[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.