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).