Walnut Creek Zoning Administrator Meeting – January 28, 2026: Design Review, Variance, and Tree Removal Permits for Three Properties
Walnut Creek Zoning Administrator Meeting – January 28, 2026
The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on three items: the DiMaggio single-family residence (design review, variance, tree removal), the Winkler master bedroom variance, and the Chalice variance (1966 Dora Avenue). The first two items were approved; the third was approved in part with conditions and the rear-yard two-story garage variance was denied.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 3A (DiMaggio): Two public comments in opposition were received by staff but no speakers appeared. The applicant, Jessica DiMaggio, presented supporting the project and noted the trees to be removed were dead and identified by the city arborist.
- Item 3B (Winkler): No public speakers. The applicant was not present; staff recommended approval.
- Item 3C (Chalice): Multiple speakers opposed the variances:
- Carlos De Ribeira (1827 Almond Avenue) opposed, arguing the project would set a negative precedent, create shadowing, and that storage could be achieved in the existing rear garage location.
- Brian Libinati (1962 Dora Avenue) opposed, citing lack of hardship and granting of special privilege.
- Robert Schoenfeld (1958 Dora Avenue) opposed, stating the variances would alter neighborhood character and weaken zoning standards.
- Bernadette Homan (1958 Dora Avenue) opposed, asking the ZA to walk the street, consider if he would want this in his own neighborhood, and noting the applicant’s limited community engagement.
- Joyce (owner of 1977/1973 Dora Avenue) opposed, arguing the phantom frontage standard was misapplied, the design would create a hardscape front, and the project would harm property values and drainage.
- Julia Rosapo (tenant at 1977 Dora) opposed, citing privacy intrusion and claustrophobic impact.
- Coco Tao (1502 Oakland Boulevard) opposed, citing loss of sunlight, views, and privacy, and noting that a feasible alternative location exists on the east side of the property.
- The ZA noted that many letters of support were received but no supporters spoke.
Discussion Items
- Item 3A: The ZA reviewed the staff report and site. He noted the unique lot shape, the applicant’s single-story addition, and the condition of trees. He expressed support for the project and asked about front yard landscaping. The applicant confirmed willingness to landscape. The ZA added a condition requiring a front yard landscaping plan approved by the Community Development Director and installed prior to certificate of occupancy. The item was approved.
- Item 3B: The ZA reviewed the staff report and site. The lot is undersized with an unusual ownership line that effectively creates a front yard. He found that the ownership deviation justified the variance, stating “it looks like one, smells like one, walks like one.” He approved the variance.
- Item 3C: The applicant’s designer, Andrew Store, presented the proposal for an attached two-car garage with attic storage in the front yard, requiring three variances: front porch encroachment, carport wall in front yard, and reduction of rear yard setback for a two-story garage. The ZA questioned the design and noted the existing garage in the rear. After public testimony, the ZA stated he could support the front porch and carport variances as they improve the house’s function and safety. However, he could not support the variance for the two-story garage in the rear. He said a single-story two-car garage without second story could be designed to meet setbacks without a variance. He approved the first two variances and denied the third, adding a condition that the remainder of the front yard be landscaped and a landscape plan installed prior to occupancy. The decision is appealable within 10 days.
Key Outcomes
- Item 3A (DiMaggio): Approved with condition of front yard landscaping. (Design review, variance, tree removal permits granted.)
- Item 3B (Winkler): Approved as shown.
- Item 3C (Chalice):
- Variance #1 (front porch reduction to 7’2.5” setback): Approved.
- Variance #2 (front yard wall for carport): Approved.
- Variance #3 (rear yard setback reduction for two-story garage): Denied.
- Additional condition: Front yard (all hardscape and softscape areas) must be landscaped per a plan approved by the Community Development Director prior to certificate of occupancy.
- All decisions are appealable to the City Clerk within 10 days of the decision (expected issuance on January 29, 2026).
Meeting Transcript
And we're going to be able to do that. Microphone. So we can actually capture this. So this is a time for some for if anybody wanted to make comments for something that is not on this agenda. If you're here for one of the hearing items on this agenda, now is not the time. So is there anybody who wants to speak to something not on the agenda? Seeing none. Next, public hearings. Public hearings start up. The first um item is item 3A. It's DiMaggio single family residence edition. It includes design review, variance, and tree removal permits. Planner is Stephen Cook. Steven, I've read the staff report. Is there any presentation from staff? No presentation. No presentation. Okay, I've read the staff report. I think I understand it. I've seen the site. Correspondence. Can you right? So uh since the publishing of the agenda, uh there were two public comments received uh in opposition to the project, and that's included as an attachment for your reference. Okay, so this one is that, and then this is a separate one with the larger font. That's correct. Okay, okay, perfect. And I've I read those, thank you. Uh is there uh does the applicant have a presentation. Okay, you uh go ahead and sit at the table, turn your microphone on and let us out and know who you are, and you've got uh, you know, yeah. Should be green, uh, scribe the other one, go to the bullpen. There you go. Okay, Jessica DiMaggio. Um, do you need anything else from me? Just yeah, do you need our address or any other identification? Just your name and if you're the applicant or not, Rapcom's representative. Okay, Jessica DiMaggio, applicant, and we just had a little statement. Um we wanted to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We think that Steve and Cook did an excellent job outlining the unique conditions of our lot, particularly its shape and size, and explaining why without a variance, we would be deprived of privileges that other properties within our zoning classification enjoy. From the beginning of this project, we've spent a considerable amount of time thinking about how this project would affect our neighbors and how we could minimize those impacts wherever possible. We chose not to add to the front of the house. We are retaining the original style and character of the home. We're staying within the setbacks of the current structure, which means we will not be any closer to our neighbors than we already are. If we were to sell our house, the most likely buyer would be a developer who would not take these considerations into account. At the end of the day, our goal is simple. We want what most families want, enough space for our family to live together comfortably and to remain in the community that we love. Um I'm gonna skip this part. Um let me see here. This project allows us to improve a property that is currently below the standard and bring it to its best potential. We believe that the end result will benefit not only our family, but the neighborhood as a whole, as each of us continues to invest in improve our homes, we enhance the overall appeal of our community. We also recognize that improvement projects come with temporary inconveniences.
openpublica.com