City Council Agonizes Over Planning Appeals Case

It was, by many accounts, one of the simplest, and one of the most complex, decisions the Pasadena City Council has had to face in many years.

Two houses. Two families. One view. One sun.

Stacey Mayora and Paul Watson, Pasadena residents for a number of years, wanted to build a 577 square-foot, two-story addition to their 1,547 square-foot existing single story, hillside single-family home at 518 Glen Holly Drive. The city Planning and Development Department had inspected the property, approved the project, and issued them a permit — permit no. 6315.

But to build the home addition would block the limited view and screen out the sunlight that Greg Chilingirian and his family had enjoyed for decades from their patio of their home at 1460 Cheviotdale Drive, just below the proposed addition, near where the two streets intersect.

Chilingirian had filed not one but two appeals to stop the project, citing a section of the city zoning code which requires that “views from adjacent properties be protected to the maximum extent possible.”

“The applicant’s plans do not accomplish this,” Chilingirian wrote in his appeal. “On the contrary, views from the patio and living areas of our property will be very negatively impacted and this will also result in the loss of sunlight for significant portions of the year.”

The Board of Zoning Appeals examined Chilingirian’s claim and recommended that the project be allowed to continue, as originally approved.

Chilingirian then launched his final appeal, to the ultimate local authority: The Pasadena City Council.

It was 11 p.m. The council had been in private and public session since 6 p.m. People were tired. The controversial ordinance regarding homelessness had been voted upon hours earlier. There were two more hearings to go — one on a home demolition, and the other about this home addition on Glen Holly Drive.

On the advice of City Attorney Michele Bagneris, the Council continued the demolition hearing for another date, and waded into the Glen Holly Drive matter.

By the time the hearing opened late Monday night, the issue to be decided had been reduced, it seemed, to a simple but nuanced question: should one property owner get to improve his property if it means it damages the quality of life of another property owner, even if the rules allow it?

This the Council set about to decide.

Planning Director David Reyes delivered a full presentation to the Council, which covered the technical issues of the case — the codes, the rights, the setbacks, and the formalities.

Residents and lawyers, family members and friends, then approached the podium for an hour to argue specifics, more technicalities, and larger issues.

As one resident appealed to the council, “Please do not let this monolith destroy the sun and light that this family has enjoyed for years.”

Said attorney Roger McDonald, on behalf of Mayora and Watson, “What evidence is there that we haven’t done what the code requires?”

Paul Watson himself told the council, in recalling the words of Councilmember John Kennedy in a previous but similar case a few weeks before, “There is a reasonable expectation in this country, and in Pasadena, that if you follow the rules, you’ll receive the necessary support. We ask for that same consideration.”

“The Watsons want to build a second because they have the money, they can also move to another home and get a bigger house,” said Mr. Chilingirian’s daughter. “They know that this is causing a lot of pain and anguish to their neighbors, who will be blocked of their light, and privacy.”

“Instead of being courteous,” she continued, “they are doing everything in their power to bend the rules, and hire influential and dominant lawyers, who are manipulating and redefining words like ‘view, patio, fence, setback, privacy, light, side yard, back yard.’”

“We feel pushed aside,” she went on, “only to be told, ‘You don’t need a view, you don’t have a patio, you don’t have a back yard, and you don’t need light.”

“Mr. Mayor,” she appealed, “if this was your home, wouldn’t you be up here, protesting?”

“Wow, what a difficult case,” Councilmember Steve Madison said, half-grimacing. “And what an insightful case for the Council to address against the backdrop of mansion-ization in this city.”

After some discussion of the topography of the two homes and the neighborhood, Madison also introduced the idea that the decision should not be influenced by the fact that it would affect the value of either home, even though he he was “convinced that this addition would increase the value of the Watsons’ home, and significantly detract from the value of the Chilingirians’ home.”

Madison also noted that the two members of the Board of Zoning Appeals who voted against the project were the only ones who had “gone out and actually seen the impact that this project would have.”

“I can’t say that I can find in favor of this property without thinking about the overwhelming impact on the neighboring property,” he concluded.

“If ever a case required a site visit, this is it, because you can’t really appreciate the effect this project has on the Chilingarians’ house without seeing it,” said Councilmember Margaret McAustin. “At the same time, I can’t vote against it, because they have complied (with the rules). I just don’t think we ever considered, in creating the hillside ordinance, two homes that were built so close to their common lot lines.”

“I do have a sense of the impact that this will have on the Chilingirians,” said Councilmember Andy Wilson, who agreed with McAustin. “But I have to concur that the Watsons followed the rules.”

“I have a different perspective,” said Mayor Terry Tornek. “I think the staff has done a great job in trying to balance this case against the laws, but I can’t help but think about the impact this will have. There are a lot of illogical features to this argument, but for me, the main point is that I can’t make these findings,” cited in the recommendation, he said. “So for me, it is surprisingly easy to not be supportive of this permit. I can’t make the findings. It just doesn’t feel right. It’s a very tough call.”

“I’m not so sure that something, just because it’s in compliance, that it’s right,” said Councilmember and Vice Mayor Gene Masuda, who acknowledged the impact and the loss of the view for the Chilingirians, noting that this is happening with developments all over the city.

“I have seen so many homes who have lost their view. The neighbors did it right, they followed the rules, but my library commissioner lost his view!” he said, positioning himself against the project.

Drawing a deep breath, Councilmember John Kennedy began, “There are rules that a council adopted. There is a process by which we judge a project by virtue of the rules that are published for everyone to view. ”

He compared his view of the decision-making in this case to the process used by a local appeals court, saying that until a law or rule is overturned, it must be followed.

“I don’t think there has been enough evidence here tonight to overturn previous decisions after decisions that allowed the applicant to build,” Kennedy added. “The issue is have they met the guidelines, and the code and the staff, in my view, has made a compelling case that the Board of Zoning Appeals got it right.”

Councilmember Victor Gordo, saying it was one of the most difficult cases that the Council has had to decide in a long time, concurred with Kennedy, saying it was a question of “equity and fairness, and equity favors the applicant.”

And then the vote was taken.

4-4. Split. No action would be approved by the Council.

Which meant the Board of Zoning Appeals decision would stand. Permit number 6315 would be granted.

And let the sun fall where it may.