- Good afternoon, everyone.
It is four o'clock on August the 13th.
I am calling this afternoon's meeting to order.
My name's Michael Cass.
I am serving as zoning administrator this afternoon.
We will start with a civility statement.
So I wanna quickly read.
As your appointed governing body,
we will treat each other and the public
with patience, civility, and courtesy
as a model of the same behavior
we wish to reflect in Martinez
for the conduct of all city business
and community participation.
This includes respect for everyone's First Amendment right
to voice their opinion on matters
within the city's subject matter jurisdiction,
even if that opinion is different from our own.
The decisions made will be for the benefit
of the Martinez community and not for personal gain.
So I'd next like to move on to public comment.
This is for public comment for items
that are not on the agenda.
So non-agenda public comment is limited to matters
which are within the subject matter jurisdiction
of the zoning administrator
and which are not action items listed elsewhere.
If you'd like to make a comment,
please use the raise your hand feature.
And I am seeing one hand raised.
Earl, you can unmute yourself.
- [Earl] No, that was an error.
- Okay, we will then talk to you very shortly then.
Thank you, Earl.
Is there anyone else who wishes
to make a public comment
on an item not on today's agenda?
Great.
Seeing none, we'll now move on to our public hearing items.
We're gonna start with the request
for a conditional use permit for 700 Court Street.
Brandon, if you could please give a presentation.
(no audio)
- [Speaker] You need to unmute.
- Thank you. Thank you.
So I'm Senior Planner Brandon Northart,
here this afternoon to present
the conditional use permit for 700 Court Street.
So some quick background on the project.
It's located again at 700 Court Street.
The general plan designation is Downtown Core.
It's located in the Central Commercial Zoning District.
It is also subject and located
within the Downtown Historic Overlay District
and the downtown specific plan area.
The lot size is approximately 37,000 square feet.
It is currently a vacant commercial structure,
and the surrounding uses
are predominantly commercial and civic.
So the proposed project boiled down
is to relocate the existing
Aladdin Bail Bonds from 836 Main Street
over on the corner of Main and Las Juntas
to have a conditional use permit to relocate the business
on the ground floor at 700 Court Street.
So again, just to clarify,
this would not be a net new bail bonds.
This would just be a relocation of an existing one.
So the zoning code specifically requires
a conditional use permit for bail bond shops
on or above the second floor
that do not have frontage on Main Street or Ferry Street.
However, the applicant is proposing to relocate the business
but would not establish a new one.
Staff are supportive because the project
would relocate the existing one at 836 Main Street
which does have a more prominent
ground floor location along Main Street
compared to the subject site
which would result in freeing up a tenant space
for more compatible commercial business at the location.
It would also result in the bail bond shop
being located closer to the
Contra Costa Courthouse and Jail,
which are a more compatible use with the bail bonds.
In addition, like I mentioned,
the project is located
within the Downtown Historic Overlay District
and the downtown specific plan area,
but the project's not proposing
any exterior modifications to the structure,
so none of the provisions
in either of those instances apply here.
There are several conditions of approval on the project,
but I just wanted to quickly highlight two of them.
The first one is related to signage.
So at this time, the applicant's not proposing any signage
to be a part of this approval.
So we have included a condition that ensures
that if any signage is proposed in the future,
that it comes through the planning division
and is consistent with any applicable
planning and zoning standards.
And we've also included a building permit condition.
Again, there are no interior, exterior revisions
or tenant improvements proposed at this time.
So in the event that there are
in the future that the property owner and applicant
consult with the planning and building divisions
to ensure that any future improvements
comply with our city building code and procedures.
So in order to approve the conditional use permit,
several findings need to be made, which are found here.
But just to quickly summarize,
staff are supportive in making the required findings
because the use is compatible with the surrounding area,
would occupy an existing vacant tenant commercial structure,
free up another more prominent one,
and would not pose a hazard to health and safety.
So with that, today's recommendation is
to conduct a public hearing
and adopt zoning administrator resolution number 26-19,
approving a request from Eduardo Garcia
to consider a conditional use permit
to establish a bail bond shop on the ground floor
located at 700 Court Street
in the Central Commercial Zoning District,
assessor's parcel number 373266001-8,
subject to conditions of approval.
With that, I am happy to take any questions,
but I believe both the property owner and applicant
are here as well.
- Thank you very much, Brandon, for the presentation.
I have a quick question,
which actually is probably better suited
for the applicant and property owner,
so feel free to allow them to answer it.
I thought there was a juice business that was still there.
So do you know when they officially left the space?
And again, I can direct that to the property owner
if that's more appropriate.
- I'll default to the property owner.
- Okay. Great.
- [Earl] They're on a month-to-month basis
why they get their plans approved
for their future space in another city.
- Okay.
Appreciate that, Earl.
Eduardo and Earl, the floor is yours.
If there's anything that you would like to
add to present for your application
in addition to the comments
that were presented by the project planner.
- [Earl] I'm good with everything
you guys have presented here this afternoon.
I think you've pretty much covered the basis of everything.
So unless Ed from Aladdin has anything,
I don't have any more to add.
- [Eduardo] Same here.
Feel like we've covered everything that we needed to.
I think everything's pretty straightforward.
- Well, thank you both very much.
Just one additional question,
confirming that you both had a chance
to review the draft resolution
and recommended conditions of approval.
I just wanna confirm that you have no issues.
- [Earl] We have, as building owner, has no issues.
- [Eduardo] As applicant, we have no issues.
- Great.
Well, thank you very much, appreciate that.
I'd now like to open this matter up
to members of the public.
Any member of the public
who wishes to comment on this application,
please use the raise your hand feature
located at the bottom of your screen.
Seeing none, we'll now close
the public portion of the meeting.
And just wanna indicate that I find myself
agreeing with
staff on the recommendations
and can support the conditional use permit
for many of the reasons that were outlined,
particularly since this is an established business
that has compatibility with the court
and being relocated closer to the courthouse
I think makes sense.
It's not a net increase potentially
of this type of use within the downtown.
And then also just supportive,
particularly since this business is currently open 24/7,
and just the vitality that that can add to the downtown.
So I am prepared to support staff's recommendation,
and I move to adopt resolution number 26-19,
approving the conditional use permit
subject to conditions of approval as outlined by staff.
My decision is appealable.
Anyone can appeal this decision in a 10-day period.
If you're interested in doing so, please contact Brandon.
And then Eduardo and Earl, congratulations to you both.
If you have additional questions after today's meeting,
please reach out to Brandon,
but we will send you a formal approval packet
in the next day or so.
Congratulations.
- [Earl] Thank you.
- [Eduardo] Thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
- Great, so now moving on
to the next item on today's agenda,
which is 103 Escobar Street.
This is for a variance and minor exception.
This item was heard at a previous meeting
and was continued to this afternoon.
I'm going to turn it over to Brandon Northart,
who is representing the project on behalf of Imanol Tovar
who had a conflict today.
Brandon.
- Thank you, Michael.
Again, I'm Senior Planner Brandon Northart
here this afternoon on behalf of Imanol Tovar
to present the variance and minor exception request
for a 103 Escobar Street project.
So I will be covering some duplicative information
that was covered by Imanol in his last presentation,
but there is some new information in here
that I'll gloss over as well.
So, most of you know
the project is located at 103 Escobar Street.
It's located in the R-6.0 Single-Family Zoning District.
The lot size is approximately 5,200 square feet.
It is currently occupied by a single family residence
and is predominantly surrounded
by other single family residences as well.
So some background on this project.
So the project was presented, as stated by Michael,
on July 23rd, 2026 to the zoning administrator.
During that time, there were several public commenters
who shared concerns about the project's
height, scale, massing,
and some existing overgrowth at the site.
Based on this feedback,
the zoning administrator
did not approve or deny the project,
but instead decided to continue that to today.
The zoning administrator also requested
that the applicant meet with neighbors
to discuss their concerns, provide additional exhibits,
and potentially install story poles
to show the height of the proposed structure,
consider other modifications to the project,
as well as prune the overgrown vegetation
at the corner of Bayview and Escobar.
Since then the applicant and architect
actually had a meeting with some of the neighbors
on August 7th.
The vegetation on the corner has been pruned,
but there are no changes proposed
at this time to the project
compared to when it was presented earlier in July.
So, again, no changes to the project,
but just kind of going over everything again
so everybody's on the same page.
So the scope of work is to construct
an approximately 1,782 square foot addition
to the existing single-family residence,
which would add a garage, two bedrooms,
and two bathrooms to the home.
And in total, the new home would total 3,307 square feet.
So just showing the proposed elevations here,
so you can see the rear elevation on the left
and then the front elevation on the right.
The front elevation would be the elevation
when viewing it straight on from Escobar.
And one thing I wanted to provide
additional clarification on
compared to the last time this was presented is
this is not a two-story addition.
This project is primarily a split level project
as we would like to call it.
So it's predominantly a single story project
with an addition and conversion to the lower floor
which I believe is currently a basement
in conversion to be a garage
as well as additional residence area.
And I'll kind of cover that a little bit
in a couple slides too.
These are the side elevations.
So the top elevation would be the elevation
where the height and massing of the structure
would be largest,
and that would be down slope from Escobar to the east.
And then the bottom elevation here
would be the elevation along Bayview Drive.
And again, it is a single story from that elevation.
Here are the floor plans.
So the floor plans on the left would be
the single story or the first floor of the structure.
And the floor plan on the right would be that split level
where the basement would be converted
to a garage and guest room.
So the applicant prepared a couple of additional
renderings and elevation comparisons for staff,
which I'm presenting here.
So these graphics are a little busy,
so just trying to demonstrate a little bit more.
So the blue lines you see are...
This is from Bayview Drive,
the elevation from Bayview Drive side elevation.
So the blue lines are the existing roof line
where the top of the structure currently is,
and the red line would be the roof line
at its tallest point in the proposed addition.
And again, the total addition
is approximately five feet in height,
compared to existing.
Similarly, this is the front elevation along Escobar.
So you can see the blue line
is the existing height of the structure and roof line
where the red line is the total top.
And one thing I would also like to add
is that the structure does total approximately 27 feet,
which is taller than what would normally be allowed
at 25 feet.
But that is mainly due to the topographical
challenges and slope of Escobar Street
where the city requires that the total height of a structure
is measured from its most lowest point
to wherever it lines at its tallest point,
which just so happens to be
at the center line of this house,
which makes it measure higher than
what would probably be of the first floor.
Again, some just additional context
showing the slope of Escobar Street.
The image on the left, you can see,
again, facing towards the house,
Escobar naturally has a steep grade
rising from east to west.
And then the bottom image you can see
on the other side of Escobar going up,
you can see that there's a natural slope
that results in a lot of the homes being different heights
depending on their alignment with Escobar
and the natural slope and topography,
which naturally results
in a lot of the homes already existing
to be significantly taller
than what would otherwise be allowed
under the 25-foot height limit.
So you can see how the project complies with
and compares to the existing condition
and complies with our various zoning requirements.
As you can tell,
there are several variances being requested,
including for front setbacks, side yard setbacks,
rear setbacks, lot coverage, FAR,
and the applicant is also requesting a minor exception
as it relates to height.
So since the applicant's requesting a variance these
findings need to be made.
As previously referenced,
the staff believes all the findings
can be affirmatively made.
There are other neighboring properties
in the vicinity of the project that are also inconsistent
with several of the development standards
in the R-6.0 zoning district,
including floor area ratio, lot coverage, and setbacks.
In addition, minor exception findings need to be made.
Again, staff believe that the height increase
would not pose a detrimental impact
to the site and adjacent properties
and comply with the intent of the zoning district.
And there's supporting evidence
that several of the other properties
in the surrounding vicinity
also do not comply with the height standards.
So the project did receive one public comment
prior to the previous zoning administrator meeting.
That comment did express some concerns,
but didn't necessarily oppose or support the project.
And then we have received
one additional written public comment since then,
before this meeting, in support of the project.
And since then, we've received
several additional inquiries about the project,
but no other official written public comments
have been received other than those stated here.
So just wanted to highlight one notable
recommended condition of approval related to landscaping.
So staff are recommending
that the applicant prepare a landscape plan
with the intent of creating some additional screening
along the adjacent property owner property line
that would help eliminate and reduce some of the massing
and privacy concerns that adjacent neighbors might have.
So with that, today's staff's recommendation
is to conduct a public hearing
and adopt zoning administrator resolution number 26-18,
approving a request from Tony and Tiffany Chantri
to consider a variance to,
one, reduce the required rear yard setback
from 25 feet to 20 feet,
reduce the required side yard setback
from five feet to three feet,
reduce the required front yard setback
from 20 feet to five feet,
increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 45%,
and increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.5 to 0.58,
and a minor exception to increase the building height
to 27 feet and seven inches where 25 feet is permitted
to construct a 1,782 square foot addition
to the existing single-family residence
for a total of 3,037 square feet
located at Escobar Street in the R-6.0 Zoning District,
assessor parcel number 372072010-5.
With that, I am happy to answer any additional questions,
and I believe that the applicant and property owner
are here as well if there are any questions for them.
- Great. Thank you, Brandon.
I do have a couple of questions for you.
So I did read the packet
and did read the additional public comment letter
that was submitted and included as part of the packet.
Can you just orient me with Susie and John Gardenal
where they reside in relationship to the proposed project?
- Yeah, I can share my screen again really quickly.
So they are the adjacent neighbor down slope.
Here, I believe this is their residence.
- Okay and the condition of approval
about the landscape screening
is between their two properties, correct?
- Correct.
- And then sort of related, not fully related.
At the last meeting, there was a concern that was expressed
regarding the vegetation
that is going into the utility lines,
but I didn't see any recommendations
with conditions of approval regarding that matter.
Did I miss it?
I just wanna confirm.
- No, there weren't any significant
alterations to the conditions of approval.
Staff would be happy to add that though upon your request.
- And then last question for you, Brandon.
At this time, just to confirm, you alluded to it,
but I just wanna make sure it's abundantly clear.
So at this point, the applicant has
met with some of the neighbors.
They've included the additional exhibit
that's clarifying the proposed height differential,
but no other changes to the project at this time.
- Correct. - Okay.
I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
Would now like to open it up
to the applicant and architect
if you would like to make a presentation.
- I've also elevated Kirk Shelby as well.
He's the architect.
- Can you hear us okay? - Yes.
- [Kirk] Mr. Chantri and I are together in my office.
So Mr. Chantri will make just a brief statement.
- [Tony] Yeah.
Thank you for hosting this and everything.
I appreciate it.
I wasn't at the original meeting.
My understanding of the original meeting was the safety
because of some trees on the corner.
They have since been removed,
and the height of the vegetation has been cut down on that.
The other other thing that was brought up,
from what I understand,
was people up in the cul-de-sac
thought it was a two-story instead of a single-story.
And since that's been clarified,
my understanding is that everything is fine there.
Our next door neighbor that you talked about,
originally, she though, from her bedroom,
that the building was gonna be three feet from her bedroom.
That was not correct, and that has been remedied.
And also she has written a letter in favor of the project.
Our neighbors across the street,
Tim, who's directly across the street,
he looks straight on towards the front of the house
in compliance with it.
He's in favor.
Since then, we also did a laser shot
to establish the height of the roof and everything.
And the people up above on Bayview
their view with the height of our proposed addition,
they still can see the shell.
They can see the courthouse.
They can see the bridge.
They can see the river.
So I don't believe that it impairs their view,
and I would appreciate
if we can just get this project up and moving.
It's been a long one,
and we'd like to just get it going.
I think the concerns have been taken care of.
Thank you.
Do you have anything?
- [Kirk] You guys get all that?
- We did.
Kirk, did you have anything that you wanted to add?
- [Kirk] No, I think he...
I was present at the meeting.
There was, I think, five, maybe six residents
of the surrounding people that came.
Three expressed some concerns
and maintained expressing concerns.
Two of them were with respect to view projection,
and another one was concerned about
encroachment on setbacks.
We talked to them.
Tony like I said,
he's laser shot at.
He put up a story pole
because the roof is not very safe
to be walking around on
to construct anything more than that.
But he did put up a pole that runs up to the height
so that at least from visual standpoint,
you can stand someplace and see.
You have to kind of use your imagination to extend that line
to its full extent, but you can...
I think you can hopefully understand what's going on.
That's all we could do at the current time.
Other than that,
we believe that,
that the scope of the project is reasonable
in that it was a two-bedroom, one-bath,
1,300 square foot house.
It's now a three-bedroom, well, four bedroom
if you count the downstairs guest/ADU.
Four bedroom, three bath.
The upstairs is three bedrooms, two baths.
So it seems to be in a range that is
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood
in terms of floor area.
And the original roof was 8 and 12.
We took down to 6 and 12.
We didn't feel we could take it down farther
just because we're trying to maintain a certain look.
- And clarifying, going down to 6 and 12,
that's what you did with the original design that-
- [Kirk] Yes, yes.
- Thank you.
And then I just wanna allow Tiffany,
if you have any comments that you wanted to make.
- [Tony] Tiffany is out of town.
I apologize for that,
but she already was scheduled to be out of town.
- Okay.
She's on Zoom, so that's why.
- [Tony] Oh, okay.
She was catching a flight,
so I'm surprised she's on it, to be honest about it.
- [Kirk] Yeah, she unmutes and talks.
We're all for it.
- Well, not hearing her unmute.
Thank you both for the presentation.
I do want to now open it up to members of the public,
but I might circle back with you.
- Thank you. - So anyone who wishes
to speak on this item,
please use the raise your hand feature
located at the bottom of the screen.
And if you're calling via phone,
if you can please use star nine to raise your hand.
I'd like to start with Ray Gallagher
is the firsthand I've seen.
Ray, you may unmute yourself.
- [Ray] Okay.
Can you hear me now?
- Yes.
- [Ray] Yes. Okay.
Well, I'm Ray Gallagher.
I'm Rose Billecci Santos' son-in-law and...
The concern that Philip and Rose had
with the single-story pole
was that there was just
exactly just one story pole.
If it's possible to have
a second or third story pole just added to,
to show the projection of the roof ridge lines,
I suppose, to give them a little better comfort
or understanding of the visual site.
I suppose that's the first concern.
I know this may be out of the timeline,
but because this project is in the high fire severity zone
and the reduction of the setbacks, the side setbacks,
well, all the setbacks,
what impact does that have?
And I looked at the plans.
I cannot find any
fire resistant cladding or
venting to prevent
fire propagation in those areas.
I know that might be a more of a planning prior to,
and the plans are pretty well advanced.
But I suppose the main issue for Rose Billecci
is the story poles,
if it's possible to have additional poles to show,
say, projected bridge lines north and south
and, say, west, east-west.
Does that make sense?
- Understood.
Thank you very much, Ray.
I do have a quick question for staff.
The member of the public just raised an issue
in regards to the high fire severity zone.
So I wanna see if the project
was referred to the fire department
and if they had any notable comments
or anything pertinent related to that.
- If you wanna give me a moment,
I can double check that.
- What we can do is we can go to the next speaker
and then come back to you.
So if we could please allow Jamie to speak.
Jamie, you may please unmute yourself.
- [Jamie] Can you hear me?
Yes. Okay. - Yeah.
- [Jamie] I live across the street
in the old Tucker Mansion.
My one concern is the front setback
being so close to the street,
much closer than any other house on the street,
and that possibly setting a precedent
for things to come,
also the viewing going around that corner.
So that's one of my biggest concerns
is getting too close to Escobar.
The existing has a cantilevered section coming out there
and they're playing off of that.
I don't think that's actually accurate.
So I think a planner should physically look at that.
The story poles are my other issue.
I would love to see those set up, as they should be,
with a rope and flags across it
for the public to be able to easily visualize
the size and dimensions
of the building that they're proposing.
And I think that's quite important.
I've built a number of houses myself in Lafayette,
and I've always had to go through that.
The third thing I was curious about
is the state of the sidewalks,
if that could be incorporated
into their scope of the landscaping plan.
I know the city has a hard time fronting the cost
to improve those sidewalks,
but along Bayview, there's none at all.
And it would be helpful for traffic from the pool
on that side of the street
where there's only gonna be
basically a three-foot setback,
four-foot setback to Bayview.
So I don't know how they're gonna deal
with any landscaping there.
Maybe a sidewalk improvement plan should be incorporated
into the landscaping plan.
Just my thoughts.
I don't know if that's out of place for this meeting or not,
but wanted to plant some seeds.
Any questions?
- No questions at this time.
I'm gonna wait to hear all public comments,
but I appreciate your succinctness
and being very clear with what your concerns are.
- [Jamie] Okay.
- I do wanna circle back to staff.
Brandon, are you prepared to respond
to that initial question?
- Yeah, so the project was routed to
Contra Costa Fire Prevention District,
and they did provide several comments,
but they were mostly high level,
did identify that the project
was in a high fire severity zone,
and that additional
wildland-urban interface requirements
were likely applying that additional
review by the fire department would be necessary
and a permit and everything submitted to them
prior to a building permit being issued.
- Great. Thank you very much, Brandon.
I'd now like to open it up for Brooke,
if you'd like to make any comments.
- [Brooke] Yeah. Can you hear me?
- Yes, we can. - Okay.
My name's Brooke Guiley
and I live on 14 Escobar Street.
I attended the meeting hosted by the Chantri family.
I remain concerned about the requested exception
to the maximum building height.
For background information,
I purchased my home in the neighborhood 10 years ago.
I've started a family here,
and I have intentions of staying here
for many years to come.
To this day, the single best thing about my house
is its view of downtown Martinez and the Benicia Bridge.
This portion of Escobar Street
is characterized by its hillside location
and the views that it provides.
I'm generally supportive
of the long overdue renovation of 103.
The property has been abandoned and unattended
for longer than I've lived here.
The neighborhood is banded together to make sure
that a squatter type of situation never happened.
So it's positive, I think,
to restore, improve, and occupy the house,
but my concern is still with the proposed roof height.
The staff report describes it as a minor exception,
but I don't see any analysis explaining
why a roof exceeding the 25-foot maximum
is appropriate for this property
or compatible with the neighborhood.
I haven't seen any comparison of the proposed roof height
with the heights and roof profiles of the neighboring homes.
It's important because the surrounding neighborhood
is predominantly characterized by low profile roofs.
My own home, which was built in the 1970s,
and it's one of the newest houses on the block,
it has a low roof profile, a 3:12,
as do a majority of the surrounding homes.
The 612 roof pitch appears substantially taller
than the other roof forms
that are typical of this neighborhood.
So I was...
So the proposed roof is more than 27 feet tall.
I'm just requesting that
the applicants use a lower pitch roof, maybe a 3:12.
I'm an engineer, but I'm not a civil engineer,
but I think the house would be around 22 feet high,
or a 4:12 roof, which would be about 24 feet high.
Then the reconstructed home would
not even need an exemption.
In summary, I'm just asking you to consider
how this affects the neighborhood,
how it affects our views.
And I just don't understand
why they even need this variance.
Thank you for your time and for considering my comment.
- Thank you very much, Brooke.
I appreciate it.
Now I'd like to allow Tim Farley,
if you'd like to make any comments.
- [Tim] Hello.
Can you guys hear me?
- We can.
- [Tim] Thank you so much.
Again, Tim Farley, 40 Escobar Street.
I live directly across the street from 103.
I actually know Mrs. Chantri,
and she was a wonderful, wonderful neighbor.
I'm generally in supportive of having the home replaced.
I think we all can agree the current situation
is not good for all of us here on Escobar Street.
So I generally support this.
I did ask last time for the story poles,
and we have just one stick.
And I don't think you can get a reasonable
visualization of what the roof line would look like.
I know that the roof line and visibility
is important to the neighbors.
And so my concern is that
we did not get a full story pole setup,
but that's up to you guys.
I do wanna compliment the Chantris though,
because they did come and they did meet with us,
and they genuinely and sincerely, I believe,
listened to some of our concerns.
And bottom line, we're eager to have a new neighbor here.
So hopefully once this issue is resolved,
we can get a timeline when construction will begin.
Thank you.
- Thank you very much, Tim.
Jeremy.
- [Jeremy] Hi. Can you hear me?
- [Michael] I can.
- [Jeremy] Yeah, I'm Jeremy Guiley.
I also live at 14 Escobar Street,
but I am not with Brooke right now.
I just wanted to add a couple
of my own personal comments as well.
Along with the roof height,
I believe I heard the comment that the 6:12 roof
was chosen for the look of the home.
But again, just wanna reiterate that I believe
several of the homes in the neighborhood
have low profile roofs.
And our understanding is that
a lower profile roof may even be more cost-effective,
and there don't seem to be many cons from our standpoint.
So we're really wondering kind of what the,
I'll say, resistance to lowering the roof further would be
if it may even be beneficial to the project.
And we don't have things like snow buildup
to be concerned about here in this area
that you would typically want a higher slope roof for.
So would like some additional clarification
on the justification for that roof slope
when a lower roof slope could accomplish
the same thing for the home without adding costs,
increasing structural load, wind load,
or anything like that.
And it would be potentially
below the exception, as Brooke mentioned,
and better overall for the neighbors.
I am also generally supportive of the project.
I wanna emphasize that.
So I think it's important to consider
maybe making some of these minor adjustments
or just being open to minor changes
that could make significant improvements
to the neighbor's feel of the project
without derailing it too far.
Do wanna appreciate the Chantris
for coming out and meeting with us all as well,
and definitely do wanna see this renovation happen.
Only other comment though is that
did read through and the...
I guess what's being referred to as letter of support
that was in the project documents,
it didn't seem to me like it was
much of a letter of support
as it was a note to the property owners.
So maybe I read that wrong,
but I'm not quite sure if that's classified correctly,
and that those property owners
direct neighbors are necessarily
providing direct support for the project.
They do have solar panels on that side of their roof.
And so not trying to speak for them,
but height, I would assume, is a concern for them as well
to not block their solar panels.
And they mentioned the view into their bedroom previously.
So just wanted to point those items out.
- Great. Thank you very much, Jeremy.
Would now like to allow iPhone 4 to speak.
- [Rosalie] Hi, this is Rosalie Gallagher.
I am Rose Billecci's daughter.
My father built that house that she lives in,
530 Bayview Drive probably over 60, close to 70 years ago.
My mom will be 93 in a couple of weeks, and we have lived...
she's lived in that home pretty much her whole married life.
So we are the oldest residents, I believe,
in that area.
I grew up with Mrs. Chantri and Tony and Andrew
in the neighborhood.
We were very sad when Mrs. Chantri had to leave,
and very disappointed on how the property has
been taken care of since she has left.
There's a water heater in the yard
that has been there for years,
and that's just pretty much the tip of the iceberg.
But to get to my real concern is
just to tag onto my husband's comment about fire safety.
My mom is later in her years,
her sister lives with her now, who is also elderly.
The fire department has been called to the home
several times for assistance,
and you cannot get a firetruck on Bayview Drive, currently.
I'm very concerned with the request to
push out the home closer to the sidewalk,
because that's gonna make it even more difficult
for fire to respond.
At this point, the experience that we have had
is the firetruck had to park down
in front of Tim Farley's house,
and the EMTs had to walk up to my mom's house.
What if there really is a fire at her home
or at Art's home or the home next door to my mom's?
How is a firetruck going to get up there
if that variance is allowed so close to the street?
So to add additional
barricades or issues
or to getting help to Bayview Drive,
I think is unwise to allow.
There are people who live on Bayview Drive
as well as Escobar.
So thank you.
- Thank you very much.
Appreciate the comments.
Thank you, everyone, for your civility and your clarity,
and I really appreciate that.
I do wanna allow the applicant and architect,
if you would like to respond
to any of the public comments that we've heard,
please do so.
- [Tony] Can you hear us?
- [Kirk] Yes, they can hear us.
- [Tony] Oh, okay.
- [Kirk] I'm trying to digest all the issues.
I certainly can understand the difficulty of visualization
without the story poles.
One of the things we were trying to do
is if we could establish that one pole
and get some photos from the upper neighbors out,
we could then take those photos
and do a photo array showing
where that line exactly would be
from those particular vantage points.
The concern with the story poles is just
the ridge is in the middle of a bunch of...
The existing roof is very complicated and crazy
and not in very good shape.
And so walking around there
runs the risk of somebody falling through the roof.
And so how we would go about
constructing something that would be accurate
in the ridge locations
to accurately show a hip to ridge kind of situation.
While I'm sure it can be done,
I'm not sure exactly how that might be accomplished.
You would have to maybe...
There's a couple of ridges that you might be able to,
where our ridge lies between.
You could do a temporary support
and then down, but it's a lot to try to do.
It's not as simple as running
a line from that ridge.
That pole that's there is about 2 1/2 feet
from the actual top of the hip.
So where the height of the roof is,
is actually to the,
I guess would be to the east of where that post is,
assuming that the house runs,
Bayview runs east-west.
I'm not sure that it does it, but it's pretty close.
And Escobar runs north-south.
So
the ridge that's of concern runs east-west.
It's about 19 feet, four inches long,
and then it hips down on both sides to that.
The question trying to relate to heights
and roof heights,
I would maintain that there's a number of roof heights
that are done.
I would maintain that some of the four and 12 pitch heights
are on full two-story structures.
So they've already taken up a lot of the height
with the size of their building.
Ours is one story from the Bayview side.
The idea of doing a six and 12,
it was a compromise to not make it look like
a regular ranch-style house
because this house, the original house
had character with the eight and 12 pitches,
and had a certain look,
kind of a classic Bay Area look.
That's the architecture part of it.
In terms of circulation
and fire access,
this is the first I've heard
that firetruck can't access Bayview Drive
because of our building.
The pop-out that we're talking about
pops out only as far as the original pop-outs are.
So if it's encroaching on...
If our existing house encroaches,
which is 12 feet from the curb,
I just don't understand the analysis, I guess.
- [Tony] How it affects fire.
- [Kirk] How it affects fire.
and we've never heard any of those comments before.
So I don't know if that came about
in the fire department review for you guys.
Clearly we're in a fire area.
I doubt highly that any of the surrounding buildings
have any of the WUI classifications.
That's not to say that we're opposed to
putting a non-combustible siding on the side
and a non-combustible roof on top
and tempering our vents to comply with
all those requirements for code.
That's fine.
But I'm not sure that necessarily
protects the rest of the neighborhood from fire.
- [Tony] No, they're old, especially the Victorian.
- [Kirk] So I mean...
But obviously we are asking for this work
to take place in today's code,
and today's code has those provisions.
So we would have to provide those provisions
to comply with code,
and we have no objection to that.
It wouldn't necessarily change the look of the house at all.
We already have a lap siding.
James Hardie produces a lap siding that is fire resistant,
that complies with WUI, complies with code,
and we could use that.
- [Tony] Also, we're not doing anything.
Also, as far as the firetruck
may not be able to get up there,
but that's just an existing road.
We're not doing anything to narrow the road.
We're 12 feet from the side on Bayview on that.
So if a firetruck did what Rose said,
it was probably 'cause they couldn't make the turn,
but that's already existing.
That has nothing to do with us.
As far as the water heater, somebody dumped it there.
That has all been removed,
all that vegetation around the front.
I took a tape and went back 25 feet.
I even took a picture of it.
All that is clear
because there was concern about
people coming from the swimming pool
and speeding around the corner.
That is clear sight now.
Even with the little addition,
it's still clear from the original
structure of the house in the front.
All we're doing is doing a little fill-in on that front.
So it doesn't do anything to obscure
the safety of going around from Bayview to Escobar.
We have removed the two trees and it's wide.
As far as looking at the front, the story pole,
the ridge in the back runs 19 feet,
and that's the highest part.
I don't believe, from the cul-de-sac up in the corner,
that because of Art's house and everything being there,
that they could even see that part of the roof.
And then the roof slopes down.
In fact, I believe...
Is it a couple inches shorter or about the same,
the front part of the house?
- [Kirk] The ridge that runs north-south is about
I think four inches taller than the existing ridge
that's eight and 12.
- [Tony] So when you look at the front,
the front is the same.
And then from the back of the house
going towards Escobar Street,
only 19 feet of that,
and then it slopes down.
So that's why we're with the six and 12,
to keep the characteristics of the house.
That extended height is not
for the full length of the house.
So looking from the front, like we said,
the eight and 12 that's there, that part remains.
Only it's gonna be a 6 and 12.
And it's a little wider on the floor plan,
so it stays basically the same.
As Kirk just said, it's four inches, I believe,
maybe taller, or four inches shy.
So that really I feel has nothing to do with
looking at it as far as
denying the project because of that.
Another thing is, as Kirk said,
we can get on top of Billecci, the Rose Billecci's porch
and do a panoramic view.
As I said, I've been on her porch.
Even with this project,
you will be able to see the courthouse.
You can see Shell.
You can see part of downtown Martinez.
You can see the bridge,
and you can see the water.
So I really don't believe
it's gonna really impair anything,
unless you want to be on the porch and look straight down.
And you can do that looking at cars
and say, "The cars are obstructing my view."
But that's that on that.
The size of the house,
most of it, it's a thousand,
basically at 900 and some odd feet underneath the house,
which was already stated by Brandon and everything.
So we would like to get on with this project
and get it up and running and going.
I really appreciate it.
Thanks to everybody.
- Understood. Thank you so much.
Brandon, do you have any additional comments
that you'd like to make in response to the public comments
and the applicant's response?
- The only thing that I wanted to address,
I think there is a concern about sidewalks.
I believe if they're doing more than 50%
of the valuation of the existing home,
that they would be required to do frontage improvements,
which includes sidewalks.
So some sidewalks would require to be upgraded and improved.
- [Tony] Well, we're redoing that anyway.
- [Michael] Yeah, so -
- [Tony] That's gonna be redone anyway.
- [Kirk] Are you talking about Bayview?
Excuse me.
- I'm not sure about Bayview.
That would be subject to engineering decision.
I don't believe so based on the topography of the site,
but it would primarily be along Escobar.
- [Tony] Right, which we tend to do anyway,
because getting into the garage and everything.
Same thing with next door neighbor.
They had to do the same thing.
We have no issue with that at all.
Thank you.
- And Brandon, can you point me to the condition of approval
that speaks to the frontage improvements?
- Let's see.
Bear with me just a moment.
I'm not sure there's one that specifically calls it out,
but they would be subject to
a site development permit
through the engineering division
where things of that nature would be a result at that time.
But if you'd like,
I'm happy to include an additional condition
that related to frontage improvements.
- Well, thank you very much, Brandon.
I'm now gonna close the public portion of the meeting.
Okay, so this one is a little bit of a tough one.
So again, I really appreciate everyone involvement,
and it clearly is a great neighborhood just based on
the way that everyone is carrying themselves
in ways that's helpful,
in ways that makes my job more challenging.
Appreciate just the civility
and everyone being just very forthright
with what you're after.
And I also wanna thank the applicant for having met with,
and property owner, excuse me,
for having met with some of the neighbors
and kind of discussing the project.
I think that goes a long way,
and I'm hopeful that those relationships
will continue as time goes forward
both with eventual project as well as after that project.
So when we had the last meeting,
I had asked for some additional information in terms of
how to demonstrate to the neighbors
the proposed height impacts.
And I was loose in how that would be done.
And I understand the request from many members of the public
wanting story poles installed.
However, I'm personally not a fan of story poles.
I actually think they're somewhat problematic
for a variety of reasons.
I think they can misrepresent
what the massing is of a structure.
And I think they can give a representation that
when someone can't read plans,
that it's hard to understand
what the massing is actually going to be.
I think it's particularly challenging
if that's being proposed on a site with an existing home,
particularly if the home is older, with older roof,
and need of maintenance and things of that nature.
I do appreciate though that the applicant
provided an exhibit that more clearly represents
the existing and proposed height
to aid in better understanding
of what ranges in a height increase.
I think it's also important to point out
that that is only in parts.
It is not a universal because of how
the roof pitches and slope is actually designed
and how that's broken up.
I do also wanna emphasize that
this neighborhood being on a hillside as staff represented
as part of the presentation,
height does sound worse than it actually is
because it is a worst case scenario
that's being described.
It's from the low point to the high point on the property.
There is also a benefit with this particular project
that the uphill side actually has a street adjacent to it,
which provides for a further buffer,
and there's fairly significant additional grade change
on the uphill side.
And understand the comment in regards to
the public comment letter
that was attached in the staff report
that was received by the Gardenals.
I'm not gonna put words into what they said,
but they did explicitly say
that they're looking forward to the project getting started.
So I am going to interpret that
as a letter of support for the project.
I appreciate also according to the property owner,
that there's been some cleanup of the site
in terms of removal of some of the vegetation
and removal of the water heater that was in the front yard.
I did not go back out to the site since the last meeting,
but I had been out a couple of times before that.
And...
Yeah.
So,
I am prepared prepared to approve the project tonight,
and part of my reasoning,
I do think it is well-designed.
I do think it is in keeping
with the character and scale of the neighborhood.
I do think it's important to point out that
the variances and exceptions that are being requested,
I do think it's important to point out,
and this was provided as part of staff's presentation.
There is a table that's included that is showing
existing and proposed conditions.
And for a number of the requests that's there,
it's continuing an existing non-conforming situation
rather than predominantly further expansion.
I do also think it's important to put out on the record
that the parking situation is currently non-conforming
and is going to be made conforming as part of this project
and improving that situation
and decreasing the impact on the surrounding neighborhood
by having more sufficient room for vehicles
to park on the subject site rather than on the street.
And I referenced this at the last meeting.
It was referred to as a guest room.
To me, it is an accessory dwelling unit,
and that is how it will need to be permitted.
It has full independent living facilities.
And the fact that there is the increase
to the square footage,
that a portion of that project
is an accessory dwelling unit,
that further, to me, emphasizes
support for what's being proposed
as part of this application.
Saying that,
so I am prepared to
adopt draft resolution number 26-18,
approving the application,
subject to conditions of approval,
but I have a few modifications to the conditions of approval
that I would like to request.
First, I'd like to add the reference in
for a site development permit from the engineering division.
And as part of that site development permit,
there needs to be frontage improvements,
including potentially curb, gutter, and sidewalk
along the entire frontage,
subject to approval by the city engineer or designee.
The only caveat that I'm going to give
that city engineer is not here,
so the city engineer does have some leeway to deviate
if that provides any impact
that's not anticipated as part of the project,
if it can be accommodated for some reason.
Secondly, I would request that the resolution
be revised to add references to the accessory dwelling unit
so it's clear that that is part of the project.
I can't because an accessory dwelling unit
is ministerial by nature,
but I wanna make sure that that's still referenced.
Next, as I've not had the chance
to see how the site has been cleared of vegetation,
I'd still like to include a condition of approval,
but it may be that this has actually already been satisfied.
But I'd like to include a condition of approval
indicating that vegetation should be
cleared to the satisfaction of the city engineer or designee
so as to not obstruct
visibility issues at the intersection.
And further, even though the property owner indicated it,
but ensure that the vegetation is removed
so it's not encroaching within the utility lines.
And then, finally,
I would like to, also as part of that,
even though it sounds like it's already been removed,
I'm not gonna include it as part of the resolution,
but just, property owner, confirm,
please ensure that the water heater has been removed.
I know you indicated that,
but my request is that that be removed
if it hasn't been for some reason.
And that is it that I'd like to add at this point in time.
So my decision is appealable.
Anyone can appeal my decision to the planning commission
by filing an appeal within 10 calendar days from today.
If you are interested in doing so,
please contact Imanol Tovar and Brandon Northart.
They can walk you through that process and what's required.
And again, I do wanna end with
I appreciate the civility
and how everyone has carried themself
at both public hearings.
And my hope is that this project will
have minimal impact during construction
and that the neighborhood will be pleased
when it's completed and how it fixes up a property
that is in need of some care.
Thank you very much.
At that, I will adjourn today's meeting at 5:05.