Council continues appeal over 1000 Sandringham home to allow talks on wildlife, fire access

The Glendale City Council on Feb. 11 continued until March 11 the appeal of a Design Review Board decision to approve a new two‑story, roughly 5,067‑square‑foot single‑family home at 1000 Sandringham Drive, citing neighborhood concerns about an existing wildlife corridor and emergency access.

The appellant, neighborhood volunteer Christopher Smee, told the council he and a group of volunteers who steward the nearby Sunshine Preserve had not received adequate advance notice of the Design Review Board hearing and that story poles were not installed in the full 10‑day notice window. Smee said the property sits within a known wildlife corridor linking the preserve to Verdugo Park and that the current design would put retaining walls and building mass where animals and emergency responders currently pass.

Why it matters: The property is adjacent to city‑owned open space and volunteers said it functions as a local wildlife corridor. Callers from the Arroyo and Foothills Conservancy asked for a short continuance so they could discuss possible design adjustments with the owner and architect that would preserve wildlife passage while allowing a home to be built.

What was argued

Appellant Christopher Smee said the story poles were not posted early enough to give nearby residents adequate notice and that the city’s posted procedures were not followed; he also argued the proposed retaining walls and configuration would diminish wildlife passage and reduce fire‑service access. He asked the council to refund his $2,000 appeal fee and to require design changes.

Applicant architect Alan Malekian told the council the project renews a permit originally approved in 2008, that the subdivision and prior certificates of compliance established the lot for development, and that proposed retaining walls and grading follow prior approvals and code. Malekian said the project meets the Design Review Board’s criteria for massing, siting and materials and that the work already complies with required engineering and fire reviews.

Public testimony and staff

Speakers included neighborhood volunteers and representatives of the Arroyo and Foothills Conservancy, who said they were not opposed to a new house but wanted a short continuance to meet with the applicant and explore design adjustments to preserve a 10‑ to 15‑foot unobstructed buffer along the open space boundary to benefit both wildlife and emergency access. Tim Martinez of the Arroyo and Foothills Conservancy said the conservancy has acquired open‑space parcels in the area and could work with the owner to find a mutually acceptable solution; he asked the council to continue the hearing briefly so the parties could meet.

Deputy Fire Chief Brooks said the department would access vegetation fires from lower streets (Essex Lane) and that building plans will be reviewed under existing fire‑safety codes; he did not advise that the lack of a specific on‑lot corridor automatically prohibited construction.

Council action and rationale

Councilmembers voted to continue the appeal to the March 11 meeting to allow applicants and the conservancy an opportunity to meet and attempt to reach a resolution. Councilmembers said they wanted to avoid remanding the project back to the Design Review Board and hoped the parties could negotiate changes to retaining walls, the building footprint or landscape details that would make the development more compatible with the wildlife corridor and improve access for fire crews and maintenance.

No final decision was made on the appeal or the project design; the hearing will resume March 11 unless the parties reach an agreement and withdraw the appeal beforehand.