Calabasas planning commission approves Attamore Road addition after debate over glazing and size

The Calabasas Planning Commission on May 21 approved a site-plan review for a 632-square-foot second-floor enclosure to an existing residence at 26197 Attamore Road, voting 3-2 after commissioners debated the addition’s size and extensive glazing.

The motion, made by Commissioner (S2) and seconded by Commissioner (S1), directs staff to prepare a resolution for final action. Staff said the project enclosures convert two existing covered decks — a 360-square-foot enclosure at the front and a 272-square-foot enclosure at the rear — and comply with Calabasas Municipal Code section 17.62.0.02, which requires planning commission review when additions exceed 20% of an existing residence’s square footage.

Staff (Staff member (S7)) told the commission the prior home on the site was destroyed in the 2018 Woolsey Fire and rebuilt in 2025. The post‑fire rebuild included an accessory dwelling unit (ADU); staff said ADUs are excluded from the comparative home-size analysis used in the report, and reported that the primary residence will total about 2,852 square feet after the proposed enclosures.

Concerns centered on the volume of glazing and the house’s visual impact in the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner (S5) said the front glazing and a third‑story roof deck make the house visually distinct and argued the project was not "compatible in design, appearance, and scale with the existing development in the area." He added, "Plexiglass is not glass…that's gonna burn in a fire," citing fire‑safety worries about plastic glazing.

The project designer, Yaguar (Jaguar) Bamboo (S8), told the commission the front panels are glass and said large windows will be tempered and at least double‑paned (possibly triple‑paned) for both fire resistance and solar exposure. "It's glass," he said when asked whether the panels were plexiglass.

Staff noted the Architecture Review Panel reviewed the proposal on April 24, 2026 and recommended approval, and argued that the additions are largely enclosures of existing covered areas and comply with height, setback and site‑coverage standards. Commissioners pressed staff on the record‑keeping and comparison methodology; staff reiterated that the comparables used assessor data for homes within a 300‑foot radius and called out a typographical error in the staff report that was corrected in the technical appendix.

On the roll-call vote, the commission recorded votes as: Commissioner Leah — No; Commissioner Fassberg — Yes; Vice chair — Yes; Chair — Yes; Commissioner Harrison — No. The motion carried. The chair said staff will prepare a resolution and that the action will be finalized next week.

The commission’s action was procedural approval of the planning finding and direction to staff; the resolution and ministerial steps to finalize the file will be completed by staff and published with the city’s records.