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.

To address that, we have assembled an experienced and well coordinated team that is committed to completing this project efficiently and professionally.

It's our hope to complete the project uh alongside the current construction at Seven Hills Ranch so that the disruption is consolidated and we can all return to normal as quickly as possible.

Approval of this variance helps make that timeline possible.

We are deeply invested in this community.

Our two boys are happy and settled in Indian Valley Indian Valley Elementary, and we are looking forward to remaining part of this neighborhood for many years to come.

Thank you for your time and considerations.

No, oh no, no.

Um, let's see.

Do I have any questions?

Um I do appreciate the single story uh design.

Yeah.

Um one thing I do see missing here is is any indication of any front yard landscaping.

Do we do would you be willing to do some landscaping?

Yes, that's yeah.

We all have a okay.

Um I've also seen where there is some opposition to some.

There's some of the tree removals um include some trees that are shared with a with a neighboring property.

Yeah, they don't look to me to be necessary to be removed to do the dump to do the construction.

Great question.

Those were actually not on our original request.

Um, after the city arborist drove by the property and saw the condition of those trees, he asked us to have them evaluated.

It was the arborist evaluation showing that those trees are completely dead and a liability and a safety hazard and a fall risk that he asked us to include that in the project.

Uh point of clarification, was that the city arborist, or was that the consultants consult the the applicant's consulting arborist?

That was the city's arborist.

It was.

Okay.

Interesting.

Okay, great.

Um, I think that's all the questions I have.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, are there do you have speakers for are there any speakers for this item?

Is there anybody not?

There's none for this item.

Okay.

Um, we will close.

Oh, uh, Mr.

Zonny Administrator.

Uh, there is a speaker identification card from Carl Carlos Rubia for item 3A.

BC.

3C.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, well, we will go ahead and close the public hearing.

Um, thank you.

You can you can remain or go.

You you are free to you're free to roam the cabin.

Um, let's see.

The public hearing just closed.

I give you every opportunity to speak.

Um, with that, I would like to add a condition um to um include front yard landscaping.

And that is a plan to be approved by the community development director or their designee, and for installation of that landscaping to be achieved prior to uh certificate of occupancy.

So does it have been approved?

This item has been approved.

All right, next item is 3B, the Winkler Master Bedroom variants.

And this is is this the Jeffrey Lane project?

And again, I have had no ex parte communication with this applicant or anybody on that team.

This is supposed to be for this.

Okay.

Um it's Curtis.

I've I've read the uh read the staff report, been by the property, looked in um, they looked at all the materials.

Is there is there anything that I don't have?

Is there any new information?

There is no information, uh no new information from members of the public that members of the applicant team did provide two points of clarification related to floor area ratio and um net lot coverage.

Um those uh points of clarification are within the allowable thresholds identified in your staff report.

Are they significant?

They are not significant.

They're not okay.

Okay.

Um let's see.

Is there um is there anything else I'm missing?

No.

No.

Okay.

Does is there an applicant?

We received notification this morning from uh members of the applicant team that they would not be in attendance today.

Is there any reason for this occurrence?

Yes, sir.

Um staff recommends approval of the variance application under several uh circumstances.

Um the subject application is compliant with development regulations.

There are unique hardships associated with the project identified in your staff report.

Um applicable reviewing divisions such as engineering, building, um, etc.

have reviewed and conditioned the project accordingly.

Um we have received two public comments um associated with with the project, but it is staff's recommendation that it is approved.

Okay.

Uh and and was there any uh what was the reason that the the applicant is not present?

Did they give you one?

Uh they did not identify that reason.

Okay.

All right.

Um open the public hearing.

Is there anybody that would like to speak to this item?

Are you sure?

Now's the time.

So nobody is here to speak to item 3b, the winkler master bedroom edition variants.

Nobody.

Going once.

Okay.

All right, public hearings closed.

For this project, I see it's that the lot itself is a little undersized.

Uh the some of the dimensions are shorter, um, which may or may not prove to be enough for a variance.

But what's in this case there is a strange occurrence of an ownership that goes across that property, which really takes away its ability to be the front yard.

And if that was the front yard, we wouldn't be here today.

Um, so I think this I think in this case that that that ownership deviation is is enough to consider approval of a variance.

Um, and that because that that's the way that property has been developed.

It's the way it looked, it it for the front yard that passes the what I would say the duct test looks like one, smells like, walks like one.

So for that reason alone, I I would I would approve this variance.

I mean, and and I like to I like I like and I appreciate all of you folks being here because we do not see many variances in Walnut Creek, and we take them very seriously.

It's one of the few entitlements where there are state-mandated findings to make.

And I think you'd all know who what they are because they've been in a lot of this correspondence.

Somebody's done their homework.

Um, but we and we take it very seriously, but but we also appreciate the pride of ownership and what you can do with the pride of ownership.

Um one person can do this, the other person should kind of be able to do the same thing.

So when you have when you have an occurrence on your property that keeps you from doing that, I can make those, I can make that finding and make that leap and be able to approve the variance.

And in this case i will i will do so.

So this item three A is three B is approved as shown okay apparently now's the moment we've all been waiting for uh item three c the chalice variants um that it's uh that's not on door away i drove down it this morning is it 1966 door 1966 door so we have that on here 1966 door is there there is a lot of correspondence for this item um how how many of you wish to speak to this item uh so some of you okay and have y'all done the cards again you don't really have to but it's nice for you um is there anything new that I do not have since the agenda has been published um quite a bit of public comment has come in yes um you should have been at all you should have record of that nothing any public comments since so in the last hour no sir nothing new okay okay great um in that case let's uh open the public here oh well actually is there is there an applicant who has an applic uh a presentation yeah yeah great yeah Andrew come on up and I'll pull up your PowerPoint.

The applicant has a short presentation I'm assuming it's somewhat short 10 minutes.

Okay.

You you actually have 10 minutes so let's we'll start the clock.

All right well I just want to thank everyone for for coming I know this was um I don't think I've seen this many uh comments on such a small project so I'm glad that the community is engaged in this neighborhood and cares deeply about this streets and their community and the zoning of it.

Can I just state your name for the oh yeah sorry uh my name's Andrew Store I'm the designer for the project at 196 Andrew's store store.

Yep.

So I just want to give some contextual um Mr.

Zon administrator I appreciate you going to the site um so some of these contextual photos um will I thought I didn't know you would be going out to the site so it was kind of for you guys to to describe the site and some of the contextual um constraints that we were we were up against.

So as you see here this this property is at uh a dead end of a street door Av um there are two adjacent properties um that are zone D3.

The the property behind it is actually a different zoning which is slightly elevated um which is this is this the laser button yeah so right here this elevation is actually a couple of feet higher than my grade here so just something to kind of keep in the back of your back of your heads when when we look at the design of this so as we know um I'm the designer of this project uh this is a single family home in the almond chewy district zone D3 uh this home was built in 1946 which the means that the building is non-historical um our client the the crux of this project and why we designed it the way we did was uh the client would like to build an attached two car garage with an attic space above the garage uh as you know everyone is busting at the seams for storage um this is because the detached garage in the rear of the building is in bad shape as you can see here in this photo um and due to the structural integrity of this and the size of it and the juxtaposition between the garage door and the existing building, it doesn't make sense to turn this into a two-car garage just from being able to pull vehicles in and out of it, um, and allowing no additional um future additions on the side of the house, which will be within the existing side yard setback and within the existing front yard setback and the phantom frontage.

So if there was ever a future addition proposed out here, this rear garage basically come uh unusable.

So as we designed it, we looked towards this front lawn area, um, which we thought would be the best placement for the owner's use.

Um, as we see, this property does have a uh height limit of 25 feet tall.

So the owner could have built a second-story living space over the existing house to create a second-story feel to the house.

He could have also created a state-exempt ADU, which would have pushed, which would give the ability to push four feet from any property line with within the property.

Um those options didn't work at the time of our design, did not work for the clients' needs.

So we decided to place the garage in that front landscaped area and um build the attic space above it.

I just want to point out a couple more things in this uh surrounding this property based on this zoning map.

The max there's my pointer.

So everything in yellow could be a 25-foot height requirement, everything in orange can be a 50-foot height requirement.

So, meaning that that building right there is a three-story tall building.

The new development behind my client's project is additionally a three-story tall building, and they actually could build up to 50 feet as well as this single-family house here, could also build up to 50 feet, and and the duplex next door could also have that same height restrictions.

Um the almond Shui district is an area in with a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, and multi-unit buildings that are around the property.

Um, we adhere to the development standards to fit the addition within the existing architecture of the building, stucco around the house, front porches, and gable roofs.

The design standards are vague in the exact design and aesthetics that needs to be maintained throughout the neighborhood.

We tried to design our proposed addition to match the existing building architecture.

The uh so as we look at some of these constraints that are on our property, so we have a few different constraints that most properties do not have uh within this neighborhood.

The first major one is a minimum lot frontage.

So that is the property line that adbuts your uh street.

The minimum lot frontage is 60 feet, where we have 28 feet one and a half inches.

Because of this, this also added a second rear yard setback, which is on this property line.

Most properties only have one rear yard setback.

We also have a phantom frontage of 35 feet plus an additional 15 feet front yard setback, where most um properties throughout this neighborhood only have a 15-foot front yard setback, and that is it.

When you have to add in the 35-foot and the 15-foot, we have now a 50-foot front yard setback, which I think is very rare in this neighborhood.

The existing building, as you could see in multiple places, are already over these development standards.

So in this rear, y'all rear area here, the front area, front corner of the house, and the front porch.

So this building is already um over our development standards.

The other item is so because of these requirements, that has made our front area where we'd like to put our this new garage.

Almost almost an unbuildable front yard, which means that you are only allowed to build on the on the side and in the rear of the property, which even then we could not even get a two-car garage because we'd be uh adhering to another rear yard setback.

Um we some other items.

There's no FAR, the lot coverage is is 50 feet or 50% of the lot area.

So as we were designing this, um, there were a lot of things that that we had to design against.

So what we are asking for is we've placed our our garage uh which was is within our front yard setback to allow for the maximum turn in and out of the garage and onto door av.

We are asking for a reduction in the rear yard setback from 10 feet to five feet, or classifying this rear yard setback as a side yard setback, which then a no variance would be needed unless the variance would be needed to um change the identification of a rear yard to a side yard, and because of this, there's you know some logic that you could argue either way.

Um we are asking for a reduction in the front yard landscaped area.

We are currently at uh 24.4%, I believe, on that.

Um, we are asking for a reduction in where there isn't now a covered uh gonna be a covered carport right here.

The front corner is already over the front yard setback.

We have added a wall to screen in the covered carport because we thought that would be more aesthetic for the neighborhood, and what we are asking is to um place this wall on the front yard setback along with the porch to bring in that that architectural element of a porch to the design.

The porch would reduce the front yard setback from 15 feet to seven foot two and a half inches.

Um we are still within our lot coverage, and our height requirement of a our actual height is 23 foot four inches, and our max height is 25 feet.

And I uh I think that's all I will conclude my presentation, and I just want to thank Curtis and the staff for helping us through this.

Um other thing is I have an isometric view of the of the addition uh versus the existing and showing how we are trying to bolster the curb appeal of the existing house and make this a little more architecturally stimulating for the existing house.

I'll conclude my presentation.

You want me to stay up here?

Uh question, I have a question, maybe a comment.

Yeah.

Or two.

Yep.

Go ahead.

Uh, you did mention uh that you had or if that was an ADU, it would have a four-foot setback.

Now that would only be true if the ADU is ground floor, a state exact, correct.

Only if it was a ground floor, so it wouldn't be able to do it in that configuration.

16 you'd have 16 feet in you couldn't do it over the garage, is what I'm saying.

Yes, no, no, you are you are correct.

I could not do it over the garage, but if I got rid of the garage element and you put in a state exempt ADU, you could build up to 16 feet tall.

Um we're within if we are within half mile from a BART station, we could go up to 18 feet tall, which we are very close to that half mile.

Okay.

Um any other questions?

Let's see.

Um I don't.

No more questions.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Yep.

You want to say up here?

No, you can say, yeah.

Okay.

Well, actually, um, we're gonna need that for for I believe somebody's gonna make comments.

So speaking of that, let's uh let's move on to that.

Are these are these cards for are these cards that I have?

Okay, I'm just gonna call these names out, and if there's any more after this, we can get to that.

Yeah, you're you're good.

You're good.

Um let's see.

So we'll open the public comment period, and we'll have a first speaker will be Carlos de Ribeira.

Carlos?

Okay, if you just uh state your name and uh make sure the thing is green.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Carlos Di Rubira.

I'm a resident of the Almond Shugan neighborhood, 1827 Almond Avenue.

Um, I um I'm here to the uh to comment on the the requests uh for variances.

Um, and I will state a few things um about it, right?

First of all, um the commitment from the Walnut Creek uh to stick to the Walnut Creek uh specific planned uh in its overlay, right?

Which also has setback requirements uh and shadowing uh uh discussions on properties built in our neighborhood.

So that's why as you go higher, you have to consider getting away from that those setbacks even further.

So that's one that we want to make sure that that is being considered here.

Um the second thing is that um we we have to be uh very careful um establishing new uh presidents in our neighborhood.

Um there was a comment made earlier that we already have thing uh you know construction that violates some of these uh requirements for this neighborhood, and you know, increasing the number of those variances uh just uh makes it even harder for us to keep the character of the neighborhood, which is one of the commitments of the Walnut Creek specific plan, uh West Downtown specific plan.

Um so in this case, the request would allow a large structure in the front yard that provides shadowing uh to the property next to it.

Um we so that that's one thing.

Second thing, you know, it's a is a garage with uh with a storage with a lot of windows in the storage, by the way, which doesn't seem to be uh a good storage uh practice.

Um the uh the next thing is that um that amount of space can be easily achieved just in the same pad as where the current garage is located.

So I don't understand why that choice is made to go to the front with this property and not use the space in the back.

Um which you know, with pro with it the buildings already around it being tall, um it it probably doesn't necessarily compete with anybody uh and it provides a better place uh for large storage, which will provide view as well.

Carlos, can I stop you right there for just a minute?

Yes.

Um what I forgot to say is we have two minutes.

Yeah.

Um you're you're at that mark, but since you didn't know, can you wrap it up in 30?

I can wrap it up in 30 seconds.

So please if you approve this variance, uh it will establish a new precedence because of this large structure in the front uh yard, and I want to make sure that we're very careful with that, and uh because it will affect the character of the neighborhood.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh Brian.

My name's Brian Libinati.

1962 Door Avenue.

I'm a neighbor of Steve's on the east side.

I share a property line with him.

Um good afternoon, Mr.

Zoning Administrator.

My name is Brian Libinotti.

And I'm a resident of Walnut Creek.

I'm here to speak on in opposition of item three C, the variance for 1966 Door Avenue.

I have a couple points to make.

Point one is the lack of hardship.

Under California government code section 65906, a variance is a remedy for a physical property defect, not a tool for a home improvement.

The staff report points to phantom frontage as a special circumstance.

However, this lot is already developed with a house and a functional two-car garage.

The applicant is not being deprived of a privilege.

They've already enjoyed the same privileges as their neighbors.

The hardship here is a personal design choice, the desire to have an attached larger garage with what he's calling an attic storage.

Personal preference is not a legal basis for variance.

And point two, grant of special privilege.

Granting a five foot rear setback when 10 feet is required and slashing landscaping from 40% to 24% constitutes a special privilege.

If a neighbor without a phantom frontage asked to build a garage five feet from the rear line just to have more storage, they would be denied.

State law forbids granting a variance that is inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties in the same zone.

By approving this, you would be granting this property owner rights, the rest of us on Door Avenue do not have.

uh the landscaping from the 40 to 24 percent um so thank you for your time and appreciate you considering all the options thank you uh Robert uh Schoenfield thank you uh good afternoon um Robert Schoenfeld I live at 1958 Dora Avenue approval of these variances would materially alter the character of our neighborhood and negatively affect both the enjoyment and the value of surrounding properties just as important granting them creates the appearance of preferential treatment for a single applicant while variances may not establish legal precedent they absolutely establish expectations expectations that make it harder for the city to deny similar requests in the future over time this weakens the city's ability to apply zoning standards consistently fairly and with credibility and this is not an abstract concern over and over residents of Dora Avenue and the Almond Shui neighborhood have demonstrated that they care deeply about the character of this place that character is not merely sentimental it is formally recognized by the city and protected through adopted planning and zoning policies approving variances of this magnitude signals that those protections are negotiable it tells residents that standards are meant that standards that are meant to preserve the neighborhood integrity will bend under pressure rather than hold when they matter most to understand the real impact of this proposal from Dora Avenue I ask you to imagine standing at the base of Dora Avenue and looking uphill at the highest point of the street extending towards the street beyond beyond the existing line of homes and rising nearly twice as high as neighboring buildings would sit a large box like structure completely out of scale and entirely out of context it would dominate the streetscape permanently alter the view and fundamentally change the neighborhood in a way that cannot be undone for these reasons I respectfully urge you to deny these variances thanks for your time and consideration Bernadette Homan Bernadette I can bring a microphone to you if you'd like you want to do that we're already on right here sit next to you if that's okay yeah okay to me yep okay good afternoon you're the main good afternoon my name is Bernard Hohen I live at one nine five eight Dora Avenue in the Almond two in Newburgh I have three simple questions for you to consider one first have you walked your neighborhood if you look at it not given to it not reviewed plans on paper but actually stood on Dora Avenue walked the slope experience the scale and spacing and character of the homes that they exist today because what it because what appears acceptable in a drawing can feel very different when you're physically there.

Second would you want this project in your neighborhood would you want a structure of this size and scale rising above the surrounding homes altering the view the light and the balance of the street if the answer is no then I ask you to consider why should it be imposed on us?

Why should it be imposed on us?

Third the applicant has stated a desire to be a continuing member of this community he wrote the letter saying I want to be part of your committee but contribution is not something declared during reperiment trusses it is something demonstrated over time and over the years there has been no meaningful participation, presence or engagement in this neighborhood community.

I thank you for your time.

And for these reasons, I urge you to deny the recording slide yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

The next the next speaker is Joyce.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, thanks for this opportunity to meet with you tonight.

My husband and I own the duplex located at 1977 and 1973 Dora.

And we share a property line with the applicant.

Just prior to the meeting this afternoon, I sent a letter.

I'm not sure if you received it yet or have had a chance to read through this at all.

I saw two the two pieces of correspondence from I think the tenants at that building.

Okay.

With regard to my husband and myself, our specific issues is, and number one, we believe that the um statement in the staff's report that this is a unique and constrained by its limited street frontage and concave lot line geometry along Dora Avenue is misleading.

And we believe that the phantom footage standard is being applied inappropriately.

If you look at the map and uh the lot lines, there is no concave there.

It is um normally phantom frontage is applied to future developments to you're trying to reserve, as I understand it, you're trying to reserve space for something that isn't built yet, and Dora is built out.

Uh all of Aminshui is densely built.

So I see no purpose, no positive purpose in applying the phantom frontage setback as phantom frontage standard to this project.

It just doesn't make sense.

I don't see how you gain anything out of it.

If anything, by forcing the garage to mass on the front left side of the property, you create a situation that makes it more difficult for a cul-de-sac ever to be created there in the future.

Not easy.

In addition to that, um we've had other ten other people here speak about the unique character of the neighborhood.

And I I really feel like you have um this design does not capture what is consistent with with Alm Shui.

There are many homes that have no garage, have a one-car garage, others with two car garages.

The tenant, sorry, the the applicant is asking for a new two-car garage plus a carport plus parking in front of his home.

And the entire front of his home will become hardscape.

Um, I understand he's planning on using semi-permeable pavers, but I am still concerned and don't feel like drainage and surface runoff, which would have to be absorbed by the city streets, has yet been addressed.

Uh we further feel, Rich and I, that the report has not.

You're at three minutes.

You want to get wrap up your points, please.

Okay.

Um, other people have mentioned uh public safety.

I would uh reiterate that um Dora is a substandard street, it's only 27 feet wide.

Uh parking allowed on both sides, it's got limited um space for vehicle traffic.

Uh impact on adjacent owners.

I'd just like to call your attention to what it would do to uh people like me.

And I in my letter, I had included a before and after photo where you can see before my view, and I I had to superimpose another building in here and after my view, and this is very detrimental to my property values, and I do not feel that it's right to benefit one property owner at the at the detriment of other you're at four minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you for your patience.

Are there any other speakers?

If you could just state your name and it was already green.

Uh my name is Julia Rosapo.

I live in said duplex that my landlord was just speaking of in the 1977 unit.

Mainly due to how tall the structure will be and close to my property line, the invasion of privacy that it will create for not just myself but my neighbor in 1973 as well.

As many have noted, there are windows in that second story storage location that will overlook into not only my yard, but the yard behind that will overlook into the 1973 kitchen window as well, just causing an invasion of privacy, making the space feeling very boxed in.

As people have mentioned, there's already a lot of tall buildings sort of surrounding and boxing us in.

So another one would not be appreciated for that reason.

That would just cause a more claustrophobic feeling.

And as everyone has mentioned, the character in the neighborhood is definitely very unique.

We're the oldest neighborhood, we're a historical neighborhood in Walnut Creek.

So maintaining that front charm is something I love.

I've lived here for four years as a tenant.

I tend to live here many more.

So I hope that my quality of living is not impacted by such a large structure built so close to my unit, that's going to cause an unwelcome feeling of eyeballs, you know, invasion of privacy on the property.

So that's it.

Nice and brief.

My sentiments are also mirrored by the tenants of 1973.

They're not here, but they share the same feelings.

So thank you.

It looks great.

And I always encourage people to update their properties in our neighborhood.

And so let me just speak on CSBI.

Hello.

Hi, my name is Coco Tao.

I've lived in this neighborhood for several years.

Sorry, I lost my voice recently, so it's a little weird, wonky.

Um, but I'm speaking tonight as the adjacent homeowner who shares a west side property line with the applicant.

I live on 1502 Oakland Boulevard, the property behind Steve.

Um I'm here to oppose the proposed two-story garage and the variances requested to allow it because they conflict with the intent of Almond Chewy overlay and would materially take away from my property and the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed garage is planned directly along our shared west side property line.

Because of its height, mass and reduced setbacks, it would significantly reduce natural sunlight into my primary living space and backyard, eliminate existing views and openness, and introduce direct privacy impact that do not exist today.

These are my permanent daily impacts to my home.

These standards exist for safety as well as neighborhood compatibility.

Importantly, these impacts are avoidable.

The east side of the applicant's property already contains an existing driveway and garage, demonstrating that a feasible alternative location exists.

Choosing to seek multiple variances to build in a more impactful location represents a design preference, not a necessity the almond chewy overlay was created to protect neighborhood scale safety and livability approving these variances would shift the burden of development onto neighboring homes and undermine the purpose of the overlay for these reasons, I respectfully ask the commission to not deny the request variances, and the project is proposed or require substantial revision that reduced height massing and safety impacts on the adjacent properties thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Are there any other speakers?

No.

Uh the applicant has uh 10 minutes if you'd like to rebut any of these comments.

Just gather some of my thoughts here.

Today I heard about uh a few things um I'll start could I pull up uh could I pull up the presentation to absolutely point to property lines perfect.

So uh I heard I heard about a few things um one the first one is that we're we're built too close to the setback or to the property line I just like to go to to my my quick diagram here.

We are well within the rights to build five feet from this property line I know I know that it uh feels like it's too close but this is a design standard within the D3 that we are allowed to build five feet from this property line I heard that we having having a building pushed further away from the street creates safety.

Yes we we tried to create the best location if the neighborhood likes the 10 foot setback I'm pushing over one hard line of a setback either the 15 foot frontage or my rear yard setback we we thought it would be better to push towards the rear and the property most affected is the one towards the back they are allowed to build a taller building if they chose to do so if they chose to build a larger building within their development standards this property owner would have no say in it.

The other item that I'd like to to bring up is this um the landscaping there are multiple properties throughout this neighborhood that if you drive it that either have end to end of concrete or a very small portion of uh landscaped area due to a a wider two-car driveway there are areas within here that multiple many people need to develop a property to meet their needs every need is not always met from owner to owner our tenant or our property owner would like to add a future larger breakfast nook family room area which everyone says we'll build it in the back well if if we did that you're never allowed to capture any of this space in the future and I I don't know about you guys if someone said hey no place everything place a building in the back and then you're never going to be able to touch this portion of land seems seems a little bit um tough to to chew on especially when even in a reduced setback the building is already a over my my reduced setback.

I heard about privacy for windows it's an addict there is there is no staircase for living space above here and what we tried to do is soften the front facade with with windows so that the neighborhood didn't have to look at a garage door and then a blank wall all the way around this structure so it was more just for a design feature to to not and the same thing with this bay bump out here it was strictly for a architectural element to break up the front facade um so um I don't think I can add anything else um I've talked through kind of our design intent for the project and I appreciate the neighborhood's um points brought up today okay I think that concludes the public hearing portion of this hearing um I'll go ahead and close the public hearing there's three things going on here well I there's three points of variance and is there a tree removal with this there's there's not right no all of them are under the public hearing is closed thank you correct uh the trees on site do not trigger the need for a tree removal permit so they're they're not trees they're not trees okay um clear all right so what I see is there are three are three points of variance you've got two two variants requests for the front yard which includes the front patio entrance area and then the wall that provides an entrance to a carport somewhat of an enclosed carport the third is the rear yard variants for the two story garage building which is an attached structure and I'll I'll speak to the first two first the um variance number one for the front porch it seems reasonable to me um it's it's it's it just it helps make the house work a little bit better um but let me back up a minute first off as far as findings for variants goes there's an M3 lot it has it's it if you look at the size of the lot pardon uh what did I say oh sorry D3 lot duplex all and chewy uh that um the size of the lot is i i believe a little bit over what the minimum lot size is however the other dimensions are not and then there's also a um uh narrowing effect as you go towards the rear of the lot and it's also has uh as everybody has pointed out it's at the end of a street with no cul de sac there's no hammerhead turnaround we we have no choice but to use the um phantom frontage there because really that is what it's for it's for it's for flag lots and situations like that when there is no front yard um and by the way there is an easement that goes across that as well did it go away okay um and the the easement I I digress the easement was was for I I believe it was for the alignment of the 680 freeway back in the day and it was never used to go uh originally it's gonna go all the way out to Oakland but that is since not gonna happen um a long long time ago uh anyway those things would comprise the ability for the zoning administrator to make variance findings that said for the first for the first variants, the front porch I I can I can I can support that.

The second the second variance um over uh to the front yard, I can support that as well.

It helps it it helps to bring structured or the the roof structure in um it provides uh you know that's a safe place to to put the semi-safe place to park a car.

The third one, I think is the main one here, and I think that is is what most folks are speaking to.

Most speakers, with the exception of one, were in opposition.

I did get a lot of, we did get a lot of correspondence and support, um, just not here.

Um, and most of those folks that supported it were everybody else that lived on Dora, which which is interesting that none of them are here, but anyway.

Um if we look at that situation, and and I'm and uh we over the years there's been different projects there.

I agree with how those lot lines and how those setbacks and what has been determined to be the phantom frontage, the side yards and the rear yards.

I agree with that as part of the group that made that decision years ago with the previous project and previous planning manager and the previous planning to uh community development director.

Um, and it's since then it's never deviated.

It's always been it's always been that.

Um that said, I I can support a structure in that area, but I don't know that I can support the variance um for a two-story garage with this with with the storage over the top.

What I can support is a two-car garage and a second story if you want to do a second story, like a two-car garage with no with no second story I could support.

If you wanted to read if they wanted to, if they thought about it, they could redesign that thing to meet that that rear yard setback with a step back approach to that building.

That I don't know that we would have a dog in the fight because it wouldn't require a variance.

Um, so that said, um, I'll uh I would approve the variance is as amended as I stated, and I'll also say that the remainder of that front yard shall be landscaped and we shall get a landscape plan and it will be installed prior to any certificate of occupancy.

One point of clarification for the zoning administrator, please.

As it relates to landscaping and required landscaping components, um, do we have a percentage threshold?

Um the application currently.

All hardscape and soft scape in the front yard area shall be landscaped.

Understood.

Um this decision and every other decision that's been made for the other two projects are appealable, whether uh, you know, you're an applicant or regardless of what side of this project you are on, is appealable to the city clerk within 10 days of this decision going out, which will probably be tomorrow.

So in a if you're gonna appeal it, you gotta appeal it with the city clerk within 11 days of today.

I believe there's no other items on this agenda.

This meeting is adjourned.