[0:04] - Good afternoon, everyone.

[0:06] It is four o'clock on August the 13th.

[0:11] I am calling this afternoon's meeting to order.

[0:15] My name's Michael Cass.

[0:17] I am serving as zoning administrator this afternoon.

[0:21] We will start with a civility statement.

[0:26] So I wanna quickly read.

[0:28] As your appointed governing body,

[0:30] we will treat each other and the public

[0:32] with patience, civility, and courtesy

[0:34] as a model of the same behavior

[0:37] we wish to reflect in Martinez

[0:39] for the conduct of all city business

[0:41] and community participation.

[0:43] This includes respect for everyone's First Amendment right

[0:46] to voice their opinion on matters

[0:48] within the city's subject matter jurisdiction,

[0:51] even if that opinion is different from our own.

[0:54] The decisions made will be for the benefit

[0:56] of the Martinez community and not for personal gain.

[1:00] So I'd next like to move on to public comment.

[1:04] This is for public comment for items

[1:07] that are not on the agenda.

[1:09] So non-agenda public comment is limited to matters

[1:11] which are within the subject matter jurisdiction

[1:14] of the zoning administrator

[1:15] and which are not action items listed elsewhere.

[1:19] If you'd like to make a comment,

[1:20] please use the raise your hand feature.

[1:23] And I am seeing one hand raised.

[1:29] Earl, you can unmute yourself.

[1:35] - [Earl] No, that was an error.

[1:37] - Okay, we will then talk to you very shortly then.

[1:40] Thank you, Earl.

[1:42] Is there anyone else who wishes

[1:44] to make a public comment

[1:45] on an item not on today's agenda?

[1:49] Great.

[1:50] Seeing none, we'll now move on to our public hearing items.

[1:54] We're gonna start with the request

[1:57] for a conditional use permit for 700 Court Street.

[2:00] Brandon, if you could please give a presentation.

[2:05] (no audio)

[2:15] - [Speaker] You need to unmute.

[2:18] - Thank you. Thank you.

[2:21] So I'm Senior Planner Brandon Northart,

[2:24] here this afternoon to present

[2:25] the conditional use permit for 700 Court Street.

[2:28] So some quick background on the project.

[2:30] It's located again at 700 Court Street.

[2:33] The general plan designation is Downtown Core.

[2:36] It's located in the Central Commercial Zoning District.

[2:39] It is also subject and located

[2:41] within the Downtown Historic Overlay District

[2:43] and the downtown specific plan area.

[2:46] The lot size is approximately 37,000 square feet.

[2:49] It is currently a vacant commercial structure,

[2:52] and the surrounding uses

[2:53] are predominantly commercial and civic.

[2:57] So the proposed project boiled down

[3:00] is to relocate the existing

[3:02] Aladdin Bail Bonds from 836 Main Street

[3:05] over on the corner of Main and Las Juntas

[3:07] to have a conditional use permit to relocate the business

[3:11] on the ground floor at 700 Court Street.

[3:14] So again, just to clarify,

[3:15] this would not be a net new bail bonds.

[3:19] This would just be a relocation of an existing one.

[3:23] So the zoning code specifically requires

[3:25] a conditional use permit for bail bond shops

[3:27] on or above the second floor

[3:29] that do not have frontage on Main Street or Ferry Street.

[3:32] However, the applicant is proposing to relocate the business

[3:35] but would not establish a new one.

[3:38] Staff are supportive because the project

[3:41] would relocate the existing one at 836 Main Street

[3:45] which does have a more prominent

[3:48] ground floor location along Main Street

[3:49] compared to the subject site

[3:51] which would result in freeing up a tenant space

[3:54] for more compatible commercial business at the location.

[3:57] It would also result in the bail bond shop

[3:59] being located closer to the

[4:01] Contra Costa Courthouse and Jail,

[4:03] which are a more compatible use with the bail bonds.

[4:08] In addition, like I mentioned,

[4:09] the project is located

[4:10] within the Downtown Historic Overlay District

[4:12] and the downtown specific plan area,

[4:14] but the project's not proposing

[4:16] any exterior modifications to the structure,

[4:18] so none of the provisions

[4:20] in either of those instances apply here.

[4:24] There are several conditions of approval on the project,

[4:27] but I just wanted to quickly highlight two of them.

[4:29] The first one is related to signage.

[4:31] So at this time, the applicant's not proposing any signage

[4:34] to be a part of this approval.

[4:36] So we have included a condition that ensures

[4:38] that if any signage is proposed in the future,

[4:41] that it comes through the planning division

[4:43] and is consistent with any applicable

[4:46] planning and zoning standards.

[4:50] And we've also included a building permit condition.

[4:53] Again, there are no interior, exterior revisions

[4:56] or tenant improvements proposed at this time.

[4:59] So in the event that there are

[5:01] in the future that the property owner and applicant

[5:04] consult with the planning and building divisions

[5:05] to ensure that any future improvements

[5:08] comply with our city building code and procedures.

[5:13] So in order to approve the conditional use permit,

[5:16] several findings need to be made, which are found here.

[5:19] But just to quickly summarize,

[5:20] staff are supportive in making the required findings

[5:23] because the use is compatible with the surrounding area,

[5:26] would occupy an existing vacant tenant commercial structure,

[5:29] free up another more prominent one,

[5:31] and would not pose a hazard to health and safety.

[5:36] So with that, today's recommendation is

[5:38] to conduct a public hearing

[5:39] and adopt zoning administrator resolution number 26-19,

[5:45] approving a request from Eduardo Garcia

[5:47] to consider a conditional use permit

[5:49] to establish a bail bond shop on the ground floor

[5:51] located at 700 Court Street

[5:53] in the Central Commercial Zoning District,

[5:55] assessor's parcel number 373266001-8,

[6:00] subject to conditions of approval.

[6:03] With that, I am happy to take any questions,

[6:06] but I believe both the property owner and applicant

[6:09] are here as well.

[6:12] - Thank you very much, Brandon, for the presentation.

[6:15] I have a quick question,

[6:16] which actually is probably better suited

[6:18] for the applicant and property owner,

[6:20] so feel free to allow them to answer it.

[6:24] I thought there was a juice business that was still there.

[6:27] So do you know when they officially left the space?

[6:33] And again, I can direct that to the property owner

[6:36] if that's more appropriate.

[6:38] - I'll default to the property owner.

[6:40] - Okay. Great.

[6:41] - [Earl] They're on a month-to-month basis

[6:43] why they get their plans approved

[6:46] for their future space in another city.

[6:49] - Okay.

[6:52] Appreciate that, Earl.

[6:54] Eduardo and Earl, the floor is yours.

[6:57] If there's anything that you would like to

[7:00] add to present for your application

[7:02] in addition to the comments

[7:04] that were presented by the project planner.

[7:08] - [Earl] I'm good with everything

[7:09] you guys have presented here this afternoon.

[7:11] I think you've pretty much covered the basis of everything.

[7:14] So unless Ed from Aladdin has anything,

[7:18] I don't have any more to add.

[7:23] - [Eduardo] Same here.

[7:25] Feel like we've covered everything that we needed to.

[7:30] I think everything's pretty straightforward.

[7:34] - Well, thank you both very much.

[7:36] Just one additional question,

[7:38] confirming that you both had a chance

[7:41] to review the draft resolution

[7:43] and recommended conditions of approval.

[7:46] I just wanna confirm that you have no issues.

[7:50] - [Earl] We have, as building owner, has no issues.

[7:54] - [Eduardo] As applicant, we have no issues.

[7:55] - Great.

[7:56] Well, thank you very much, appreciate that.

[8:00] I'd now like to open this matter up

[8:03] to members of the public.

[8:05] Any member of the public

[8:06] who wishes to comment on this application,

[8:09] please use the raise your hand feature

[8:12] located at the bottom of your screen.

[8:18] Seeing none, we'll now close

[8:21] the public portion of the meeting.

[8:24] And just wanna indicate that I find myself

[8:29] agreeing with

[8:32] staff on the recommendations

[8:34] and can support the conditional use permit

[8:37] for many of the reasons that were outlined,

[8:39] particularly since this is an established business

[8:42] that has compatibility with the court

[8:44] and being relocated closer to the courthouse

[8:47] I think makes sense.

[8:50] It's not a net increase potentially

[8:53] of this type of use within the downtown.

[8:57] And then also just supportive,

[8:59] particularly since this business is currently open 24/7,

[9:04] and just the vitality that that can add to the downtown.

[9:10] So I am prepared to support staff's recommendation,

[9:15] and I move to adopt resolution number 26-19,

[9:21] approving the conditional use permit

[9:22] subject to conditions of approval as outlined by staff.

[9:27] My decision is appealable.

[9:30] Anyone can appeal this decision in a 10-day period.

[9:34] If you're interested in doing so, please contact Brandon.

[9:38] And then Eduardo and Earl, congratulations to you both.

[9:41] If you have additional questions after today's meeting,

[9:45] please reach out to Brandon,

[9:46] but we will send you a formal approval packet

[9:49] in the next day or so.

[9:50] Congratulations.

[9:52] - [Earl] Thank you.

[9:53] - [Eduardo] Thank you so much.

[9:54] Appreciate it.

[9:55] - Great, so now moving on

[9:57] to the next item on today's agenda,

[9:59] which is 103 Escobar Street.

[10:02] This is for a variance and minor exception.

[10:05] This item was heard at a previous meeting

[10:08] and was continued to this afternoon.

[10:12] I'm going to turn it over to Brandon Northart,

[10:13] who is representing the project on behalf of Imanol Tovar

[10:17] who had a conflict today.

[10:19] Brandon.

[10:21] - Thank you, Michael.

[10:22] Again, I'm Senior Planner Brandon Northart

[10:24] here this afternoon on behalf of Imanol Tovar

[10:27] to present the variance and minor exception request

[10:30] for a 103 Escobar Street project.

[10:36] So I will be covering some duplicative information

[10:39] that was covered by Imanol in his last presentation,

[10:41] but there is some new information in here

[10:43] that I'll gloss over as well.

[10:45] So, most of you know

[10:47] the project is located at 103 Escobar Street.

[10:50] It's located in the R-6.0 Single-Family Zoning District.

[10:53] The lot size is approximately 5,200 square feet.

[10:56] It is currently occupied by a single family residence

[11:00] and is predominantly surrounded

[11:01] by other single family residences as well.

[11:05] So some background on this project.

[11:07] So the project was presented, as stated by Michael,

[11:10] on July 23rd, 2026 to the zoning administrator.

[11:14] During that time, there were several public commenters

[11:16] who shared concerns about the project's

[11:18] height, scale, massing,

[11:19] and some existing overgrowth at the site.

[11:23] Based on this feedback,

[11:24] the zoning administrator

[11:25] did not approve or deny the project,

[11:27] but instead decided to continue that to today.

[11:31] The zoning administrator also requested

[11:33] that the applicant meet with neighbors

[11:35] to discuss their concerns, provide additional exhibits,

[11:38] and potentially install story poles

[11:41] to show the height of the proposed structure,

[11:43] consider other modifications to the project,

[11:46] as well as prune the overgrown vegetation

[11:49] at the corner of Bayview and Escobar.

[11:51] Since then the applicant and architect

[11:53] actually had a meeting with some of the neighbors

[11:56] on August 7th.

[11:58] The vegetation on the corner has been pruned,

[12:01] but there are no changes proposed

[12:03] at this time to the project

[12:05] compared to when it was presented earlier in July.

[12:10] So, again, no changes to the project,

[12:12] but just kind of going over everything again

[12:14] so everybody's on the same page.

[12:15] So the scope of work is to construct

[12:18] an approximately 1,782 square foot addition

[12:21] to the existing single-family residence,

[12:23] which would add a garage, two bedrooms,

[12:26] and two bathrooms to the home.

[12:28] And in total, the new home would total 3,307 square feet.

[12:35] So just showing the proposed elevations here,

[12:38] so you can see the rear elevation on the left

[12:40] and then the front elevation on the right.

[12:43] The front elevation would be the elevation

[12:45] when viewing it straight on from Escobar.

[12:47] And one thing I wanted to provide

[12:48] additional clarification on

[12:50] compared to the last time this was presented is

[12:54] this is not a two-story addition.

[12:56] This project is primarily a split level project

[13:00] as we would like to call it.

[13:01] So it's predominantly a single story project

[13:05] with an addition and conversion to the lower floor

[13:09] which I believe is currently a basement

[13:11] in conversion to be a garage

[13:14] as well as additional residence area.

[13:20] And I'll kind of cover that a little bit

[13:21] in a couple slides too.

[13:23] These are the side elevations.

[13:25] So the top elevation would be the elevation

[13:28] where the height and massing of the structure

[13:30] would be largest,

[13:31] and that would be down slope from Escobar to the east.

[13:34] And then the bottom elevation here

[13:36] would be the elevation along Bayview Drive.

[13:40] And again, it is a single story from that elevation.

[13:44] Here are the floor plans.

[13:46] So the floor plans on the left would be

[13:49] the single story or the first floor of the structure.

[13:53] And the floor plan on the right would be that split level

[13:57] where the basement would be converted

[13:58] to a garage and guest room.

[14:03] So the applicant prepared a couple of additional

[14:07] renderings and elevation comparisons for staff,

[14:11] which I'm presenting here.

[14:12] So these graphics are a little busy,

[14:15] so just trying to demonstrate a little bit more.

[14:18] So the blue lines you see are...

[14:21] This is from Bayview Drive,

[14:22] the elevation from Bayview Drive side elevation.

[14:25] So the blue lines are the existing roof line

[14:27] where the top of the structure currently is,

[14:30] and the red line would be the roof line

[14:33] at its tallest point in the proposed addition.

[14:38] And again, the total addition

[14:39] is approximately five feet in height,

[14:42] compared to existing.

[14:45] Similarly, this is the front elevation along Escobar.

[14:49] So you can see the blue line

[14:51] is the existing height of the structure and roof line

[14:53] where the red line is the total top.

[14:56] And one thing I would also like to add

[14:58] is that the structure does total approximately 27 feet,

[15:02] which is taller than what would normally be allowed

[15:04] at 25 feet.

[15:06] But that is mainly due to the topographical

[15:09] challenges and slope of Escobar Street

[15:12] where the city requires that the total height of a structure

[15:16] is measured from its most lowest point

[15:18] to wherever it lines at its tallest point,

[15:21] which just so happens to be

[15:22] at the center line of this house,

[15:23] which makes it measure higher than

[15:27] what would probably be of the first floor.

[15:31] Again, some just additional context

[15:33] showing the slope of Escobar Street.

[15:35] The image on the left, you can see,

[15:37] again, facing towards the house,

[15:39] Escobar naturally has a steep grade

[15:42] rising from east to west.

[15:46] And then the bottom image you can see

[15:48] on the other side of Escobar going up,

[15:51] you can see that there's a natural slope

[15:53] that results in a lot of the homes being different heights

[15:59] depending on their alignment with Escobar

[16:01] and the natural slope and topography,

[16:03] which naturally results

[16:04] in a lot of the homes already existing

[16:06] to be significantly taller

[16:09] than what would otherwise be allowed

[16:10] under the 25-foot height limit.

[16:15] So you can see how the project complies with

[16:18] and compares to the existing condition

[16:19] and complies with our various zoning requirements.

[16:23] As you can tell,

[16:24] there are several variances being requested,

[16:25] including for front setbacks, side yard setbacks,

[16:27] rear setbacks, lot coverage, FAR,

[16:31] and the applicant is also requesting a minor exception

[16:34] as it relates to height.

[16:37] So since the applicant's requesting a variance these

[16:40] findings need to be made.

[16:42] As previously referenced,

[16:44] the staff believes all the findings

[16:46] can be affirmatively made.

[16:48] There are other neighboring properties

[16:49] in the vicinity of the project that are also inconsistent

[16:52] with several of the development standards

[16:54] in the R-6.0 zoning district,

[16:56] including floor area ratio, lot coverage, and setbacks.

[17:00] In addition, minor exception findings need to be made.

[17:03] Again, staff believe that the height increase

[17:06] would not pose a detrimental impact

[17:08] to the site and adjacent properties

[17:09] and comply with the intent of the zoning district.

[17:12] And there's supporting evidence

[17:14] that several of the other properties

[17:16] in the surrounding vicinity

[17:18] also do not comply with the height standards.

[17:23] So the project did receive one public comment

[17:27] prior to the previous zoning administrator meeting.

[17:30] That comment did express some concerns,

[17:32] but didn't necessarily oppose or support the project.

[17:37] And then we have received

[17:38] one additional written public comment since then,

[17:41] before this meeting, in support of the project.

[17:44] And since then, we've received

[17:47] several additional inquiries about the project,

[17:49] but no other official written public comments

[17:52] have been received other than those stated here.

[17:56] So just wanted to highlight one notable

[17:58] recommended condition of approval related to landscaping.

[18:01] So staff are recommending

[18:03] that the applicant prepare a landscape plan

[18:06] with the intent of creating some additional screening

[18:09] along the adjacent property owner property line

[18:13] that would help eliminate and reduce some of the massing

[18:16] and privacy concerns that adjacent neighbors might have.

[18:22] So with that, today's staff's recommendation

[18:24] is to conduct a public hearing

[18:25] and adopt zoning administrator resolution number 26-18,

[18:30] approving a request from Tony and Tiffany Chantri

[18:34] to consider a variance to,

[18:35] one, reduce the required rear yard setback

[18:37] from 25 feet to 20 feet,

[18:40] reduce the required side yard setback

[18:41] from five feet to three feet,

[18:43] reduce the required front yard setback

[18:45] from 20 feet to five feet,

[18:47] increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 45%,

[18:51] and increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.5 to 0.58,

[18:56] and a minor exception to increase the building height

[18:58] to 27 feet and seven inches where 25 feet is permitted

[19:02] to construct a 1,782 square foot addition

[19:06] to the existing single-family residence

[19:08] for a total of 3,037 square feet

[19:11] located at Escobar Street in the R-6.0 Zoning District,

[19:15] assessor parcel number 372072010-5.

[19:22] With that, I am happy to answer any additional questions,

[19:25] and I believe that the applicant and property owner

[19:28] are here as well if there are any questions for them.

[19:31] - Great. Thank you, Brandon.

[19:33] I do have a couple of questions for you.

[19:36] So I did read the packet

[19:38] and did read the additional public comment letter

[19:42] that was submitted and included as part of the packet.

[19:45] Can you just orient me with Susie and John Gardenal

[19:50] where they reside in relationship to the proposed project?

[19:54] - Yeah, I can share my screen again really quickly.

[19:56] So they are the adjacent neighbor down slope.

[20:00] Here, I believe this is their residence.

[20:03] - Okay and the condition of approval

[20:05] about the landscape screening

[20:06] is between their two properties, correct?

[20:08] - Correct.

[20:09] - And then sort of related, not fully related.

[20:13] At the last meeting, there was a concern that was expressed

[20:18] regarding the vegetation

[20:20] that is going into the utility lines,

[20:23] but I didn't see any recommendations

[20:25] with conditions of approval regarding that matter.

[20:29] Did I miss it?

[20:30] I just wanna confirm.

[20:32] - No, there weren't any significant

[20:34] alterations to the conditions of approval.

[20:36] Staff would be happy to add that though upon your request.

[20:40] - And then last question for you, Brandon.

[20:43] At this time, just to confirm, you alluded to it,

[20:45] but I just wanna make sure it's abundantly clear.

[20:47] So at this point, the applicant has

[20:50] met with some of the neighbors.

[20:52] They've included the additional exhibit

[20:54] that's clarifying the proposed height differential,

[20:57] but no other changes to the project at this time.

[21:00] - Correct. - Okay.

[21:02] I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

[21:05] Would now like to open it up

[21:07] to the applicant and architect

[21:09] if you would like to make a presentation.

[21:14] - I've also elevated Kirk Shelby as well.

[21:17] He's the architect.

[21:21] - Can you hear us okay? - Yes.

[21:25] - [Kirk] Mr. Chantri and I are together in my office.

[21:29] So Mr. Chantri will make just a brief statement.

[21:33] - [Tony] Yeah.

[21:34] Thank you for hosting this and everything.

[21:37] I appreciate it.

[21:40] I wasn't at the original meeting.

[21:42] My understanding of the original meeting was the safety

[21:46] because of some trees on the corner.

[21:48] They have since been removed,

[21:51] and the height of the vegetation has been cut down on that.

[21:55] The other other thing that was brought up,

[21:59] from what I understand,

[22:00] was people up in the cul-de-sac

[22:02] thought it was a two-story instead of a single-story.

[22:06] And since that's been clarified,

[22:08] my understanding is that everything is fine there.

[22:12] Our next door neighbor that you talked about,

[22:14] originally, she though, from her bedroom,

[22:19] that the building was gonna be three feet from her bedroom.

[22:22] That was not correct, and that has been remedied.

[22:28] And also she has written a letter in favor of the project.

[22:34] Our neighbors across the street,

[22:36] Tim, who's directly across the street,

[22:38] he looks straight on towards the front of the house

[22:44] in compliance with it.

[22:46] He's in favor.

[22:48] Since then, we also did a laser shot

[22:52] to establish the height of the roof and everything.

[22:55] And the people up above on Bayview

[23:00] their view with the height of our proposed addition,

[23:07] they still can see the shell.

[23:10] They can see the courthouse.

[23:12] They can see the bridge.

[23:14] They can see the river.

[23:16] So I don't believe that it impairs their view,

[23:20] and I would appreciate

[23:22] if we can just get this project up and moving.

[23:25] It's been a long one,

[23:26] and we'd like to just get it going.

[23:28] I think the concerns have been taken care of.

[23:33] Thank you.

[23:38] Do you have anything?

[23:40] - [Kirk] You guys get all that?

[23:42] - We did.

[23:43] Kirk, did you have anything that you wanted to add?

[23:45] - [Kirk] No, I think he...

[23:47] I was present at the meeting.

[23:48] There was, I think, five, maybe six residents

[23:53] of the surrounding people that came.

[23:56] Three expressed some concerns

[23:59] and maintained expressing concerns.

[24:02] Two of them were with respect to view projection,

[24:06] and another one was concerned about

[24:08] encroachment on setbacks.

[24:11] We talked to them.

[24:14] Tony like I said,

[24:16] he's laser shot at.

[24:18] He put up a story pole

[24:19] because the roof is not very safe

[24:23] to be walking around on

[24:24] to construct anything more than that.

[24:27] But he did put up a pole that runs up to the height

[24:31] so that at least from visual standpoint,

[24:33] you can stand someplace and see.

[24:35] You have to kind of use your imagination to extend that line

[24:38] to its full extent, but you can...

[24:42] I think you can hopefully understand what's going on.

[24:46] That's all we could do at the current time.

[24:50] Other than that,

[24:53] we believe that,

[24:56] that the scope of the project is reasonable

[24:59] in that it was a two-bedroom, one-bath,

[25:00] 1,300 square foot house.

[25:02] It's now a three-bedroom, well, four bedroom

[25:05] if you count the downstairs guest/ADU.

[25:09] Four bedroom, three bath.

[25:12] The upstairs is three bedrooms, two baths.

[25:16] So it seems to be in a range that is

[25:19] consistent with the surrounding neighborhood

[25:22] in terms of floor area.

[25:25] And the original roof was 8 and 12.

[25:29] We took down to 6 and 12.

[25:31] We didn't feel we could take it down farther

[25:34] just because we're trying to maintain a certain look.

[25:38] - And clarifying, going down to 6 and 12,

[25:41] that's what you did with the original design that-

[25:43] - [Kirk] Yes, yes.

[25:45] - Thank you.

[25:47] And then I just wanna allow Tiffany,

[25:49] if you have any comments that you wanted to make.

[25:52] - [Tony] Tiffany is out of town.

[25:54] I apologize for that,

[25:55] but she already was scheduled to be out of town.

[25:57] - Okay.

[25:58] She's on Zoom, so that's why.

[26:01] - [Tony] Oh, okay.

[26:03] She was catching a flight,

[26:04] so I'm surprised she's on it, to be honest about it.

[26:06] - [Kirk] Yeah, she unmutes and talks.

[26:09] We're all for it.

[26:12] - Well, not hearing her unmute.

[26:16] Thank you both for the presentation.

[26:18] I do want to now open it up to members of the public,

[26:22] but I might circle back with you.

[26:25] - Thank you. - So anyone who wishes

[26:26] to speak on this item,

[26:28] please use the raise your hand feature

[26:30] located at the bottom of the screen.

[26:33] And if you're calling via phone,

[26:34] if you can please use star nine to raise your hand.

[26:39] I'd like to start with Ray Gallagher

[26:43] is the firsthand I've seen.

[26:46] Ray, you may unmute yourself.

[26:49] - [Ray] Okay.

[26:49] Can you hear me now?

[26:51] - Yes.

[26:52] - [Ray] Yes. Okay.

[26:53] Well, I'm Ray Gallagher.

[26:54] I'm Rose Billecci Santos' son-in-law and...

[26:59] The concern that Philip and Rose had

[27:03] with the single-story pole

[27:06] was that there was just

[27:09] exactly just one story pole.

[27:12] If it's possible to have

[27:15] a second or third story pole just added to,

[27:21] to show the projection of the roof ridge lines,

[27:26] I suppose, to give them a little better comfort

[27:30] or understanding of the visual site.

[27:34] I suppose that's the first concern.

[27:42] I know this may be out of the timeline,

[27:47] but because this project is in the high fire severity zone

[27:54] and the reduction of the setbacks, the side setbacks,

[27:59] well, all the setbacks,

[28:01] what impact does that have?

[28:05] And I looked at the plans.

[28:09] I cannot find any

[28:13] fire resistant cladding or

[28:18] venting to prevent

[28:22] fire propagation in those areas.

[28:24] I know that might be a more of a planning prior to,

[28:28] and the plans are pretty well advanced.

[28:32] But I suppose the main issue for Rose Billecci

[28:36] is the story poles,

[28:41] if it's possible to have additional poles to show,

[28:45] say, projected bridge lines north and south

[28:48] and, say, west, east-west.

[28:51] Does that make sense?

[28:53] - Understood.

[28:54] Thank you very much, Ray.

[28:58] I do have a quick question for staff.

[29:03] The member of the public just raised an issue

[29:06] in regards to the high fire severity zone.

[29:10] So I wanna see if the project

[29:12] was referred to the fire department

[29:14] and if they had any notable comments

[29:16] or anything pertinent related to that.

[29:20] - If you wanna give me a moment,

[29:21] I can double check that.

[29:23] - What we can do is we can go to the next speaker

[29:25] and then come back to you.

[29:27] So if we could please allow Jamie to speak.

[29:31] Jamie, you may please unmute yourself.

[29:36] - [Jamie] Can you hear me?

[29:39] Yes. Okay. - Yeah.

[29:41] - [Jamie] I live across the street

[29:42] in the old Tucker Mansion.

[29:45] My one concern is the front setback

[29:49] being so close to the street,

[29:52] much closer than any other house on the street,

[29:56] and that possibly setting a precedent

[30:00] for things to come,

[30:02] also the viewing going around that corner.

[30:08] So that's one of my biggest concerns

[30:10] is getting too close to Escobar.

[30:15] The existing has a cantilevered section coming out there

[30:20] and they're playing off of that.

[30:22] I don't think that's actually accurate.

[30:25] So I think a planner should physically look at that.

[30:29] The story poles are my other issue.

[30:33] I would love to see those set up, as they should be,

[30:36] with a rope and flags across it

[30:39] for the public to be able to easily visualize

[30:44] the size and dimensions

[30:46] of the building that they're proposing.

[30:50] And I think that's quite important.

[30:52] I've built a number of houses myself in Lafayette,

[30:55] and I've always had to go through that.

[30:59] The third thing I was curious about

[31:02] is the state of the sidewalks,

[31:06] if that could be incorporated

[31:08] into their scope of the landscaping plan.

[31:12] I know the city has a hard time fronting the cost

[31:15] to improve those sidewalks,

[31:18] but along Bayview, there's none at all.

[31:21] And it would be helpful for traffic from the pool

[31:26] on that side of the street

[31:28] where there's only gonna be

[31:29] basically a three-foot setback,

[31:31] four-foot setback to Bayview.

[31:35] So I don't know how they're gonna deal

[31:36] with any landscaping there.

[31:38] Maybe a sidewalk improvement plan should be incorporated

[31:43] into the landscaping plan.

[31:46] Just my thoughts.

[31:47] I don't know if that's out of place for this meeting or not,

[31:51] but wanted to plant some seeds.

[31:55] Any questions?

[31:59] - No questions at this time.

[32:01] I'm gonna wait to hear all public comments,

[32:04] but I appreciate your succinctness

[32:08] and being very clear with what your concerns are.

[32:11] - [Jamie] Okay.

[32:14] - I do wanna circle back to staff.

[32:16] Brandon, are you prepared to respond

[32:18] to that initial question?

[32:21] - Yeah, so the project was routed to

[32:24] Contra Costa Fire Prevention District,

[32:26] and they did provide several comments,

[32:28] but they were mostly high level,

[32:30] did identify that the project

[32:32] was in a high fire severity zone,

[32:34] and that additional

[32:37] wildland-urban interface requirements

[32:39] were likely applying that additional

[32:41] review by the fire department would be necessary

[32:44] and a permit and everything submitted to them

[32:46] prior to a building permit being issued.

[32:51] - Great. Thank you very much, Brandon.

[32:55] I'd now like to open it up for Brooke,

[32:58] if you'd like to make any comments.

[33:02] - [Brooke] Yeah. Can you hear me?

[33:04] - Yes, we can. - Okay.

[33:06] My name's Brooke Guiley

[33:07] and I live on 14 Escobar Street.

[33:10] I attended the meeting hosted by the Chantri family.

[33:13] I remain concerned about the requested exception

[33:17] to the maximum building height.

[33:20] For background information,

[33:22] I purchased my home in the neighborhood 10 years ago.

[33:24] I've started a family here,

[33:26] and I have intentions of staying here

[33:28] for many years to come.

[33:30] To this day, the single best thing about my house

[33:33] is its view of downtown Martinez and the Benicia Bridge.

[33:37] This portion of Escobar Street

[33:39] is characterized by its hillside location

[33:42] and the views that it provides.

[33:44] I'm generally supportive

[33:45] of the long overdue renovation of 103.

[33:50] The property has been abandoned and unattended

[33:52] for longer than I've lived here.

[33:56] The neighborhood is banded together to make sure

[33:58] that a squatter type of situation never happened.

[34:01] So it's positive, I think,

[34:04] to restore, improve, and occupy the house,

[34:07] but my concern is still with the proposed roof height.

[34:10] The staff report describes it as a minor exception,

[34:13] but I don't see any analysis explaining

[34:16] why a roof exceeding the 25-foot maximum

[34:19] is appropriate for this property

[34:22] or compatible with the neighborhood.

[34:24] I haven't seen any comparison of the proposed roof height

[34:27] with the heights and roof profiles of the neighboring homes.

[34:34] It's important because the surrounding neighborhood

[34:36] is predominantly characterized by low profile roofs.

[34:42] My own home, which was built in the 1970s,

[34:45] and it's one of the newest houses on the block,

[34:47] it has a low roof profile, a 3:12,

[34:51] as do a majority of the surrounding homes.

[34:54] The 612 roof pitch appears substantially taller

[34:58] than the other roof forms

[34:59] that are typical of this neighborhood.

[35:04] So I was...

[35:06] So the proposed roof is more than 27 feet tall.

[35:12] I'm just requesting that

[35:14] the applicants use a lower pitch roof, maybe a 3:12.

[35:19] I'm an engineer, but I'm not a civil engineer,

[35:21] but I think the house would be around 22 feet high,

[35:25] or a 4:12 roof, which would be about 24 feet high.

[35:30] Then the reconstructed home would

[35:34] not even need an exemption.

[35:37] In summary, I'm just asking you to consider

[35:41] how this affects the neighborhood,

[35:43] how it affects our views.

[35:46] And I just don't understand

[35:47] why they even need this variance.

[35:50] Thank you for your time and for considering my comment.

[35:56] - Thank you very much, Brooke.

[35:57] I appreciate it.

[36:00] Now I'd like to allow Tim Farley,

[36:02] if you'd like to make any comments.

[36:06] - [Tim] Hello.

[36:07] Can you guys hear me?

[36:09] - We can.

[36:10] - [Tim] Thank you so much.

[36:11] Again, Tim Farley, 40 Escobar Street.

[36:13] I live directly across the street from 103.

[36:16] I actually know Mrs. Chantri,

[36:19] and she was a wonderful, wonderful neighbor.

[36:23] I'm generally in supportive of having the home replaced.

[36:27] I think we all can agree the current situation

[36:33] is not good for all of us here on Escobar Street.

[36:36] So I generally support this.

[36:40] I did ask last time for the story poles,

[36:43] and we have just one stick.

[36:46] And I don't think you can get a reasonable

[36:50] visualization of what the roof line would look like.

[36:54] I know that the roof line and visibility

[36:58] is important to the neighbors.

[36:59] And so my concern is that

[37:04] we did not get a full story pole setup,

[37:07] but that's up to you guys.

[37:08] I do wanna compliment the Chantris though,

[37:11] because they did come and they did meet with us,

[37:14] and they genuinely and sincerely, I believe,

[37:16] listened to some of our concerns.

[37:18] And bottom line, we're eager to have a new neighbor here.

[37:23] So hopefully once this issue is resolved,

[37:26] we can get a timeline when construction will begin.

[37:31] Thank you.

[37:36] - Thank you very much, Tim.

[37:39] Jeremy.

[37:44] - [Jeremy] Hi. Can you hear me?

[37:46] - [Michael] I can.

[37:47] - [Jeremy] Yeah, I'm Jeremy Guiley.

[37:50] I also live at 14 Escobar Street,

[37:52] but I am not with Brooke right now.

[37:55] I just wanted to add a couple

[37:57] of my own personal comments as well.

[37:59] Along with the roof height,

[38:02] I believe I heard the comment that the 6:12 roof

[38:06] was chosen for the look of the home.

[38:09] But again, just wanna reiterate that I believe

[38:12] several of the homes in the neighborhood

[38:15] have low profile roofs.

[38:16] And our understanding is that

[38:19] a lower profile roof may even be more cost-effective,

[38:24] and there don't seem to be many cons from our standpoint.

[38:28] So we're really wondering kind of what the,

[38:32] I'll say, resistance to lowering the roof further would be

[38:37] if it may even be beneficial to the project.

[38:41] And we don't have things like snow buildup

[38:44] to be concerned about here in this area

[38:47] that you would typically want a higher slope roof for.

[38:52] So would like some additional clarification

[38:55] on the justification for that roof slope

[38:58] when a lower roof slope could accomplish

[39:01] the same thing for the home without adding costs,

[39:05] increasing structural load, wind load,

[39:09] or anything like that.

[39:12] And it would be potentially

[39:14] below the exception, as Brooke mentioned,

[39:18] and better overall for the neighbors.

[39:22] I am also generally supportive of the project.

[39:26] I wanna emphasize that.

[39:28] So I think it's important to consider

[39:32] maybe making some of these minor adjustments

[39:35] or just being open to minor changes

[39:39] that could make significant improvements

[39:42] to the neighbor's feel of the project

[39:47] without derailing it too far.

[39:50] Do wanna appreciate the Chantris

[39:53] for coming out and meeting with us all as well,

[39:56] and definitely do wanna see this renovation happen.

[40:01] Only other comment though is that

[40:03] did read through and the...

[40:06] I guess what's being referred to as letter of support

[40:09] that was in the project documents,

[40:14] it didn't seem to me like it was

[40:17] much of a letter of support

[40:19] as it was a note to the property owners.

[40:23] So maybe I read that wrong,

[40:24] but I'm not quite sure if that's classified correctly,

[40:30] and that those property owners

[40:33] direct neighbors are necessarily

[40:36] providing direct support for the project.

[40:39] They do have solar panels on that side of their roof.

[40:43] And so not trying to speak for them,

[40:46] but height, I would assume, is a concern for them as well

[40:50] to not block their solar panels.

[40:53] And they mentioned the view into their bedroom previously.

[40:57] So just wanted to point those items out.

[41:03] - Great. Thank you very much, Jeremy.

[41:06] Would now like to allow iPhone 4 to speak.

[41:12] - [Rosalie] Hi, this is Rosalie Gallagher.

[41:15] I am Rose Billecci's daughter.

[41:20] My father built that house that she lives in,

[41:24] 530 Bayview Drive probably over 60, close to 70 years ago.

[41:31] My mom will be 93 in a couple of weeks, and we have lived...

[41:37] she's lived in that home pretty much her whole married life.

[41:43] So we are the oldest residents, I believe,

[41:47] in that area.

[41:50] I grew up with Mrs. Chantri and Tony and Andrew

[41:55] in the neighborhood.

[41:56] We were very sad when Mrs. Chantri had to leave,

[42:03] and very disappointed on how the property has

[42:08] been taken care of since she has left.

[42:13] There's a water heater in the yard

[42:15] that has been there for years,

[42:19] and that's just pretty much the tip of the iceberg.

[42:22] But to get to my real concern is

[42:28] just to tag onto my husband's comment about fire safety.

[42:34] My mom is later in her years,

[42:38] her sister lives with her now, who is also elderly.

[42:42] The fire department has been called to the home

[42:46] several times for assistance,

[42:49] and you cannot get a firetruck on Bayview Drive, currently.

[42:57] I'm very concerned with the request to

[43:03] push out the home closer to the sidewalk,

[43:06] because that's gonna make it even more difficult

[43:10] for fire to respond.

[43:13] At this point, the experience that we have had

[43:18] is the firetruck had to park down

[43:21] in front of Tim Farley's house,

[43:24] and the EMTs had to walk up to my mom's house.

[43:30] What if there really is a fire at her home

[43:34] or at Art's home or the home next door to my mom's?

[43:40] How is a firetruck going to get up there

[43:43] if that variance is allowed so close to the street?

[43:48] So to add additional

[43:55] barricades or issues

[43:57] or to getting help to Bayview Drive,

[44:03] I think is unwise to allow.

[44:08] There are people who live on Bayview Drive

[44:11] as well as Escobar.

[44:14] So thank you.

[44:16] - Thank you very much.

[44:19] Appreciate the comments.

[44:22] Thank you, everyone, for your civility and your clarity,

[44:26] and I really appreciate that.

[44:30] I do wanna allow the applicant and architect,

[44:35] if you would like to respond

[44:37] to any of the public comments that we've heard,

[44:41] please do so.

[44:45] - [Tony] Can you hear us?

[44:47] - [Kirk] Yes, they can hear us.

[44:48] - [Tony] Oh, okay.

[44:52] - [Kirk] I'm trying to digest all the issues.

[44:54] I certainly can understand the difficulty of visualization

[44:59] without the story poles.

[45:02] One of the things we were trying to do

[45:04] is if we could establish that one pole

[45:07] and get some photos from the upper neighbors out,

[45:10] we could then take those photos

[45:12] and do a photo array showing

[45:14] where that line exactly would be

[45:16] from those particular vantage points.

[45:19] The concern with the story poles is just

[45:22] the ridge is in the middle of a bunch of...

[45:27] The existing roof is very complicated and crazy

[45:30] and not in very good shape.

[45:32] And so walking around there

[45:33] runs the risk of somebody falling through the roof.

[45:37] And so how we would go about

[45:39] constructing something that would be accurate

[45:42] in the ridge locations

[45:44] to accurately show a hip to ridge kind of situation.

[45:50] While I'm sure it can be done,

[45:53] I'm not sure exactly how that might be accomplished.

[45:59] You would have to maybe...

[46:03] There's a couple of ridges that you might be able to,

[46:06] where our ridge lies between.

[46:09] You could do a temporary support

[46:12] and then down, but it's a lot to try to do.

[46:15] It's not as simple as running

[46:20] a line from that ridge.

[46:22] That pole that's there is about 2 1/2 feet

[46:26] from the actual top of the hip.

[46:29] So where the height of the roof is,

[46:32] is actually to the,

[46:34] I guess would be to the east of where that post is,

[46:37] assuming that the house runs,

[46:41] Bayview runs east-west.

[46:42] I'm not sure that it does it, but it's pretty close.

[46:46] And Escobar runs north-south.

[46:48] So

[46:50] the ridge that's of concern runs east-west.

[46:54] It's about 19 feet, four inches long,

[46:58] and then it hips down on both sides to that.

[47:06] The question trying to relate to heights

[47:12] and roof heights,

[47:14] I would maintain that there's a number of roof heights

[47:16] that are done.

[47:18] I would maintain that some of the four and 12 pitch heights

[47:22] are on full two-story structures.

[47:25] So they've already taken up a lot of the height

[47:28] with the size of their building.

[47:31] Ours is one story from the Bayview side.

[47:35] The idea of doing a six and 12,

[47:38] it was a compromise to not make it look like

[47:40] a regular ranch-style house

[47:42] because this house, the original house

[47:44] had character with the eight and 12 pitches,

[47:46] and had a certain look,

[47:49] kind of a classic Bay Area look.

[47:52] That's the architecture part of it.

[47:56] In terms of circulation

[47:57] and fire access,

[48:00] this is the first I've heard

[48:02] that firetruck can't access Bayview Drive

[48:05] because of our building.

[48:09] The pop-out that we're talking about

[48:12] pops out only as far as the original pop-outs are.

[48:15] So if it's encroaching on...

[48:17] If our existing house encroaches,

[48:21] which is 12 feet from the curb,

[48:24] I just don't understand the analysis, I guess.

[48:28] - [Tony] How it affects fire.

[48:30] - [Kirk] How it affects fire.

[48:31] and we've never heard any of those comments before.

[48:34] So I don't know if that came about

[48:37] in the fire department review for you guys.

[48:40] Clearly we're in a fire area.

[48:43] I doubt highly that any of the surrounding buildings

[48:46] have any of the WUI classifications.

[48:50] That's not to say that we're opposed to

[48:52] putting a non-combustible siding on the side

[48:55] and a non-combustible roof on top

[48:57] and tempering our vents to comply with

[49:02] all those requirements for code.

[49:04] That's fine.

[49:06] But I'm not sure that necessarily

[49:10] protects the rest of the neighborhood from fire.

[49:12] - [Tony] No, they're old, especially the Victorian.

[49:15] - [Kirk] So I mean...

[49:17] But obviously we are asking for this work

[49:20] to take place in today's code,

[49:22] and today's code has those provisions.

[49:24] So we would have to provide those provisions

[49:27] to comply with code,

[49:28] and we have no objection to that.

[49:30] It wouldn't necessarily change the look of the house at all.

[49:33] We already have a lap siding.

[49:35] James Hardie produces a lap siding that is fire resistant,

[49:38] that complies with WUI, complies with code,

[49:41] and we could use that.

[49:44] - [Tony] Also, we're not doing anything.

[49:46] Also, as far as the firetruck

[49:48] may not be able to get up there,

[49:50] but that's just an existing road.

[49:52] We're not doing anything to narrow the road.

[49:59] We're 12 feet from the side on Bayview on that.

[50:05] So if a firetruck did what Rose said,

[50:09] it was probably 'cause they couldn't make the turn,

[50:11] but that's already existing.

[50:13] That has nothing to do with us.

[50:15] As far as the water heater, somebody dumped it there.

[50:18] That has all been removed,

[50:19] all that vegetation around the front.

[50:24] I took a tape and went back 25 feet.

[50:28] I even took a picture of it.

[50:30] All that is clear

[50:32] because there was concern about

[50:33] people coming from the swimming pool

[50:35] and speeding around the corner.

[50:38] That is clear sight now.

[50:40] Even with the little addition,

[50:42] it's still clear from the original

[50:45] structure of the house in the front.

[50:48] All we're doing is doing a little fill-in on that front.

[50:51] So it doesn't do anything to obscure

[50:54] the safety of going around from Bayview to Escobar.

[51:01] We have removed the two trees and it's wide.

[51:04] As far as looking at the front, the story pole,

[51:08] the ridge in the back runs 19 feet,

[51:12] and that's the highest part.

[51:14] I don't believe, from the cul-de-sac up in the corner,

[51:18] that because of Art's house and everything being there,

[51:22] that they could even see that part of the roof.

[51:25] And then the roof slopes down.

[51:27] In fact, I believe...

[51:28] Is it a couple inches shorter or about the same,

[51:33] the front part of the house?

[51:36] - [Kirk] The ridge that runs north-south is about

[51:39] I think four inches taller than the existing ridge

[51:41] that's eight and 12.

[51:43] - [Tony] So when you look at the front,

[51:44] the front is the same.

[51:46] And then from the back of the house

[51:49] going towards Escobar Street,

[51:52] only 19 feet of that,

[51:55] and then it slopes down.

[51:57] So that's why we're with the six and 12,

[52:00] to keep the characteristics of the house.

[52:06] That extended height is not

[52:08] for the full length of the house.

[52:11] So looking from the front, like we said,

[52:14] the eight and 12 that's there, that part remains.

[52:17] Only it's gonna be a 6 and 12.

[52:19] And it's a little wider on the floor plan,

[52:22] so it stays basically the same.

[52:25] As Kirk just said, it's four inches, I believe,

[52:28] maybe taller, or four inches shy.

[52:31] So that really I feel has nothing to do with

[52:37] looking at it as far as

[52:39] denying the project because of that.

[52:43] Another thing is, as Kirk said,

[52:47] we can get on top of Billecci, the Rose Billecci's porch

[52:51] and do a panoramic view.

[52:53] As I said, I've been on her porch.

[52:57] Even with this project,

[52:59] you will be able to see the courthouse.

[53:02] You can see Shell.

[53:03] You can see part of downtown Martinez.

[53:05] You can see the bridge,

[53:07] and you can see the water.

[53:08] So I really don't believe

[53:09] it's gonna really impair anything,

[53:11] unless you want to be on the porch and look straight down.

[53:14] And you can do that looking at cars

[53:16] and say, "The cars are obstructing my view."

[53:19] But that's that on that.

[53:23] The size of the house,

[53:25] most of it, it's a thousand,

[53:27] basically at 900 and some odd feet underneath the house,

[53:30] which was already stated by Brandon and everything.

[53:35] So we would like to get on with this project

[53:37] and get it up and running and going.

[53:40] I really appreciate it.

[53:41] Thanks to everybody.

[53:43] - Understood. Thank you so much.

[53:46] Brandon, do you have any additional comments

[53:48] that you'd like to make in response to the public comments

[53:51] and the applicant's response?

[53:53] - The only thing that I wanted to address,

[53:56] I think there is a concern about sidewalks.

[53:58] I believe if they're doing more than 50%

[54:02] of the valuation of the existing home,

[54:04] that they would be required to do frontage improvements,

[54:06] which includes sidewalks.

[54:08] So some sidewalks would require to be upgraded and improved.

[54:12] - [Tony] Well, we're redoing that anyway.

[54:15] - [Michael] Yeah, so -

[54:16] - [Tony] That's gonna be redone anyway.

[54:17] - [Kirk] Are you talking about Bayview?

[54:19] Excuse me.

[54:22] - I'm not sure about Bayview.

[54:23] That would be subject to engineering decision.

[54:26] I don't believe so based on the topography of the site,

[54:29] but it would primarily be along Escobar.

[54:32] - [Tony] Right, which we tend to do anyway,

[54:34] because getting into the garage and everything.

[54:38] Same thing with next door neighbor.

[54:39] They had to do the same thing.

[54:41] We have no issue with that at all.

[54:43] Thank you.

[54:44] - And Brandon, can you point me to the condition of approval

[54:47] that speaks to the frontage improvements?

[54:51] - Let's see.

[54:59] Bear with me just a moment.

[55:05] I'm not sure there's one that specifically calls it out,

[55:07] but they would be subject to

[55:09] a site development permit

[55:10] through the engineering division

[55:12] where things of that nature would be a result at that time.

[55:15] But if you'd like,

[55:16] I'm happy to include an additional condition

[55:18] that related to frontage improvements.

[55:23] - Well, thank you very much, Brandon.

[55:26] I'm now gonna close the public portion of the meeting.

[55:32] Okay, so this one is a little bit of a tough one.

[55:36] So again, I really appreciate everyone involvement,

[55:42] and it clearly is a great neighborhood just based on

[55:46] the way that everyone is carrying themselves

[55:50] in ways that's helpful,

[55:51] in ways that makes my job more challenging.

[55:55] Appreciate just the civility

[55:57] and everyone being just very forthright

[55:59] with what you're after.

[56:03] And I also wanna thank the applicant for having met with,

[56:07] and property owner, excuse me,

[56:09] for having met with some of the neighbors

[56:12] and kind of discussing the project.

[56:14] I think that goes a long way,

[56:15] and I'm hopeful that those relationships

[56:19] will continue as time goes forward

[56:25] both with eventual project as well as after that project.

[56:34] So when we had the last meeting,

[56:37] I had asked for some additional information in terms of

[56:44] how to demonstrate to the neighbors

[56:49] the proposed height impacts.

[56:51] And I was loose in how that would be done.

[56:55] And I understand the request from many members of the public

[56:59] wanting story poles installed.

[57:02] However, I'm personally not a fan of story poles.

[57:06] I actually think they're somewhat problematic

[57:09] for a variety of reasons.

[57:10] I think they can misrepresent

[57:12] what the massing is of a structure.

[57:14] And I think they can give a representation that

[57:19] when someone can't read plans,

[57:21] that it's hard to understand

[57:22] what the massing is actually going to be.

[57:25] I think it's particularly challenging

[57:29] if that's being proposed on a site with an existing home,

[57:33] particularly if the home is older, with older roof,

[57:37] and need of maintenance and things of that nature.

[57:41] I do appreciate though that the applicant

[57:44] provided an exhibit that more clearly represents

[57:48] the existing and proposed height

[57:52] to aid in better understanding

[57:56] of what ranges in a height increase.

[57:59] I think it's also important to point out

[58:02] that that is only in parts.

[58:04] It is not a universal because of how

[58:07] the roof pitches and slope is actually designed

[58:09] and how that's broken up.

[58:13] I do also wanna emphasize that

[58:15] this neighborhood being on a hillside as staff represented

[58:21] as part of the presentation,

[58:23] height does sound worse than it actually is

[58:26] because it is a worst case scenario

[58:28] that's being described.

[58:29] It's from the low point to the high point on the property.

[58:34] There is also a benefit with this particular project

[58:38] that the uphill side actually has a street adjacent to it,

[58:42] which provides for a further buffer,

[58:47] and there's fairly significant additional grade change

[58:51] on the uphill side.

[58:54] And understand the comment in regards to

[58:58] the public comment letter

[59:00] that was attached in the staff report

[59:03] that was received by the Gardenals.

[59:08] I'm not gonna put words into what they said,

[59:11] but they did explicitly say

[59:14] that they're looking forward to the project getting started.

[59:17] So I am going to interpret that

[59:19] as a letter of support for the project.

[59:26] I appreciate also according to the property owner,

[59:31] that there's been some cleanup of the site

[59:34] in terms of removal of some of the vegetation

[59:38] and removal of the water heater that was in the front yard.

[59:43] I did not go back out to the site since the last meeting,

[59:46] but I had been out a couple of times before that.

[59:49] And...

[59:53] Yeah.

[59:56] So,

[59:58] I am prepared prepared to approve the project tonight,

[1:00:02] and part of my reasoning,

[1:00:04] I do think it is well-designed.

[1:00:06] I do think it is in keeping

[1:00:08] with the character and scale of the neighborhood.

[1:00:11] I do think it's important to point out that

[1:00:15] the variances and exceptions that are being requested,

[1:00:19] I do think it's important to point out,

[1:00:20] and this was provided as part of staff's presentation.

[1:00:25] There is a table that's included that is showing

[1:00:27] existing and proposed conditions.

[1:00:29] And for a number of the requests that's there,

[1:00:33] it's continuing an existing non-conforming situation

[1:00:37] rather than predominantly further expansion.

[1:00:41] I do also think it's important to put out on the record

[1:00:45] that the parking situation is currently non-conforming

[1:00:49] and is going to be made conforming as part of this project

[1:00:52] and improving that situation

[1:00:54] and decreasing the impact on the surrounding neighborhood

[1:00:58] by having more sufficient room for vehicles

[1:01:01] to park on the subject site rather than on the street.

[1:01:07] And I referenced this at the last meeting.

[1:01:09] It was referred to as a guest room.

[1:01:12] To me, it is an accessory dwelling unit,

[1:01:14] and that is how it will need to be permitted.

[1:01:17] It has full independent living facilities.

[1:01:20] And the fact that there is the increase

[1:01:23] to the square footage,

[1:01:24] that a portion of that project

[1:01:26] is an accessory dwelling unit,

[1:01:27] that further, to me, emphasizes

[1:01:31] support for what's being proposed

[1:01:33] as part of this application.

[1:01:38] Saying that,

[1:01:41] so I am prepared to

[1:01:45] adopt draft resolution number 26-18,

[1:01:51] approving the application,

[1:01:53] subject to conditions of approval,

[1:01:55] but I have a few modifications to the conditions of approval

[1:01:58] that I would like to request.

[1:02:03] First, I'd like to add the reference in

[1:02:06] for a site development permit from the engineering division.

[1:02:09] And as part of that site development permit,

[1:02:12] there needs to be frontage improvements,

[1:02:16] including potentially curb, gutter, and sidewalk

[1:02:20] along the entire frontage,

[1:02:22] subject to approval by the city engineer or designee.

[1:02:29] The only caveat that I'm going to give

[1:02:31] that city engineer is not here,

[1:02:33] so the city engineer does have some leeway to deviate

[1:02:36] if that provides any impact

[1:02:38] that's not anticipated as part of the project,

[1:02:41] if it can be accommodated for some reason.

[1:02:45] Secondly, I would request that the resolution

[1:02:50] be revised to add references to the accessory dwelling unit

[1:02:53] so it's clear that that is part of the project.

[1:02:57] I can't because an accessory dwelling unit

[1:03:00] is ministerial by nature,

[1:03:02] but I wanna make sure that that's still referenced.

[1:03:09] Next, as I've not had the chance

[1:03:13] to see how the site has been cleared of vegetation,

[1:03:17] I'd still like to include a condition of approval,

[1:03:20] but it may be that this has actually already been satisfied.

[1:03:24] But I'd like to include a condition of approval

[1:03:27] indicating that vegetation should be

[1:03:30] cleared to the satisfaction of the city engineer or designee

[1:03:33] so as to not obstruct

[1:03:39] visibility issues at the intersection.

[1:03:42] And further, even though the property owner indicated it,

[1:03:45] but ensure that the vegetation is removed

[1:03:48] so it's not encroaching within the utility lines.

[1:03:58] And then, finally,

[1:04:02] I would like to, also as part of that,

[1:04:05] even though it sounds like it's already been removed,

[1:04:07] I'm not gonna include it as part of the resolution,

[1:04:09] but just, property owner, confirm,

[1:04:14] please ensure that the water heater has been removed.

[1:04:18] I know you indicated that,

[1:04:19] but my request is that that be removed

[1:04:21] if it hasn't been for some reason.

[1:04:27] And that is it that I'd like to add at this point in time.

[1:04:33] So my decision is appealable.

[1:04:35] Anyone can appeal my decision to the planning commission

[1:04:39] by filing an appeal within 10 calendar days from today.

[1:04:45] If you are interested in doing so,

[1:04:48] please contact Imanol Tovar and Brandon Northart.

[1:04:51] They can walk you through that process and what's required.

[1:04:55] And again, I do wanna end with

[1:04:59] I appreciate the civility

[1:05:02] and how everyone has carried themself

[1:05:05] at both public hearings.

[1:05:07] And my hope is that this project will

[1:05:12] have minimal impact during construction

[1:05:15] and that the neighborhood will be pleased

[1:05:18] when it's completed and how it fixes up a property

[1:05:21] that is in need of some care.

[1:05:25] Thank you very much.

[1:05:27] At that, I will adjourn today's meeting at 5:05.

Zoning Administrator

Agenda

Transcript