[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6586429,"mediaKeyId","5506549-d8a65bc20049d09bfcc3959869c84c59","parentId",5506549,"title","Design Review Commission continues 1133 S. Palm proposal, requests clearer materials and simplified front elevation","audioSeconds",2800,"startMs",8264340,"endMs",11065040,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5506549-d8a65bc20049d09bfcc3959869c84c59&start=8264&end=11065","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5506549-d8a65bc20049d09bfcc3959869c84c59/thumbnail_8264340.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6586429/California/Design-Review-Commission-continues-1133-S-Palm-proposal-requests-clearer-materials-and-simplified-front-elevation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586429-51f477cdcc78da39b87ac43e4a9cf04f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770677710&Signature=gpQLkLaqSoBV8hk6wGJsxfhLouX1wecR4Utt9N3LQiPow-dA5L2zXHbAFwDrpdLaDa5lXaXbAO5b1TlFGjpHhLdedZWadfu2CRntCkYSkH7yCaYxmxCbx9HRDsuX4ge4bOtv0rePbE44z0XRth7R8FqRHREghlXwk~~CGffTikMjMnfu0nKZ6lO6PAtPanTUcEsxYZp7rV2phSr~GPibgF9qIqw7GNiCjVB8XAr3avJepRMo19kX109NzbKizRJicXkUkOsCiMb9UtmozXz3wF~VJdfk7hoykT8DkBW3EVGQSve~pvBFWJY7sWL-lgsiMqjBJ2~pEjm88GIfykKCfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-29T05:11:45Z","article","The Design Review Commission on July 28 continued review of planning case SPR22‑082, a proposal to replace a single‑story house with a new two‑story single‑family home and a detached 1,000‑square‑foot ADU at 1133 South Palm Avenue.

Staff described the project as a 3,202‑square‑foot two‑story home plus a detached ADU on a 10,000‑square‑foot lot and said it met R‑1 standards for height, setbacks, lot coverage and floor area ratio. The project package included a proposed smooth‑stucco finish, stone veneer accents, a concrete tile roof and a landscape plan with permeable pavers in the driveway and several boxed trees for screening.

Commissioners and the city architect raised design and package completeness issues. Several commissioners described the front elevation as overly busy because multiple small roof eaves and offsets followed footprint notches on the plan; they asked the applicant to simplify the elevation to reduce the number of rooflines and to align the elevation with a cleaner porch/entry expression. City staff and the city architect also requested a full physical materials board (paint chips, roof and paver samples, stone/veneer and garage door color) and clarified that a requested smooth stucco finish requires careful detailing and proper trades to avoid cracking.

Commissioners also asked the applicant to re‑examine an unusual curved driveway approach and consider moving the curb cut and apron so the approach aligns with the driveway (staff noted the existing apron will likely be damaged or replaced during construction). Concerns were raised about the parkway planting: commissioners recommended adding pavers or stepping zones to preserve groundcover where cars and people cross the parkway.

Public comments and a written submittal raised questions about ADU setbacks, occupancy, parking (the design provides code‑required parking including the ADU garage), demolition timing, dust mitigation and responsibility for any shared walls. Staff provided standard answers: short‑term rentals are prohibited in San Gabriel, dust mitigation and demolition controls are addressed through building permits, and the ADU setback shown meets the municipal code.

On a motion by Commissioner Chen, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, the commission voted 5–0 to continue SPR22‑082 to an undetermined date and asked the applicant to return with a simplified front elevation, a complete physical materials board and revised apron/driveway and parkway details for staff and city architect review before scheduling another hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Design Review Commission Regular Meeting - July 28, 2025 - City of San Gabriel","oneSentenceSummary","The Design Review Commission continued review July 28 of a proposed two‑story house and detached accessory dwelling at 1133 South Palm Avenue, requesting a simplified front elevation, a full physical materials board and corrections to the driveway/parkway details.","taxTitle","San Gabriel, Yuba County, California","taxId",79252,"location","California","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6586433,"Commission approves revised five‑unit development at 1522 Stevens with design and landscaping conditions",1830,6354760,8185120,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5506549-d8a65bc20049d09bfcc3959869c84c59&start=6354&end=8185","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5506549-d8a65bc20049d09bfcc3959869c84c59/thumbnail_6354760.jpg","/articles/6586433/California/Commission-approves-revised-fiveunit-development-at-1522-Stevens-with-design-and-landscaping-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586433-856bf8eae2fcc3a9015052d29870d917/orig.mp4?Expires=1770677710&Signature=BohzalDC6VKCmNqxfXWzihgdeYt5AqXVl6wT6wLjNbo9k6H8au4esAOonVbnzb9dY7PGuL~EUx6fkxe6tkxmXqlQ8BAiYWztAU9lNQfbk5w1gjIrZR8Q3C3ZlbZjqQML7tzsLajMJ~ViMEHrQWXBPLepTxkWB9IXecfqXQyOA~X~31Ttfwn2mPVqZNpw6hfBgrkARvQTc75h-n1wFBCxF3GHclOfnnJKw-X8S2hF9aMy9BGSIUwovd8i4fv03MHmvTRe1eBcJejsI1Xx5DDNZrqygkg7w1eEZQsW6eUK3GBQLFFnT3X0321hVn8kUMgMz2GBmt9qoVPkpFH5XALW9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Design Review Commission on July 28 approved planning case PPD23‑009, allowing a five‑unit condominium development at 1522 Stevens Avenue following revisions requested at an earlier hearing.

Staff said the project — sited in the Valley Boulevard Specific Plan (underlying R‑3 zoning) — had been revised to address prior commissioner feedback on massing, window muntin patterns, roof deck railings and open‑space layout. “The updated product rendering was provided… the window design has also been revised to incorporate horizontal muntins throughout the structures, and the roof deck railing was revised to a wrought iron tube style railing to better complement the architectural style of the project,” Christine, the planning presenter, told the commission.

The applicant, Philip Chan, described adjustments focused on the front facade and rooftop setback so the rooftop elements are less visible from the street. The City architect recommended other modest simplifications and material consistency across elevations.

During deliberations commissioners supported approval but requested final details be verified before construction. Conditions the commission required included: a physical materials board (actual samples and paint chips) to be reviewed by the city architect; simplification or refinement of the wood band/trim elements so the palette is not visually heavy; provision of screening plantings for rooftop planters to reduce view impacts; and the addition of pavers within the parkway to protect low ground‑cover plantings from repeated foot and vehicle traffic.

Vice Chair Salo made the motion to approve PPD23‑009 with the conditions; Commissioner Chang seconded. The motion passed 5‑0.","After revisions requested earlier in the year, the Design Review Commission approved a five‑unit residential project at 1522 Stevens Avenue, with conditions requiring a physical materials board, simplified facade details, rooftop screening plantings and pavers in the parkway.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6586436,"Design Review Commission continues 514 N. Alamar site plan, asks for on-site arborist and materials board",5625,351232,5976612,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5506549-d8a65bc20049d09bfcc3959869c84c59&start=351&end=5976","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5506549-d8a65bc20049d09bfcc3959869c84c59/thumbnail_351232.jpg","/articles/6586436/California/Design-Review-Commission-continues-514-N-Alamar-site-plan-asks-for-on-site-arborist-and-materials-board","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586436-f1437442d01ec5ec6bb646413d7e04c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770677710&Signature=nQCtsJm-Vqe9~IWcEhoTn892TLHFPnomms1FvCBF5WmcD5V62s52Wv0Np2p14hXLuo2REovgAbmEU2jnLTY26Lutun6PARsJOESHJURzqEgnNKeaaXIPV~Nb8D43kmQ8e8Rs~OAlZIajzJM9Za0JjJj0rwYdQlskIEPMfpqb8xnMxi9aaJTf38yMyjtsuSlDbnG5vfwpe~fRaY8JbiLg7jeDMqUkLnplLH6QywseVjnskeAIn0ACvUpbmFPTNZz1b0mi6vJVuxxEuo5Dqtl4HzQMzivvnplvhal618bPMKHl2GX9Nv3VHU3MPKld381QYQWkLp61~8aXyouUPLKBAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Design Review Commission on July 28 continued review of planning case SPR24-038, a proposal to build a new two‑story single‑family home on a landlocked parcel at 514 North Alamar Street, citing outstanding questions about protection of dozens of oak trees, slope/grade impacts and final exterior materials.

City planning staff summarized the project and recommended approval subject to conditions, noting the revised house is 4,975 square feet of livable area, complies with R‑1 standards and is intended to sit behind a front lot that the City of Alhambra already approved. “Staff recommends that the design review commission approve planning case number SPR24‑038 for assessor parcel number 5364025007 to allow the construction of a new two story residence subject to the recommended conditions of approval,” Christine (planning staff) told the commission.

Neighbors and nearby property owners urged careful review focused on trees, shadows and drainage. “That 12‑foot elevation along with 26 feet creates a presence that is 38 feet over and above us,” said Anne White of 1112 Alhambra Road, describing concern about how effective height is measured and the potential for increased shadowing on lower lots. Other commenters raised questions about drainage pits, mosquito abatement, sewer/pump requirements and long‑term visibility of a two‑story house from down‑slope yards.

The applicant said they reduced the second‑floor area from an earlier submittal, intend to protect the oak trees and propose a six‑foot solid metal privacy fence along the north property line. “We like the trees… it not only provides privacy for us, but also to our neighbors,” the applicant said, adding that tree heights were measured with augmented‑reality software and ranged roughly 26–45 feet.

Commission discussion focused on tree protection methods, verification of the arborist’s recommendations and the need for physical materials. Commissioners asked for: (1) the arborist’s full report to be provided and for the arborist to be on‑site to mark tree protection fencing and review construction methods before ground disturbance; (2) a physical materials board showing stucco, roof tile, fence samples and the garage/door colors; and (3) more detailed fence/footing details coordinated with the arborist and the city landscape architect so tree protection zones and fence footings do not conflict. Vice Chair Salo and others also suggested a story‑pole/flag exercise or similar on‑site visualization for neighbors, though staff said the city does not require story‑poles.

On a motion by Commissioner Chen and second by Commissioner Lopez, the commission voted 5–0 to continue SPR24‑038 to an unspecified date with the direction above and the requirement that the applicant work with planning, the city architect and the city landscape architect before returning.","The commission continued review of a proposed 2‑story house at 514 North Alamar Street after hearing concerns about tree protection, grading, visibility to neighbors and fence details. Commissioners required an arborist on site during construction, a physical materials board and coordination on a new privacy fence before returning.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6586425,"409 Pearl Street review continued after commissioners request materials board, possible brick in lieu of faux stone",1612,11118390,12731000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5506549-d8a65bc20049d09bfcc3959869c84c59&start=11118&end=12731","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5506549-d8a65bc20049d09bfcc3959869c84c59/thumbnail_11118390.jpg","/articles/6586425/California/409-Pearl-Street-review-continued-after-commissioners-request-materials-board-possible-brick-in-lieu-of-faux-stone","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586425-51cc5e1c4821b6d496e07d93470d7e13/orig.mp4?Expires=1770677710&Signature=TtQwx~HQewgBEgOmiuoZuKv6S5U~RfkF0SPXfoqOq3t84C84QQPG~wIUwaale6pDKcCxgi87FiZEB7-JcpSRORPDrDXVUcOTVUqsV~g87oPe3IqJRVTWvdquI0WNltZ4EfziYug9Ak8-EEBFU50tLxfRhLPv02MBrCzDApUsrzOMOOkjeaAEoQuZfcpqtVdXOWqJ5MUKdIX0MNOOt9mbZllF0Tli3vt~vmDKuE9qqbjkju36eHJLXDrT9WjQ~Wkac71ftF5lOsb8i8BbgjjJktagzsNEej-FDuRxA8vYmx7KP-EqrngQ5JnUDA~aBZHEw-ukN00frxMjOVNHdWiu~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Design Review Commission continued consideration of planning case SPR23‑063, a proposal for a two‑story single‑family residence with an attached garage and a detached accessory dwelling unit at 409 Pearl Street, after raising questions about window types, exterior materials and missing physical samples.

Staff described the project as a 2,516‑square‑foot two‑story house with a 1,000‑square‑foot detached ADU and landscape plans including drought‑tolerant shrubs and new boxed trees. The proposed exterior palette listed a smooth stucco finish (\"alamo\"), stone veneer accents and a medium‑brown concrete tile roof.

Commissioners and the city architect noted the submittal had improved substantially from initial concepts but still lacked necessary chips and samples. City architect Ron emphasized the neighborhood portion around Pearl has been identified in the city's recent historic resources survey as a potential Central San Gabriel planning district; that fact increases scrutiny of new construction and the appropriateness of certain contemporary materials. \"Manufactured stone is a wholly modern material… she was discouraging the use of synthetic ledger stone and that either nothing, you know, just stucco or maybe brick would be a more preferable material,\" Ron summarized his exchange with the city architectural historian.

Other items flagged during the hearing included clarifying the window schedule for fixed vs. operable windows (several bedroom windows must meet egress requirements), selecting a specific garage door color from a manufacturer palette rather than a generic \"brown,\" and providing physical samples of roofing, stucco and pavers. Commissioners also discussed low‑impact development measures such as rain barrels shown on the plans and standard site drainage/sump pump approaches.

On a preliminary voice vote, a motion to approve the item failed. The commission then voted 5‑0 to continue the item to an undetermined date. Staff was directed to have the applicant return with a physical materials board, definitive window/egress information, and to consult with the city architect about replacing the proposed manufactured stone veneer with a material more consistent with the survey guidance (brick or plain stucco were suggested).","A proposed two‑story house at 409 Pearl Street was continued after commissioners and the city architect asked the applicant to submit a physical materials board, confirm egress window types and consider substituting manufactured ledger stone with a more appropriate material for a potential Central San Gabriel planning area.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Commission continues 1133 S. Palm proposal, requests clearer materials and simplified front elevation

Commission approves revised five‑unit development at 1522 Stevens with design and landscaping conditions

Design Review Commission continues 514 N. Alamar site plan, asks for on-site arborist and materials board

409 Pearl Street review continued after commissioners request materials board, possible brick in lieu of faux stone