Instead of compliance and removal, owners of the Walled Compound at 3411 E. Chevy Chase Dr. are seeking a variance to make their illegal walled fortress legal.  The City of Glendale has provided resources to create a staff report arguing in favor of the monster wall.  The City’s report is long, inaccurate, and fanciful at best.   You can read it here! 

The CCEA Says HELL NO!

Read our response below

July 7, 2025

To:  CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA PLANNING HEARING OFFICER

Case Number:  PVAR-004061-2024
Hearing Date:  July 9, 2025
Location:  3411 E. Chevy Chase Drive, Glendale 91206

Dear Planning Hearing Officer:

Founded in 1937, Chevy Chase Homeowners Association (“CCEA”) is California’s oldest association of homeowners; its mission is to protect the quality of life of residents of Chevy Chase Canyon.

CCEA hereby submits this objection to the variance request being considered by the City of Glendale (the “City”) in the above-referenced case.

Pursuant to § 30.43.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code (the “GMC”), “a variance shall be granted only if” four enumerated criteria [i.e., GMC § 30.43.030 A through D] have been satisfied.  GMC § 30.43.030.  A negative finding on even one of the four criteria requires that a variance application be denied.

In the instant case, the Report to the Planning Hearing Officer (the “Staff Report”) concludes that the applicant has failed to satisfy the first criterion (i.e., GMC § 30.43.030 A).  Since all four criteria must be satisfied to support the issuance of a variance, the Staff Report’s finding that the first criterion has not been satisfied is, by itself, sufficient to require denial of the requested variance pursuant to GMC § 30.43.030.

Further, the Staff Report’s misstates and mischaracterizes material facts regarding the remaining three criteria (i.e., GMC § 30.43.030 B through D); based on these misstatements and mischaracterizations, the Staff Report reaches clearly erroneous conclusions that the remaining three required findings have satisfied.  CCEA respectfully submits that the applicant in the instant case has satisfied none of the criteria set forth in GMC § 30.43.030.

BACKGROUND OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

The structure located at 3411 East Chevy Chase Drive is a single-family dwelling located in the R-1-R-III (Restricted Residential, Floor Area Ratio III) Zone.  The current dwelling was constructed in or about 2019, after the prior single-family residence located at the site was extensively damaged by fire.  The prior structure was a single-story dwelling fronted by a masonry wall, reportedly with an average height of approximately four to six feet, located within the 15-foot street-front setback area.

At an undetermined date following commencement of construction of the current residence, the height of the original masonry wall in front of the residence was substantially increased to approximately twice its prior height, reportedly without permits or inspection by the City of Glendale; this significant increase in height was reportedly related to a large volume of soil being added in front of the new dwelling for the purpose of altering the natural slope of the land and providing a level front yard for the newly constructed dwelling.  In addition to approximately doubling the height of the original masonry wall following the unpermitted grading and filling performed on the property, a decorative, closed-design fence several feet high was added on top of the unpermitted “second-tier” masonry wall, apparently for the purpose of providing the occupants additional privacy by making the dwelling unviewable from the street.

Further, at an unknown time during construction, the pre-existing driveway gate, which was of an “open design” as required by GMC §30.27.040 B, was replaced by a towering (approximately 10-foot tall) closed-design gate, again presumably for the purpose of providing additional privacy by completely screening the entire interior of the property from the street.  The gate effectively completed the creation of a “walled compound.”

The significant additional height of the masonry wall, the addition of a closed-design privacy fence, and the towering, closed-design driveway gate were implemented without permits, clearly violating the restrictions prescribed by the GMC.  These structures have created a visual blight on the entire neighborhood, flagrantly flouting the GMC’s purpose of ensuring open visual landscape in the subject area, and significantly and negatively impacting the nature and character of the entire surrounding residential area.

By way of analogy, the addition of the current “second-tier” masonry wall topped by an additional privacy fence is akin to the owner of a two-story house adding unpermitted third and fourth stories (both of which are clearly prohibited by the GMC) to the existing house; the hypothetical owner than erects a solid visual barrier across the entire front of the property (which is also clearly prohibited by the GMC).  When virtually every passerby not only notices, but repeatedly and continually objects to these gross violations of law and complains to the City (which repeatedly issues notices of violation, which go unheeded by the owner), the hypothetical homeowner then applies for a variance to retroactively “legitimize” the many violations.

PICTORIAL HISTORY OF
THE WALL, FENCE AND DRIVEWAY GATE

The Staff Report states:

• The subject walls, fence and driveway gate were originally installed by a previous property owner approximately twenty years ago, without the required zoning and building approvals…  (Staff Report, page 4.)

This statement in the Staff Report is somewhat misleading.  The current walls, fence and drive gate were not built 20 years ago.  They were constructed approximately two to three years ago.  An approximately timeline of what was constructed when is clearly illustrated by date-stamped Google Street View photos.

March 2019 Google Street View

As of March 2019, the prior house on the property (which subsequently suffered major damage in a fire) was fronted by a modest masonry wall, topped by an open-design decorative metal fence, and the driveway was protected by an open-design metal gate.  (The original date of construction of the wall and gate are unknown; however, they appear identical in all prior Google Street View photos dating back to at least 2008.)

Notwithstanding whether the original masonry wall, decorative fence and/or driveway gate were unpermitted or technically violated the GMC, the masonry wall was relatively modest in height, and the fence and driveway gate were of an open design.  These structures were reasonably visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and provoked no objections from neighbors.

February 2021 Google Street View

By February 2021, a newly constructed dwelling had replaced the fire-damaged previous dwelling on the site.  The preexisting masonry wall had apparently been coated with new stucco and painted white; an approximately 50% open-design, slat-style wall had replaced the former decorative metal fence on top of the masonry wall; and the driveway gate had been replaced with a slat-style, open-design gate.  Despite these changes, all three structures appear to have maintained the size and scale (and, at least to some degree, the transparency) of the prior wall and driveway gate.

September 2022 Google Street View

In September 2022, a worker can clearly be seen applying stucco to what appears to be approximately 6 feet of concrete block which had been added on top of the prior existing masonry wall, creating a “second-tier” masonry wall.

July 2024 Google Street View

By July 2024, the house had been almost completely obscured from street view by (1) the addition of a closed-design slat-style fence on top of the “second-tier” masonry wall and (2) the addition of solid material behind the previously open slats of the driveway gate.

By this time, CCEA had been receiving numerous complaints about the increasingly tall, but decreasingly open-design, wall and gate for approximately two years.  Canyon residents began referring to the property as “The Walled Compound” because it resembled the type of fortified compound one might see in a war-torn country or protecting a drug cartel’s premises.

The CCEA began the formal complaint process with the City in May 2023.

The subject property was sold in March 2024, despite its outstanding notices of code violations and the City’s enforcement efforts.

2025 Exterior and Interior Views

The above-described multiple phases of unpermitted, non-conforming construction have increased the height and eliminated the open design of the wall and driveway gate to a degree which cannot be tolerated any longer.  The current enormous height, mass, scale and closed design of the wall, fence and driveway gate clearly violate the GMC, constitute serious GMC violations, and are completely incompatible with any of the 1800+ residences in the surrounding neighborhood.  This now-infamous eyesore stands in brazen violation of the purpose and intent of the applicable ordinances, and there is simply no rational basis to “legalize” it retroactively.

RESPONSES TO STAFF REPORT FINDINGS

Pursuant to the GMC, a variance may be approved only if all four criteria set forth in § 30.43.030 are satisfied.

1. The strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance.

The Staff Report concludes:

• The strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance.”  (Staff Report, page 5.)

CCEA agrees with this finding in the Staff Report, i.e., that the applicant has failed to satisfy the first criterion of § 30.43.030.  Based on this finding alone, the requested variance may not be granted.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in analyzing this criterion, the Staff Report confusingly raises and discusses considerations that are irrelevant to the variance request because the issues raised would relate to the construction of a new wall behind the setback area, not to the removal of the excessively tall existing wall.  Issues of protected indigenous trees and the slope of the lot are irrelevant to the requested variance, which seeks to “legalize” the existing excessively tall wall, and the solid-design fence and driveway gate.

Likewise, the Staff Report discusses whether the wall serves as a traffic barrier.

• …to not allow a wall/fence, serving as a barrier for purposes of separating the subject property from the street where it curves and no curb or sidewalk exists, could potentially create a safety hazard for the property especially for vehicles traveling down (west) the canyon.  (Staff Report, pages 5-6.)

Aside from being irrelevant to the variance request, this statement in the Staff Report borders on the absurd.  First, the wall in question fronts the south side of the property; therefore, it (or any other wall in the same location) provides no protection whatsoever from vehicles traveling down the canyon.  Second, by this rationale, every house on a curve should have a protective block wall in front to protect it from vehicles.  It is noteworthy that Chevy Chase Canyon contains many houses located on sharply curved sections of road; to CCEA’s knowledge, not one of those houses has a block wall akin to the massive wall at issue here, and not one of those houses has been damaged by vehicular traffic.

But the Staff Report doubles down on this specious claim by further stating:

• The slope and steep curvature of the street significantly limit driver visibility when approaching the curve from either direction.  The subject property is located at the most vulnerable midpoint of this curve, where the sloping terrain and sharp bend create heightened vehicle safety risks and increased exposure to potential damage to private property.

Again, the statement is both incorrect and irrelevant because it ignores where the wall and gate are located (i.e., on the south side of the property).  First, the “vulnerable midpoint” of the curve on the east side of the property while the wall and gate are on the south side of the property; therefore, the wall and gate provide no protection whatsoever at the “vulnerable midpoint” of the curve.  Second, the Staff Report conspicuously fails to note that, even if the wall did provide any protection from vehicular traffic (which, again, is not the case here), the height of the wall is the issue; it is common sense that a towering 10-foot wall would not provide meaningfully more protection than the original four-foot-tall masonry wall.

The fact that the wall serves absolutely no purpose as a traffic barrier is clearly evidenced by the documentation in the staff report:

The curve cited by staff is on the easternmost side of the property, curves around vacant land, and is the furthest point from the residence on the property.  The wall which is the subject of this variance request is on the south side of the property, on a section of road which is straight and considerably downslope from any traffic.  In fact, the wall is question is parallel to the street; therefore, it offers no protection whatsoever from vehicles navigating the curve, whether the vehicle is traveling up (east) or down (west) the street.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the curve cited by the Staff Report already has a metal guardrail (as is standard on canyon roads) to prevent vehicles from leaving the road while navigating the curve.  Therefore, this “justification” in the Staff Report appears, at best, poorly reasoned.

Despite its many irrelevant, illogical and factually incorrect statements, the Staff Report concludes that this criterion has not been met.  Therefore, the variance must be denied.

2. There are no exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood.

The Staff Report states:

• Unique features of the site, including the lot’s “U”-like irregular shape, its up-hill sloping topography, its location on the corner where the street curves and winds up the canyon, and the presence of existing mature, protected indigenous trees (oak tree directly in front of the house and a sycamore tree towards the southeast portion of the lot) are all exceptional conditions that are not common to other properties in the neighborhood.  (Staff Report, page 6.)

CCEA respectfully submits that the Staff Report erred in this finding for two reasons.

First, the Staff Report is factually incorrect.  The Canyon has numerous properties located on sharply curved sections of road, e.g.:

• 2625 2631, 2618 and 2628 East Chevy Chase Drive
• 1908, 3310, 3284, 3280, 3235, 3229, 3054, 3048, 3015 and 3020 Buckingham Road
• 3311 Linda Vista Road
• 3295, 3297, 3290 and 3301 Dunsmere Road

Second, even if the Staff Report were correct regarding this issue (which it is not), the claimed “unique features” of the subject property do not in any way justify the excessive height of the wall in question.  To reiterate, the original much-lower wall amply protected the property from traffic without creating a visual eyesore which is completely incompatible with the surrounding area.

Based on the foregoing, CCEA respectfully submits that applicant has failed to satisfy the second criterion of § 30.43.030.

3. The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located.

The Staff Report states:

• The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood because the location of the retaining wall/fence/gate will not compromise light, air, open space, ventilation, privacy. … (Staff Report, page 7.)

CCEA respectfully submits that the Staff Report incorrectly analyzed this criterion, and that the applicant has not satisfied the third criterion of § 30.43.030.

Specifically, approving a variance to “legalize” the existing massive, closed-design masonry wall, fence and gate will be detrimental to the public welfare.  “Public welfare” includes the rights of adjacent and nearby property owners to live in a neighborhood which is free from unnecessary, unwarranted violations of zoning laws.

The Staff Report further states:

• Similar conditions already exist within the area and the community where retaining walls/fences/driveway gates are located within the street front setback, including several properties in the Chevy Chase Canyon neighborhood.

Respectfully, this statement is demonstrably untrue.  Of the 1800+ surrounding properties in Chevy Chase Canyon, not one other property is “hidden” behind a high, bunker-like masonry wall.  While a high, fortress-like wall might be appropriate in a war zone or in a neighborhood of multi-acre estates in Beverly Hills, it is not even remotely compatible with the existing homes and character of Chevy Chase Canyon.

Here, the applicant seeks to “legalize” an unsightly “high-walled compound” which is completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.  The massive wall at issue serves no apparent purpose other than to provide the occupants of this particular property a high level of personal privacy which, to CCEA’s knowledge, has not been afforded to even one other house in the entire area.

Significantly, the Staff Report does not – and, indeed, could not – list even one similarly high-walled property in Chevy Chase Canyon.  The height, material and visual design of all other walls, fences, and driveway gates on similar properties have, as required by law, been designed and constructed to minimize their visual impact, often at the expense of the desire for ultimate personal privacy which was apparently the sole motivating factor in the construction of the “Walled Compound” at issue in this case.

This finding of the Staff Report further tries to justify its erroneous conclusion by stating:

• [T]he wall/fence/gate would secure this portion of the lot, especially from potential vehicles from driving down this winding portion of Chevy Chase Drive.

The fallacy of this particular justification was discussed thoroughly above, but to reiterate, the Staff Report attempts to justifying the wall as a “safety enhancement” by referring to a portion of the lot which is nowhere near the wall, fence and gate in question.

For the reasons discussed above, the wall, fence, and gate at issue are materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in Chevy Chase Canyon.  They are not justified by any unique property characteristics or legitimate safety concerns, are incompatible with the 1800+ other properties in the area, and constitute an unsightly visual blight on an otherwise pastoral, hillside neighborhood – again, a neighborhood in which all other residents (even those whose properties are located on sharp curves in the road) have been required to abide by height and visual-design restrictions on walls in the setback area to the extent practicable and required for legitimate safety concerns.

CCEA is not objecting herein to the existence of the original masonry wall – or even to a reasonable open-design fence on top of a lower masonry wall; however, the Staff Report does not consistently distinguish between the original masonry wall and the “second-tier” masonry wall.  Further, the Staff Report fails to adequately address any justification for the decorative fence on top of the masonry wall, as well as the fact that the decorative fence and the driveway gate are not of an open design.

Based on the foregoing, CCEA respectfully submits that the Staff Report incorrectly analyzed this criterion, and that the applicant has failed to satisfy the third criterion of § 30.43.030.

4. The granting of the variance will be contrary to the objectives of the ordinance.

The Staff Report states:

• The objectives of the Code are intended to promote the public’s health, safety and welfare, and to allow reasonable development and use of property. …  As previously noted, there are other homes in the immediate neighborhood in the Chevy Chase Canyon, which have retaining walls, fences and/or driveway gates in the setback area.

Again, the Staff Report misses the point.  CCEA does not claim that no other houses in the neighborhood have masonry walls, fences and/or driveway gates in the setback area.  However, not one of those walls, fences and/or driveway gates is 10 feet tall or designed in a way that creates the visual appearance of a “walled compound.”

The Staff Report also conspicuously fails to mention what is arguably the most fundamental “objectives of the Code,” i.e., to promote compatibility and visual appeal of residential neighborhoods.  Those objectives have been fundamental to the City’s zoning regulations for at least 40 years.  To utterly ignore those objectives is not only morally indefensible, it also potentially violates equal protection for hundreds of homeowners who have been denied variances for far more benign walls, fences and/or driveway gates, and causes irreparable harm to the 1800 other residents of Chevy Chase Canyon in terms of property values and peaceful enjoyment of their property – all so one homeowner can have a higher wall drastically higher than permitted by the GMC solely to prevent anyone from seeing their house from the street.  Respectfully, if the homeowner has a need for that level of privacy, perhaps they should have moved to a different type of neighborhood.

Based on the foregoing, CCEA respectfully submits that the applicant has failed to satisfy the fourth criterion of § 30.43.030.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to § 30.43.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code (the “GMC”), “a variance shall be granted only if” four enumerated factors have been satisfied.  A negative finding on even one of the four factors requires that a variance application be denied.

For the reasons discussed above, CCEA submits that the requested variance may not be granted (1) because the Staff Report concludes that the applicant has failed to satisfy the first criterion of § 30.43.030, and (2) because the Staff Report erroneously concluded that the applicant satisfied the second, third and fourth criteria of § 30.43.030.

CCEA is unable to submit specific comments regarding the Conditions listed in Exhibit 1 (Draft Findings) of the Staff report because a number of the documents referenced in the Conditions were either not included in the Staff report or failed to provide specificity regarding what structures and/or designs would and would not be acceptable if a variance were granted.

To be clear, CCEA is not “anti-development” or “anti-property rights.”  To the contrary, CCEA actively supports homeowners’ rights to the lawful, peaceful enjoyment of their property, but only within the reasonable bounds of established law, and not to the material detriment of surrounding property owners.  To that end, in addition to any additional conditions the City would impose to permit the applicant to maintain a wall, fence and driveway gate within the 15-foot setback area, CCEA we would respectfully suggest a simple resolution to this case which would allow reasonable use of the property while minimizing adverse effects on the rights of neighboring property owners and maintaining consistency with all the objectives of the relevant ordinances:

1. Require the homeowner to remove the unpermitted, uninspected and unnecessary “second-tier” masonry wall constructed in or around 2022, thereby restoring the masonry wall to its original, pre-2022 height of approximately four to six feet (varying with the natural contours of the land);
2. Permit the homeowner to affix a fence of an “open design” on top of the masonry wall, not to exceed the height of the open-design fence which was affixed to the original masonry wall; and
3. Require the homeowner to replace the existing, impermissible, solid-design driveway gate with a gate of “open design” and a height no greater than the open-design fence, or two feet higher than the original masonry wall if an open-design fence is not affixed on top of the masonry wall.

We believe this solution would permit reasonable use of the homeowners’ property, be tolerably compliant with the goals of the zoning ordinance, and not unduly infringe upon the property rights of other homeowners in the area.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Graeme Whifler, President