VWWHOA

President's Message

 

 

Hello again!  Time has flown since we last visited in early July.   Since that time, the City Council held a hearing on August 28th, to review the City’s Design Review process as compared with other cities, and continued its review of Privacy and Compatibility as it relates to the Design Review process.

 

Given that this newsletter is being sent to the 1,100 homes within our boundaries and realizing that not all of you are members of your homeowners’ association, or perhaps you do not watch meetings of the City Council or Design Review on Channel 6, a brief overview might be in order.  

 

The Board of the Verdugo Woodlands West Homeowners’ Assoc drafted a resolution for eventual presentation to the City Council, which we felt would put the brakes on the overdevelopment of properties in the Verdugo Woodlands ---- and city-wide, for that matter.  We initially presented the Draft Resolution to the Glendale Homeowners’ Coordinating Council, an umbrella organization comprised of all the homeowners’ associations in the City.  They liked the idea, made a few changes, and we collectively made a presentation to the City Council during a Study Session on July 24th.   Remarks from all council members were very encouraging and they directed Planning Staff to return with options per the discussion.  By the way, attendance at the Study Session, e mails, and letters to the News Press by members of this community were most reassuring; it told us that we were on the right path and encouraged us to forge ahead. 

 

At the Council’s August 28th meeting, a detailed and lengthy report was submitted by the Planning Department and the Council heard testimony from its constituents.  The message was loud and clear – do something, and do it quickly.  To make a very long story short (or shorter anyway – the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.), the Council members agreed that the Design Review process is broken.  

 

Following are some direct quotes and summarized comments from the Council in the order that they spoke:

 

Weaver:  “The Design Review Boards have not done their job; meeting the maximum floor area allowed does not equate to compatibility and we need criteria for DRB”.  He suggested that Planning Staff review all residential projects.  After Staff works and re-works a project with the applicant/architect, Staff would make a determination.  A Notice of Decision would be sent to neighbors, giving them 15 days to appeal to a seven-member Design Review Board, (which would include two Urban Planners), that would act as an Appeals Board.  The matter will again be reviewed by Staff to address concerns and “if that doesn’t work, the project can be appealed to the City Council. 

 

Quintero:  “We need to define neighborhood and compatibility; we need DRB meetings to be held in the evening for more accessibility to the community”.  He supported our request for story poles and Findings, to provide criteria on which to approve or deny a project.  He suggested restricting residential expansion projects to a maximum of 35% of the average property in the “neighborhood” and he believes that having one Council member appoint one Design Review Board member would hold the appointing council member accountable.

 

 Yousefian:  “It’s time for a change, the process is not working, we should do what 99.9% of what other cities do – Glendale is the only city with a Design Review process”.  He suggested establishing specific guidelines for the Design Review Boards and disagreed with the notion of “1-appointment per Councilman – it could come back and bite you”.  He supported the idea that Planning Staff initially review projects and that the DRB act as an Appeals Board. 

 

Drayman:   “No one’s happy with the process.  We should rely more heavily on Planning Staff for residential projects to check for compatibility”.  He supported the idea of 1 Council member appointing 1 DRB member, stating that DRB should be performance driven.  He emphasized there was no demonizing involved, “the process is simply not working” and concurred that Design Review meetings should be held in the evenings and that criteria needs to be established for the Design Review Boards.

 

Najarian:  Concurred with Councilman Weaver that Planning Staff needs to become more involved in the early stages for single-family projects.  If this works, he was unsure if two Design Review Boards would be necessary.  He was concerned with a conflict if Planning Staff sat on the Design Review Board, given that they had earlier made a determination on the case.  He supported Staff addressing View Protection/Privacy in their evaluation of projects.   He agreed that evening meetings would be more consumer friendly and believed; “These modifications are a work in progress --- we can always revisit them if it they don’t doesn’t work.”

 

The Council eventually agreed that subsequent to Planning Staff working with an applicant to the point where Staff concludes that a project is “complete”, a Notice would be sent to the neighbors to hear any concerns they might have.  More working sessions would follow between Staff and the applicant.

 

The City Manager advised that Staff would prepare a Draft Ordinance for review by the Council.

 

All in all, it was a positive and exhausting endeavor.  Planning Staff has a lot on their plate and they will now be in the position where we now find ourselves ---- on the front line of a project, requesting significant changes ----- after a property owner has submitted plans and is awaiting review by a Design Review Board.  We believe that initial review and re-review by Staff and the applicant/architect will shorten the process and make it less agonizing for all.

 

Lots more to report, but I’ve asked for your attention too long as it is.  Thanks for all you do to maintain the character of the Woodlands. 

 

Mirna Stanley

 

 

Return to Home Page