirements. The
proposed front setback is 26 feet, nine inches for the first story and 79 feet for the
second story. The proposed northerly side setback is 5 feet, 11 inches from the first
story and 10 feet, five inches from the second story. The proposed southerly side
setback is 16 feet for both the first and second stories. The proposed rear setback is
23 feet, six inches for the first story and 25 feet for the second story. With the
exception of the south elevation, the second -story setback is greater than the first -
story setback.
Z:\Case Files\AUP\2005\AUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S Fircroft\Staff Report PC 12 15 05.doc
•
Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36
915 S. Fircroft St.
December 13, 2005 - Page 4
In conclusion, the applicant has expressed a willingness to alter the location of the
windows on the second -story bedrooms to minimize (but not eliminate) the
potential privacy impacts on the homes to the rear. As now proposed, there would
be one bedroom window that would have direct orientation toward homes to the
rear of the property. Inasmuch, as the three proposed second -story bedrooms are
located toward the rear portion of the existing house, it -has been suggested by the
objecting neighbors that the addition be completely redesigned to move the second -
story addition toward the front of the house. The applicant has indicated that they
are not amenable to this due to additional costs.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving
Administrative Use Permit No. 05-36.
oreland
Planning Aide
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Resolution of Approval
Attachment 2 — Letters from L. Cronk dated 1011105 (922 S. Shasta)
Attachment 3 — Letters from Mr. & Mrs. Hirsch dated 10/3/05 (916 S. Shasta)
Attachment 4 — Letter from L. Cronk dated 10/27/05 (922 S. Shasta)
Z:\Case Fi1es\AUP\2005\AUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S Fircroft\Staff Report PC 12 15 05.doc
• t _ _ •
TTAWW 3
October 1, 2005
West Covina Planning Department
1444 West Garvey Avenue South Room #208'
West Covina, Ca
Attention Mr. John Moreland, West Covina Planning Department
Administrative use permit No 05-36
Applicant : Jose Campis 915 South Fircroft Street
Dear Mr. Moreland:
RECEIVED
OCT 0 3 2005
PLANNING DEPT.
This is in response to Jose Campis' request for administrative use permit No 05-36. Mr.
Campis has been my neighbor for several years. He enjoys numerous parties that are
extremely loud, noisy and have lasted well into the morning hours. This has resulted in
many calls for the police to ask him to calm the festivities.. He allows children to use a
trampoline, which is next to my fence, under rthe power lines and visually invades the
privacy of my back yard, and my home.
Mr. Campis already has a pool and patio in his backyard. I have real concerns about
granting a permit to Mr. Campis enabling further invasion of my home and backyard. A
second story would allow additional noise and visual access to my entire backyard and
home rendering it unusable to me. The properties are terraced and his lot already sits
above mine. The second story would not provide me any privacy in my living quarters.
This proposed invasion causes me much stress just to think about it. The addition of the
second story would negate the already poor sound barrier between the two properties. I
further believe the addition in conjunction with the current improvements would not
support the size of the lot, decreasing, rather than increasing, the value of the
neighborhood. I bought my home in a quiet private sitting and would like to keep as
such.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF.THIS MATTER THAT
IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. I RECEIVED MY PUBLIC NOTICE IN THE MAIL
FRIDAY AND IT TOOK ME COMPLETELY BY SUPPRISE. I HAVE CONTACTED
SOME OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR SAME
FEELINGS HOWEVER, THEY ARE RELUCTANT TO RESPOND. PLEASE DO
NOT TAKE SILENCE AS THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THIS ADDITION.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
L. Cronk
922 South Shasta Street
West Covina, Ca. 91791
ATTAT 4.
October 3, 2005
West Covina Planning Dept.
1444 W. Garvey Ave. South Rm #208
West Covina, CA 91790
Attn; Mr. John Moreland, West Covina Planning Department
Administrative use permit No 05-36
Applicant: Jose Campis 915 S. Fircroft St., West Covina
Dear Mr. Moreland:
RRCEIV1EF
OCT v 4 D
2005
PIA
IVAIJ/VG
DFp1.
We live directly below Mr. Campis, and thing that it would be improper for a 2 story house to be built
on our terraced hills. There is only a chain link fence separating his yard and ours. We both have
pools and we also wonder if the additional weight and size of the house would make the hillside less
stable and it could come down into our yard.
If he is allowed to build a second story onto his house ... it should be mandatory that he put up an 8'
fence instead on having only a chain fence that is only about 4 feet high.
We think that having such a huge house in a neighborhood with much smaller homes would only
cause the decrease in value of our neighborhood, not increase it. If he wants a huge home, he
should move to a neighborhood that supports these kinds of homes.
Sincerely,
Gordon and Jane Hirsch
916 S. Shasta Street
West Covina, CA 91791
October 27, 2005
City of West Covina Planning Department
1444 West Garvey "Avenue South Room#208
West Covina Ca
Attention: Mr. Bill Roe, West Covina Planning Department
Administrative Use Permit No 05-36
Applicant: Jose Campis 915 South Fircroft Street
RECEIVED
OCT 2- 7 2005
PLANNING DEPT.
Mr. Doug Mc Isaac said he would make recommendations to you regarding the
conditional permit use meeting of October 26, 2005 for Mr. Jose Campis. Doug
reminded us we would all still be neighbors and would have to get along regardless of the
outcome of your decision.
Mrs. Campis said she would agree to change the windows and that there are no plans at
this time for a balcony. That can all be changed at a later date. My concern and that of
the neighbors on Shasta, is that our privacy will be invaded. Three out of four of the
neighbors to the West have pools and spas. We all have sliding glass doors along the
entire back walls of our homes making our living rooms, formal dining rooms and
bedrooms in addition to our back yards a fish bowl. The secluded arrangement was a
selling point at the time of purchase and would be unavailable with the intended proposal.
I feel their current proposal would sacrifice my ability to capitalize on the privacy aspect
of my home as it currently stands. Do they want to pay the affected parties for their loss
prior to the construction to compensate us according to our probable losses?
The profile of the tract is over ninety-five percent single-family dwellings, and the lots
are large enough to support additions to the homes. Mrs. Campis stated repeatedly other
options are not what she wanted to entertain.
The City is interested in renovation and we are very fortunate that the tract is being
improved as new people move in. I believe there are alternatives that would satisfy the
Campis' desire to increase the number of baths/bedrooms for their family that would not
invade and or compromise others.
The floor plan that I believe the Campis family own has a walk in closet that can easily
convert to a linen closet and hallway. This proposal could lead to a new bedroom and
bath; minimize construction cost with the existing plumbing already in that area. (This
was built several years ago at 915 South Shasta Street; perhaps the City still has a copy of
their plans/design for reference.) The new room would be reinforced at he time of new
construction providing the necessary support for a second story. This would meet your .
25' set back condition. The existing garage could be utilized for its original purpose;
reinforced, a third bedroom added, thus satisfying their additional requirements. These
suggestions would satisfy my desire not to be on public display and the required windows
could be in the front, facing the East. The changes could tie into the roofline easily.
I think their neighbors on Fircroft would accept this proposal as they have already stated
in the meeting of October 26, 2005. Their neighbor to the North is not in opposition to
the addition and the gentleman across from them agrees that the second story and the
windows would not be a problem for him either.
I am not opposed to changes or improvements, and I agree we all have the right to do
things to our property. Doug is right, we all have to get along and be neighborly. I
believe that compromise is necessary and the concerns we have warrant further attention
by all involved. Children grow up; people move away, the proposed monument will
outlive us all. Future owners may not share the Campis family currently feelings.
Further additions of sliding glass/French doors, perhaps balconies could be added at a
future date would only be considered cosmetic after initial construction.
Their were others in opposition to the Campis proposal but felt the necessary
involvement to contest and suggest other proposals would fall on deaf ears because the
City has already made up their minds and would not listen. I feel this is still a viable
issue that can be resolved to mutual satisfaction. I think the four families below should
have as much vested interest in their project. Mrs. Campis did not care to expand on the
ground level because her children would not have a place to play. I understand her
concerns, and feel my proposal addresses those issues. Mrs. Campis asked if she took off
the sixty some feet would all these issue go away. I truly hope that if they delete these
few feet and that makes the need for the administrative use permit go away, because 60
plus feet on the ground level does not change the eyesight line into my backyard and
home. My hope is that you will still consider the concerns and feelings of the people
below the proposed addition.
THIS ALL BRINGS US BACK TO THE CENTRAL ISSUE OF PRIVACY. THE
CURRENT PLANS ARE NOT NEIGHBOR FRIENDLY. I FEEL MY SUGGESTIONS
WOULD BE A MORE PLAUSABLE SOLUTION TO A HOME IMPROVEMENT.
THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT THE SECOND STORYAS
CURRENTLY DESIGNED AFFECTS THE MY QUALITY OF MY LIFE.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Respectfully,
L. Cronk
922 South Shasta Street
West Covina, Ca 91791
� ATTACHMENT 6
November 21, 2005
Regina and Tony, 912 South Shasta Street
Jane and Gordon, 916 South Shasta Street
Mary and Bob, 920 South Shasta Street
Administrative use permits No. 05-36
Applicant: Jose Campis, 915 South Fircroft Street
Dear Neighbors:
This is a reminder of our meeting Tuesday night at 7:00 P.M. with the City of West
Covina .The City will respond to opposing opinions the key for us is to show our unity,
state our position, be accountable.
Please don't feel that since there is a similar remodel in our tract on the comer of Vine
and Man,anita that we will not be able to contest the current design proposal. The degree
of slope is greater on.our street, the orientation of the home is the opposite of ours as
well, and the circumstance is altogether different. Individual cases differ and that is why
we are going through this exercise.
The City of Glendora had a similar case seven or eight years ago presented by a real
estate lawyer familiar with issues regarding property rights that had a successful
conclusion. There is a precedence that proves we will benefit financially being united and
supporting the position that this project will diminish our property values at the time we
sell our homes, when the privacy we all cherish is no longer a selling point. The City and
the homeowner are accountable for those diminished values, and since we are contesting
this current proposal, we can sue both parties to be compensated at the time we sell. We
all have the right to do what we want with our property, that is why we all own our
homes. The Campis family has other options available to them they stated they choose
not to entertain at the first meeting in chambers. Improvement is always good but not as
a win loss.
Looking forward to seeing you Tuesday night at 7:00 P.M. at the Meeting in the City
Hall. Should you be unable to attend you can "register by proxy" with the Council.
Your neighbor,
Louise
922 South Shasta Street
0 ATTACHMENT 7 RECEIVED
December 21, 2005
City of West Covina
1444 West Garvey Avenue South
West Covina, CA
Attention: CITY CLERKS OFFICE
GE% 2 1 2005
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF WEST COVINc
Subject: Appeal Agenda Item #C-3, Jose and Vivian Campis, 915 South Fircroft Street
On December 15, 2005 the Planning Commission voted in favor of Agenda Item #C-3. I
would like to appeal their decision to the City Council. I agree with planning person
Colleen Rozatti. She stated that the proposed plan was not in keeping with the area, and
would like to see a revised plan. Ms. Rozatti mentioned "mansionization" as did other
parties who spoke on the item that night. The Campis family has the land available to
add additional bedrooms on the ground floor and could build another if needed above the
existing garage and be in keeping with the other ninety-five homes within the tract. Mrs.
Campis insist she wants a two-story home. In the tract there are currently 4 homes with a
second story added above the garages. They are located at:
2307 Alaska
909 Fircroft
921 Fircroft
910 Hollenbeck
The two on Fircroft are on the north and south of the Campis home. The only other
existing second story structure with a similar profile to the Campis proposal is at 945
Manzanita and Vine. They are on the downhill side of the slope from their neighbors, not
on the high side such as the case with the property at 9.15 South Fircroft
I do not believe this design would be harmonious in scale and mass with the surrounding
residences. I believe this is an intrusion of my privacy due to the location of my property
adjacent to their lot. I believe the monument they propose with their current design will
disrupt my view of the mountains I currently enjoy. I believe this will diminish my resale
value as my home will become a fish bowl and I will not be able to promote the seclusion
I initially bought my home for and would promote as.a selling point
I am appealing the decision of the Planning Department and ask to be heard by the City
Council. Thanking you in advance.for your continued support in this matter.
Louise Cronk
922 South Shasta Street
(626) 919-5662
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
WEST CON
CITY OF WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL
PURSUANT TO THE LAW AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE YOU ARE
HEREBY NOTIFIED OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL.
APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO.05-36
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Jose and Vivian Campis
LOCATION: 915 S. Fircroft Street
REQUEST: This is an appeal of the December 13, 2005 approval by the West Covina Planning
Commission of an Administrative Use Permit for this project. The project consists of a proposal to add a 363-
s4uare foot first -story addition and a 749-square foot second story addition to an existing 2,141-square foot
single-family home (including a 400-square foot garage). The house with the proposed addition would be 3,253
square feet (including a 400-square foot garage).
Pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, this project is a
Categorical Exemption, Class 3 (Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
Members of the public are invited to make written statements regarding said report prior to the public hearing
and to makeYerbal presentations at the public hearing.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILiAt' RELD:
PLACE: West Covina City Hall
1444 West Garvey Avenue South
City Council Chambers - Level One
DATE: January 17, 2006
TIME: 7:00 p.m.:: ; .
If you have any questions, we urge you to contact John Moreland at (626) 939-8422 or Room 208, at City Hall.
Imapary CopyripM04005..,�.�
0tyGISS
Only through citizen participation can your government build a better City.
Date Mailed: January , 2006 BY ORDER OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA
ZACase Files\AUP\2005\AUP 05-36 MUSE 915 S FircroffiPUBLIC NOTICE-CC.doc
@091 S aasel
1 AI'N:8484-017-001
BEHR FAMILY 2004 TRUST
1333 S GLENN ALAN AVE
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3928
4 APN:8484-018-008
NAM TRINH
2313 E ALASKA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3303
7 APN:8484-029-002
ROBERT C & ORALIA M AGUILAR
910 S FIRCROFT ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3304
10 APN:8484-029-005
FEN ZHEN WU
928 S FIRCROFT ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3304
13 APN:8484-029-010
MANUEL & OLGA H MORENO
939 NOVARRO ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3308
16 APN:8484-029-013
VINCE & SANDY ROLLICE
921 NOVARRO ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3308
19 APN:8484-030-001
DAVID & MARY MOREL
844 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3309
2 APN:8484-017-002
CARLOS & MYRNA O RODRIGUEZ
2251 E ALASKA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3302
5 APN:8484-018-009
FILIBERTO MUNOZ
2307 E ALASKA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3303
8 APN:8484-029-003
DAVID L & CAROLYN D STEWART
1432 S MONTEZUMA WAY
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3740
11 APN:8484-029-006
SARAH T PLESETZ
934 S FIRCROFT ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3304
14 APN:8484-029-011
KATHLEEN K CHENG
933 NOVARRO ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3308
17 AI N: 8484-029-014
JAMES F & ANITA H SMITH
915 NOVARRO ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3308
20 APN:8484-030-002
JOSE L & DYANA VARGAS
848 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3309
22 APN:8484-030-004 23 APN:8484-030-005
ANTHONY J & REGINA V CORSARO GORDON V & JANE L HIRSCH
910 S SHASTA ST 916 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3311 WEST COVINA CA 91791-3311
25 APN:8484-030-007
ROBERT H & MARY J WILLIAMS
928 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3311
28 APN:8484-030-012
CHARLES C & TRACY Y CHANG
939 S FIRCROFT ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3305
26 APN:8484-030-008
ROSEMARY R GALLO
943 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3312
29 APN:8484-030-013
WILLIAMS MARALYN A TRUST
933 S FIRCROFT ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3305
Gel ssaappy
oAua,A /
3 APN:8484-017-003
RICHARD D & LYNDA C CORDIAK
2247 E ALASKA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3302
6 APN:9484-029-001
ALBERTO MORALES
906 S FIRCROFT ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3304
9 APN:8484-029-004
DALE A LAWSON
922 S FIRCROFT ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3304
12 APN:8484-029-007
JANONE A SALCIDO
2694 E GARVEY AVE S # 200
WEST COVINA CA 91791-2113
15 APN:8484-029-012
GEORGE R ROBLES
927 NOVARRO ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3308
18 APN:8484-029-015
EVANS H & ANITA L RODERICK
909 NOVARRO ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3308
21 APN:8484-030-003
LEONARD & JOAN ELIOT
904 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3311
24 APN:8484-030-006
LOUISE A CRONK
922 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3311
27 APN:8484-030-009
RAMON OCHOA
940 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3311
30 APN:8484-030-014
RICHRD B & GINA E MENG
23632 ATEX CT
RAMONA CA 920654521
@091S Joj aleldwal asp WlslaaysW:�-y}00ws
Smdoth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600
31 APN:8484-030-015
32 APN:8484-030-016
33 APN:8484-030-017
LINDA O & LINDA O STAY
JOSE & VIVIAN CAMPIS
SELDON MERVYN W ADAMS
1849 DEEP CREEK DR
915 S FIRCROFT ST
909 S FIRCROFT ST
SPARKS NV 89434-1762
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3305
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3305
I.
34 APN:8484-030-018 !
35 APN:8494-030-019
36 APN:8484-031-006
JEAN H WILLIAMS
MIRIAM G & DiIIRIAM G LOMMER
GLEN & CHERYL D MEYERS
905 S FIRCROFT ST
901 S FIRCROFT ST
910 S HOLLENBECK ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3305
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3305
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3212
37 APN:8484-031-007
38 APN:8484-031-008
39 APN:8484-031-014
DAVID S & DEBORAH TOVAR
ROBERT & MICHELLE CULINA
EDUARDO ARAIZA
916 S HOLLENBECK ST
922 S HOLLENBECK ST
939 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3212
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3212
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3312
40 APN:8484-031-015
41 APN:8484-031-016
42 APN:8484-031-017
ARMANDO & VALERIE NOVELO
ROBERT T & RITA M GURNEE
HELEN P & HELEN P BORING
933 S SHASTA ST
927 S SHASTA ST
921 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3312
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3312
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3312
43 APN:8484-031-018
44 APN:8484-031-019
45 APN:8484-031-020
RODOLFO & MARIA ORDONEZ
HILDA G ALVAREZ
LYLE D & LYLE D WHITLOCK
915 S SHASTA ST
909 S SHASTA ST
903 S SHASTA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3312
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3312
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3312
46 APN:8484-031-021
47 APN:8484-031-022
1 48 APN:8494-031-025
RALPH HULICK
CARLOS & KIMBERLEY D AGUILAR
DANNY J ROMAN
949 S SHASTA ST
845 S SHASTA ST
; 2222 E ALASKA ST
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3310
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3310
WEST COVINA CA 91791-3301
JOSE & VIVIAN CA�91
L.A. MAPPING SERVICE
915 S. FIRCROFT S
ATTN: ROBERT CASTRO
WEST COVINA, CA
8062 WHITMORE ST.
ROSEMEAD, CA. 91770
�� AVERY® Address Labels Laser 51600
1
OCCUPANT
2303 E. ALASKA ST.
WEST COVINA, CA. 91791
30
OCCUPANT
927 S. FIRCROFT ST.
WEST COVINA, CA. 91791
0
8
OCCUPANT
916 S. FIRCROFT ST.
WEST COVINA, CA. 91791
31
OCCUPANT
921 S. FIRCROFT ST.
WEST COVINA, CA. 91791
•
12
OCCUPANT
940 S. FIRCROFT ST.
WEST COVINA, CA. 91791
1,
December 21, 2005
City of West Covina
1444 West Garvey Avenue South
West Covina, CA
Attention: CITY CLERKS OFFICE
RECEIVED
DEC 2 12005
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. .
CITY OF WEST COVINA-
Subject: Appeal Agenda Item #C-3, Jose and Vivian Campis, 915 South Fircroft Street
On December 15, 2005 the Planning Commission voted in favor of Agenda Item #C-3. I
would like to appeal their decision to the City Council. I agree with planning person
Colleen Rozatti. She stated that the proposed plan was not in keeping with the area, and
would like to see a revised plan. Ms. Rozatti mentioned "mansionization" as did other
parties who spoke on the item that night. The Campis family has the land available to
add additional bedrooms on the ground floor and could build another if needed above the
existing garage and be in keeping with the other ninety-five homes within the tract. Mrs.
Campis insist she wants a two-story home. In the tract there are currently 4 homes with a
second story added above the garages. They are located at:
2307 Alaska
909 Fircroft
921 Fircroft
910 Hollenbeck
The two on Fircroft are on the north and south of the Campis home. The only other
existing second story structure with a similar profile to the Campis proposal is at 945
Manzanita and Vine. They are on the downhill side of the slope from their neighbors, not
on the high side such as the case with the property at 915 South Fircroft.
I do not believe this design would be harmonious in scale and mass with the surrounding
residences. I believe this is an intrusion of my privacy due to the location of my property
adjacent to their lot. I believe the monument they propose with their current design will
disrupt my view of the mountains I currently enjoy. I believe this will diminish my resale
value as my home will become a fish bowl and I will not be able to promote the seclusion
I initially bought my home for and would promote as a selling point.
I am appealing the decision of the Planning Department and ask to be heard by the City
Council. Thanking you in advance for your continued support in this matter.
Louise Cronk
922 South Shasta Street
(626) 919-5662
TheSumof• I-) f4 C ft-U N n 0-C r .00//v
Purpose: i--" ATi U C tj -S'C PC IEKA i i tJ 05-
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT
OTHERS AMOUNT..
Franchise
.110.00.4120
Business 'l.icense
110.00.4140 : ;
Other Permits
110.13.4290
Other. Court Fines
110.31.4320
Interest
110.00.4410
Rents
110.00.4430
Returned Check Fee
110.13.4642
Miscellaneous777,'
]10.13.4818
Sale of Codes, Maps
'11021 4813
k•r
Passport Execution Fee
110:12 4644
�-
.Photo Copy Fee _
11013 4641
11021.4612
Filing Fee
CA
,!
�
..
�4
e
}
1. t 1, _. ""I 1 7 {� rt N�t i►' .
•
1 � -
DEPOSIT.TRUST
GL NO.
'' ACCT. DESCRIPTION
DEPOSIT IN NAME OF
PURPOSE r:: :.-
` .?AMOUNT
550.22211 ;'
Miscellaneous
is
.r
550-22223
EIR-
55022212
Donations
wroe4aacff�,doweon,dMAc
A 4
Distnbution of copies Wiute Payor's receipt Yellow Finance Pmk Numencal file cop Gold[en Rod Office copy
,,r,
Fy
z i '� i..t 4 {, \ t,
- t ,_ n •`. t t "r tf i4f•' �'6' � fVywxr"y� i.+•� Y`
• ,, '^ , � t < r k • r f � ' ah, k., 1 r > , caw'+•
�
7Tt
1
WINDOW 6 FT.
6 FT. FENCE
23 FT.
EVE OUR SLIDING
25 FT..
JOSE GROUND LEVEL
83 ft:
OUR POOL AREA
•
9