We're going to call the meeting to order since we have a full agenda.
Good evening, welcome and thank you for joining us for tonight's meeting of the
Arendelle Planning Commission on May 26, 2026. In the back of the room there's a
table where you can find copies of tonight's agenda as well as staff
reports for the items that will be heard tonight. On the same table you will find
request to speak cards. If you would like to speak to the Commission this evening
please fill out a speaker card and place it in the speaker card tray on the table
in front here. If you are the applicant or the applicant's agent you do not need
to complete a speaker card. Once we begin the public portion public hearings
portion of the meeting each item will be announced with a brief description of
of what is being proposed.
After any general questions by the commission to staff,
the hearing will be opened
and the applicant will have 10 minutes
to present their project.
If you are the applicant
at the beginning of your presentation,
please let me know how much time of your 10 minutes
you would like to reserve for any rebuttal.
After the presentation by the applicant,
the public hearing will be opened
Anyone wishing to speak to the Commission on this item will be invited to do so
When your name is called, please come to the speaker podium at the front here and each speaker will be given three minutes to speak
once everyone wishing to speak have made their comments the public hearing will then be closed and
We will bring the matter up to the Commission for discussion and decision
If you will be speaking to us this evening please be sure to make all of
your comments when you come to the podium. As a courtesy to all comments
made from the audience during testimony or commission deliberation will not be
allowed and will not be included as part of this public record. At the conclusion
of the hearing the Commission's options will be to approve, continue, or deny a
project application. Now I will proceed with roll call and confirm certain
matters for the record. I would like to note that commissioners Armstrong,
doctors, Hubner, Jelnick, Marola, Oblinski are present and in attendance. Item B is
the adoption of the agenda. Planning director are there any changes to the
proposed agenda for tonight? I have none. Hearing no changes I would like to move
forward with tonight's agenda do I have a motion do I have a second second all
those in favor say aye aye aye the motion is passed unanimously item C is
the public forum the first item on tonight's agenda is the public forum the
public forum is an opportunity for you to address the Planning Commission on
items that are not listed on tonight's agenda is there anyone who would like
to address the Commission on an item that is not on the agenda. If you do
please fill out a speaker card. Are there any online? Okay seeing none in the room
we'll move on to item D the consent calendar. The consent calendar section of
the agenda consists of items that are acted on in one motion. Unless a
Commissioner or member of the public requests that the Commission remove an
item from the Commission the consent calendar for discussion by approval of
the consent calendar the staff recommendation will be adopted if an
item is removed from the consent calendar the Commission will follow the
procedures described in the agenda for new public hearings may have a motion to
approve the consent calendar as proposed some of may have a second
Thank you, Commissioner hubner abstains from the vote.
I have stayed as well from being absent from last meeting, Commissioner Oblinski abstains.
All in favor, say, I, I, I, and the motion carries.
Item e policy matters item e 110 Irwin way this divert a project update, we will have
a staff presentation from Leshong Cross and you have the floor. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, Chair Armstrong. From our last meeting, I was tasked with bringing
back some of the facts on 10 Irwin Way, which is actually now 15 Irwin Way is the new address.
And I was hoping those few slides that I put together would be showing. Ready to go. All
All right. Thank you. So here's the overview and overview of 10. Over the way, as I mentioned
a minute ago, it's now 15 or in the way, um, the background information that you're
looking for is that this project was approved by the planning commission. I would say recommended
for approval by the planning commission on July 12th, 2022. The city council adopted
approve this project on August 16th of 2022. The Vista Verde Project in downtown
Arenda, I should say off, Arenda Way proposed a five-story building with 51
affordable senior apartments and one caretaker unit so most of the times
you'll hear 52 units. It's located on 1.4 acre site. The complex features a
second level garage pedestrian crosswalk and required zoning amendments density
bonus concessions so the current project construction changes were the unit counts
the unit count went from 52 to 53 where the maximum allowed number of units were
74, but what was approved is 53. The parking spaces were change, were
recommended change from 32 spaces to 33. The open space, and in planning terms you
consider balconies as part of open space, was 4,339 square feet. That went
down to 3,912 square feet under the current construction project, which means the floor
area ratio would change slightly from 1.2 to 1.26.
The total square footage of the project, as it was approved, was 72,593 square feet.
And that was increased to 78,762 square feet.
So basically approximately 2,000 of the additional square footage was added to each of the floors.
The tree removal at the time of approval was five protected trees with an aggregate diameter
that's basically the size, the round size of the trunk, 69 inches.
And that, the current project construction phase was 12 protected trees to be removed
within 190 inch aggregate in diameter.
Those were the changes that were proposed by the applicant.
I'm mentioning the mitigated negative decoration because for this project one was done.
One of the comments that was mentioned again at the previous hearing was someone speaking
about particulate matter 2.5, particulate matter 10.
That's the fugitive dust.
a size, a micron of a dust. And so even though you can't read it, there's copies in the back
of the room. I'm pointing this out because the air quality analysis was done for this
project. It was considered. There is a question in this appendix, which is done by the California
Environmental Quality Act. And part of this appendix, which is the initial study, under
air quality, the section is 3C, the question is impacts to sensitive receptors. These are words
that I know a lot of common people don't don't get, but sensitive receptors are hospital schools,
elderly. So what I'm trying to say to you is that the previous team that evaluated this application
did evaluate. They may not have mentioned top schools, they may have not mentioned
Holden, they may not have mentioned by name vista verde, but the analysis were done. And that's what
this is showing you and there's copies in the back of the room of the entire mitigated negative
decoration that was done for this project. The next one I heard comments around noise. Once again,
the mitigated negative decoration that was done in June of 2022 analyzed noise for this project.
they found it to be less than significant. But whereas for your air quality, they found that to
be significant with mitigations. So you have mitigation measures that will lessen the impact
of air qualities. And I'm pointing those out because these were things I heard at the last
public forum. Notification, there's much talk about not being notified. And I went back through
to check the process for this particular application and it's a government code section we don't
we don't come up with our own codes we follow state codes and the government section for
noticing of hearings is 65090. It requires a 300 foot radius notice from the project site
it requires a newspaper notice and it requires posting. If you may have seen a survey or I
I should say stakes in the ground with eight and a half by 11 type notification.
So I'm pointing this out to say that from what I can see the notification has met the
government code with the newspaper notice with the 300 foot notice.
And if you were to read the government section that I'm referring to it says property
owners get notified not property owners and tenants.
So far as I can see the city met their requirement and obligation in terms of noticing.
Here I'm showing you the noticing for CEQA. CEQA this part is the mitigated negative
declaration that I was briefly talking about around air quality, noise, biological impacts.
You file this notice once that is accepted by, in this case approved by city council,
is common for jurisdictions to file these notice
because it reduces the time to challenge.
So this tells me that it was adequately recorded
with the Contra Costa County,
which tells me the statute of limitations
to challenge this document, end it after 35 days,
rather than 180.
That was done in accordance with the law.
Here's a, hard to see, but there's copies in the back.
This was the outline of a site plan that was originally submitted.
I'm going to move on.
These are just some elevations that I found in the file
and was going through to review.
Left side, rear side elevations of the building.
And then I'm going to get to this condition of approval.
As I mentioned before, this project was already approved by the city council.
There is a section here which I've blown out as a condition of approval.
Minor changes to the approved building plans shall be subject to review and approval by the planning director
prior to implementation
Major changes to the approved building plans shall be subject to review and approve of city council
It does not come back before the planning commission after your major recommendations
This is the conditions of approval already established in the resolution number
4122
I heard someone mention plans have changed. I talked about some earlier in terms of
parking, but these were some more recent modified plans that I heard someone mention a wall.
So the wall was to the right, the thumbnail sort of sketches, which is hard to see.
We tried to highlight it in yellow, what the change was.
So it was basically one linear, it looks like two linear walls that originally were proposed
for approval or approved.
And then the applicant came back in the most recent submittals and proposed, as you can
see highlighted yellow, an additional wall connecting to the existing building.
And you ask, well, why wasn't this noticed?
Because back to the condition of approval that I showed you before, it is up to the
planning director to determine if this is a major or minor modification.
In this case, you wouldn't see this wall because this wall is less than four feet high.
So it is not considered a structure that we would review for discretionary review.
It is would it would be a modification to the plans that would be considered to be minor.
It's three feet in some areas three and a half feet compared to looking at these plans
and looking at the top of the wall and the bottom of all measurements.
So this is not a discretionary review.
so you wouldn't see the changes here.
Now, I mentioned some changes earlier, fine print,
that this is talking about the 52 units,
including the caretaker's unit.
This is talking about the parking spaces
that were modified and changed,
and it was determined by the interim planning director
at that time that these changes were deemed
to be minor changes and did not need to go
before the city council.
therefore notification was not done.
Those are facts about the projects.
I did have an opportunity just to brief internally
about the last meeting in this current meeting.
And in communication with legal,
planning department has no role.
This is a civil matter at this point.
I find that going through this project,
even though it was the interim planning director before me,
I have looked through this project
and I do not find any procedural errors
and I do not find any substantial errors
around regulations in terms of how the city
has processed its application.
So therefore, Air Runway is an approved project
that does not require additional action
by the Planning Department.
I have no role.
Where my role begins and picks up is after
and what we call post entitlement.
It's been approved.
All the statutes of limitations for challenging
It's gone.
So what I have now is the overview
of those mitigation measures that I was referring to
that are identified in the environmental document
and the conditions of approval, which is one I showed you.
The planning director has the ability
to determine what minor and major changes are.
And if it is a major change, it goes to the city council.
So having said that, and having ran this by legal as well,
what I'm hearing now is civil matter.
But things that I can perhaps suggest is,
we do have one of the things I'm like,
what could we do differently?
I mean, one thing is just informing staff
that if we have a project that comes across our desk
that involves single or multi-tenants,
maybe we can have the applicant as a courtesy.
Can you ensure that you're notifying your tenants
in that manner.
Another thought was we put on stakes,
small notices that are probably eight and a half by 11
and a lot of people can't see.
So we thought, well, maybe we can increase
those public notices to 11 by 17 or something larger
so that folks can actually take notice.
But as far as this project in terms of notification,
it meets the government code.
I don't see anything erroneously procedural wise.
And so those are additional suggestions that I could possibly make as a courtesy to you.
That includes my presentation for this matter.
Of the meeting that comes back up to the panel I want to confirm any ex parte relationships
or communications with members of the public
on this project, I'll start.
I do know Toni Martinez and Nate Burns
who are sitting in the audience.
I also know several people
that have children at the school.
So, and we are casual friends.
So I wanna disclose that.
And then are there others?
Yeah, I'll go ahead and disclose.
My daughter did attend TOPS and graduate from the preschool.
She's not actively there now,
but we were members of the community.
Thank you.
To my knowledge, I have no relationship with TOPS
nor attendees or members of that organization, so.
Thank you.
Nor do I, to the best of my knowledge.
Nor do I, for the best of my knowledge.
My first child went to TOPS and we do have many friends
that also have children that attend the school.
Okay, thank you.
Now I'll bring the matter back to the panel.
Are there any questions of staff?
I just had a few.
For the, do you mind going back to the slide
that showed the changes, the changes in the application?
Perfect, just out of curiosity.
So historically we have seen with the tree removal,
I know for properties we've had some properties
that's been the sole focus.
And so those have come back
and I'm just noticing this going from five to 12
pretty substantial. Was that something that went potentially back to City Council? And I know
historically we've seen, and I don't know if the laws have changed just over the past few years,
but a lot of times we've seen properties come back for an additional tree removal permit and
that does come back to the Planning Commission, given that's been a huge focus for us in the past
for some of these approvals. I saw the change from five to 12 as part of the City Council's
approval. So it sounds like it did go back to City Council. Yes, it sounds like to me,
perhaps that the applicant asked at that meeting. Okay. And then just one other clarifying question.
When this came to the Planning Commission, I don't recall any conversation around the church,
even as the primary owner of the property, like any impacts to the church side, any sort of impacts
to construction. If you look at the elevations, it was really, I recall at the time, very focused on
just the actual building aesthetics there was not any impact mentioned to the church
property or any of the surrounding properties. Not sure if you came across any…
I did actually. So I do know of many of the comments from other neighbors that talked about
the location of this project where it is in terms of views, in terms of trees. So it is in the record
that there were comments made. And again, I only pointed out two of the areas of the
Mitigated Negative Decoration, but that also analyzes construction and other impacts.
But there was nothing cited around when the Plating Commission made their original
recommendation. There was nothing cited around direct construction impacts to the church or any
of the surrounding facilities. And I'm thinking direct is in like the road shutdown. There was
There was nothing like that highlighted as part of that original meeting, correct?
I didn't see anything of that.
I saw an addendum, but it talked about traffic and pedestrians.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thanks for the presentation.
It was really helpful and I think exactly what we were asking for at the last session.
So thank you.
Question about process as far as the type of facility when we meet in the planning commission
and things are presented.
If it is a tenant that is a school or maybe a tenant that's some other unique provider
that's not maybe a residential home or something like that, is there a requirement that the
Planning Commission be made aware that there is a school on that site?
And I guess the follow-up question was, was that mentioned in this?
Because I understand in the document the school was not mentioned.
No.
Commissioner Rolla, the schools are in this particular—I've seen both ways in different
environmental documents, but in this particular one, they don't mention any of the schools.
They don't even mention Holden, which I know is there,
any more than it mentions TOPS.
But what this mitigated negative decursion does,
which is part of the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act,
is it states, are there any impacts to sensitive receptors?
Sensitive receptors is defined at schools, hospitals,
children, playgrounds, and the state defines that.
And if you receive an application that is for,
that may have an impact on a school in the radius,
does that change in any way the assessment
that is made by the planning department?
It's evaluated if I needed to do,
if I don't have an exemption
by California Environmental Quality Act,
my next step is what we call a negative decoration
or a mitigating negative decoration.
In this case, somebody read through the application
and felt there's gonna be some impact somewhere.
So we're gonna start at that level, which is what they did.
But if it's an exemption, if it's an exemption,
then normally you, unless I just know the area,
planning staff knows the area,
I probably wouldn't mention a school.
Thank you.
Yeah, just one question.
On the CEQA review, you noted it was 35 days.
Was that accelerated?
I couldn't help but notice you'd reference a 180 day.
If you don't file, and some jurisdictions miss the filing,
have so many days after a decision is made by City Council to file with the Contra Costa
recorder's office. If you don't file in a timely manner, it's 180 days, if you file timely,
it's 35 days. Got it. Is the fact that it's a negative declaration versus a full EIR impact
that review? No, the only difference in those three things is timing. EIR could be anywhere
from 45 to 60 days. Negative decoration could be 20 days. And that's just public review.
The timing for challenging litigation stays the same once a file.
Yeah. Thank you.
One more question on the trees. So when the tree removal went back to City Council,
was it required to be noticed to the property owner as well that it was getting reviewed
at City Council? Yes. Each hearing requires its own notice.
So you have a notice and then we move on to City Council. We have a notice again and it's
the same requirements that's set by law which is newspaper depending on the number of residents we
have to notify. It's using newspaper the little stake stakes we put in the ground and posting
outside here of this building public places and the 300-foot list. Thank you. So could you just
clarify that that notification also includes the notification on the CEQA public comment period
and particularly that that happens through Contra Costa County. Is that part of that
notification? The CEQA public comment period? Yeah, what I showed you is the CEQA notice.
What I didn't show you is the public hearing notice, but it would be the same 300-foot
radius list. You just take the same list and mail out the notice here. I have a question. So
the open space private balconies I see the square footage went down is that all the square footage
surrounding the perimeter of the project and the total square feet increased I just wanted
you to explain that. Yeah I mean again why the the additional 2,000 square feet per floor
I don't know why they wanted to pursue that versus decreasing the size of balconies.
That could have been a financial reason, but I don't know exactly why reducing the balcony
space, which we consider open space and increasing the square footage took place.
One more is kind of situational thinking of the road closure and the impacts during construction.
At the original Planning Commission, I think the assumption was there was no large construction
impacts revealed at that time, and historically for sites, if the owner or the builder is
aware that they have to shut down a road or relocate a pipeline, that's disclosed at
the time and part of the decision-making process for the Planning Commission.
When we have a scenario of say they do anticipate closing the road for this project or having
adverse impacts to the property owners that wasn't originally disclosed, how was that
typically handled?
Well, let me mention first the mitigated negative decoration because mitigation measures are
important.
They're actually use your enlarges and conditions of approval.
You have a fugitive deaths control.
And so in your in your mitigated negative decorations, it says here because those PM
2.5s, PM10s, toxic air contaminants
all controlled by Bay Area Air Quality District.
Here, basic construction mitigation measures.
I'm thinking more, does it cover the road closures,
like physically unable to access businesses in the area?
Was that a consideration?
It's not identified here.
Okay, that's, yeah.
It talks about idling and things like that.
Yeah, that's what I was wondering
if it was physically documented,
if these businesses or the property owner,
even say the church,
since we're considering that's the primary,
like notified party,
if they say can't access their property for 30 days,
if that was included and it sounds like it was not.
So thank you.
Yes, it was not.
I mean, but we can be notified of the need of a road closure
and ensuring that notices occurs for that.
And how do you?
Just a kind of a procedural question.
Oftentimes in the various projects
that come to our attention,
the, I'll call it the conditions of approval,
contain language to the effect
that the builder, the applicant must provide,
like circulation mod, they have to post flaggers
when there's a dump truck coming in
or blocking the street and things like this.
So I assume that conditions of construction
in the approval project,
in the original approval of the project,
identified that access and other issues
to be mitigated during construction is as part of the I'll call it the general conditions of
approval and these kind of things happen during construction and the contractor builder is on
notice that they have to make they may have to have to work around some of this stuff and make
accessibility as part of their project am i am i not understanding kind of the generic nature of
these approvals that we grant yes commissioner hubner you are indeed correct that's where the
construction management plan comes into place and then that's when they'll tell me when they're
opening and closing. Yes. And that's part of the conditions of approval. Again, the
conditions of approval and the mitigation measures are all within the resolution as
approved by the mayor at the time and the city clerk.
And if I may, just for extreme clarity, that those construction mitigation measures, right,
as part of those conditions of approval, if somebody, say, takes issue with, hey, this
This is what's on paper and this is what's happening in reality.
That is not planning commission purview, that is code enforcement purview.
Right.
I'm sorry.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
That is my determination.
Vice chair, and that's why you have that last page.
Planning department now, because it is approved project, post entitlement, my responsibility
now is making sure these mitigation measures and these conditions are abided by.
So if I'm not out there daily.
So if someone says hey they're blocking this road and it's supposed to be open then it's
my job to pull these same conditions that I'm pointing you to now and to go out there
myself or send code enforcement to for compliance.
Yes.
Are there any other questions of staff at this time?
Okay.
Seeing none and hearing none we're going to move to the public comments portion of this
item and if there are further questions of staff I'll open up the floor or if
there are no further questions which we see here then we're gonna open up the
public comment portion of the meeting. So I have speaker cards here with me I
know there were some people that came in and if you would like to speak after we
started the meeting you can fill out speaker cards in the back yeah and put
them in the tray up front here. And so each speaker will be allowed three
minutes to speak. And the first card I have here is from Louis Lopez.
again, Uh, the timeline
that was extended once and then
the project returned to the
planning commission in July.
2025. Uh, if that is accurate,
we would like to know whether
proper public notice was
provided for that hearing. No
one at tops were called
receiving or seeing any notice
a render municipal code 17.44.1 an expiration and extensions of approvals as the title of that.
Second, we have a question about the tree report specifically tree 912.
Which is a redwood tree. The initial arborist report stated that this tree would not be removed
and refer to it as the neighbor's tree. During a recent walkthrough however we were told that
a retaining wall would impact this tree and that it would now be taken down.
this change is accurate we would like to know when that modification is added to the permit and
whether it received the required review. Related to that we were trying to understand the status
of the retaining wall proposed inside TOPS outdoor classroom. Was that wall included in the original
permit set? We have been given different explanations at different times and it is
still unclear when and how these changes occurred. As the lessee of that hillside we are not
amenable to construction within our outdoor classroom and we want to understand whether
plan changes of this magnitude require additional review especially given the amount of time that
has passed since the original approval. We also noted that the fire department raised concerns
about the access road. I saw a sheet indicating that a turnabout was acceptable but I did not see
the actual fire department correspondence and the documents. Southern ramp would significantly
improve fire access improve access to the parking structure and shift the anticipated 175
daily trips from the future residents away from the preschool entrance. All of these
uncertainty points to the larger issues. The people most affected by this project were never
meaningful or included in this process. And I want to be very clear about why there were so few public
comments and none from TOP's parents. It wasn't apathy, it was exclusion. The parents and the staff
at TOP should have been sought out and included in the design process from the beginning. Thanks.
Thank you. We have a card for Heather Barrett.
I'm Heather Barrett. I'm a current TOPS parent, former TOPS student from the early 1990s,
and part of a family with deep roots in Arinda. My grandparents lived here, my father grew up here,
my uncle attended TOPS in the 1950s. And now both my boys attended TOPS, one out and one still in.
For our family, choosing TOPS was a no-brainer because of the incredible dedication to early
childhood development and education focus on outdoor play and its role in this community
for more than 80 years.
I want to be clear that my concern is not that there will be affordable housing for
seniors.
I think most of us support that goal.
The concern is how this project was designed and approved with so little meaningful consideration
given to TOPS, an active preschool that sits immediately adjacent to the project site.
What is most striking to me is not mal-intent, but the complete lack of consideration.
TOPS is one of the oldest organizations in Arinda,
in fact, PO Box number one,
with a long-standing relationship with OCC.
Yet the needs of the children, families, and staff
appear to have been largely overlooked
throughout this process,
which is shocking and deeply concerning.
When I look at the approved plans,
it honestly feels a little laughable
that no one stopped to ask,
how does this impact a preschool?
The building towers over the school,
permanent structures now extend into least TOPS space,
and the part of the outdoor classroom
will effectively be eliminated.
We're talking about construction occurring just feet from classrooms and
play spaces used daily by children as young as two. Why is it so close? How
were how were traffic air quality? Thank you for sharing that today. Privacy
and safety during drop off and pickup and more thoroughly considered current
work hours are only allowed Monday through Friday during school hours. Why
wouldn't this extend into weekend to avoid conflict? Why wasn't tops
meaningfully consulted the way neighboring residents were? This should
not be framed as this or that. It should be this. And if tops has been had been included
five years ago, we wouldn't be here today. There are thousands of ways. This project
could have been designed. The version failed to adequately account for the well being of
Orinda's children and one of its most historic community institutions as is this will impact
tops negatively. And I'd like to know what the city OCC and OHS have to say. I don't
believe Orinda wants to become a city known for disregarding the health, safety and learning
environment of preschool children. I urge OCC, OHS, and the Commission and City to pause,
reevaluate, and work collaboratively toward solutions that protect both affordable housing
goals and TOPS. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is TOPS teacher Brooke Gough.
To send some comments over. So as a dedicated early childhood educator and teacher at the
Arinda preschool, I am deeply concerned about the proposed construction directly behind
our nearly 100 year old school, a beloved staple
of the Arinda community that has served generations
of families for decades.
This project was not communicated
to the school appropriately or transparently.
Despite the enormous impact it will have
on our students, staff and families building a facility
directly along the property line of tops
where young children ages two to five learn and play daily
raises serious concerns regarding safety, privacy
and the well-being of our school community.
The contrast flow of construction vehicles
near small children and families
creates a dangerous conditions and unnecessary risks.
The loss of teacher parking further impacts staff
who already dedicate their lives to serving this community
and caring for its youngest and most vulnerable population.
In addition, this development threatens the integrity
of TOPS, beautiful outdoor classroom environment,
a core part of our play-based early childhood program,
increased noise disruption, lack of privacy and safety concern will inevitably affect enrollment
and could negatively impact the livelihoods of teachers in the future of the school itself.
It is heartbreaking that land appears to have been double leased without proper consideration
for the preschool community that has existed here for generations. It feels as though tops,
its children, families, educators were overlooked entirely in this process. This project does not
along on the cell side directly bordering an active preschool campus. Please hear the voices
of the educators families and community members fighting to protect this historic and chair school
stop the build. Sincerely a very concerned passionate and dedicated top teacher and early
childhood educator. Thank you. Our next speaker is Renee Linton. Good evening my name is Renee
Linton and I have a three-year-old son who attends TOPS Preschool. I support affordable
housing and I appreciate the work that has gone into this project over many years. I am here
because I hope the city can help ensure that the needs of the preschool children who use this
campus every day continue to be protected as the project moves forward. For nearly 90 years, TOPS
Tops has been an important part of the Rinda community, serving generations of local families.
It is a valued community institution, and many families care deeply about its future.
Tops serves children as young as two years old, and this project will be located very
close to both classrooms and the outdoor play area.
While I understand mitigation measures are planned, parents still have concerns about
noise, construction traffic during drop-off and pickup, privacy safety and how these protections
will be monitored and enforced throughout construction. Parents are also concerned
that project features may affect areas that TOPS has long used for parts of its playground.
Outdoor play space is an important part of the children's daily experience and losing any
portion of that space would have a meaningful impact on the preschool community. There is
currently an active dispute regarding areas leased and used by tops, including portions
of the playground. I respectfully ask the city to use whatever authority it has to avoid
irreversible changes to those areas until the dispute has been resolved. Once playground
space is removed or permanently altered, it may be impossible to restore even if the dispute
is later resolved in favor of the preschool.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Harmony Anderson.
Hello, I'm Harmony Anderson
and a parent of two at the Arrinda Preschool or TOPS.
TOPS has been a part of this community
for more than 80 years.
47 years if my math is right
before Arrinda was even incorporated.
For generations, families have brought their children
to TOPS and many former students later brought back
their own children, and even grandchildren.
This school is deeply woven into the fabric of Orinda.
To be clear, I'm not here to oppose building new housing.
I'm here to ensure that the city growth and development
do not unintentionally place longstanding communities
like TOPS at risk.
Families are deeply concerned about years of construction
happening directly alongside a preschool serving children
ages two to five.
Concerns around noise, dust, safety, disruption, enrollment,
and long-term sustainability are very real
for our community.
TOPS represents generations of community investment.
Many alumni and former TOPS families
remain active contributors to Arinda today.
A longtime coach of the Arinda Park pool swim team
attended TOPS and later sent his own children there as well.
The executive director of the Arinda Network for Education
also sent her children to TOPS and previously served
as the TOPS board president.
The owner of Arinda Optometry attended TOPS as a child
and as a major contributor in the broader community.
And these are just a few examples.
Institutions like TOPS are part of what
make Orinda feel like Orinda.
As the city navigates future development
and housing projects,
how will we establish a stronger standard
for how developers, the Planning Commission,
the City Council engage with schools, families,
and longstanding community institutions
throughout the development process?
Because the reality is projects like this
can place community institutions at very real risk.
So thank you.
Our next speaker will be Toni Martinez.
Good evening commissioners.
From a planning perspective, the core failure here
is that no one adequately accounted for the fact
that an active, long-standing preschool sits immediately,
immediate proximity to the project.
Approximately 25 feet from the interior classrooms
and as close as five feet from the outdoor play classrooms,
from the outdoor play clashing back gate.
It seems as though TOPPS was effectively excluded
from the assessment and approval process entirely.
No meaningful view studies from the preschool play yard
were ever included in the planning documents.
However, the neighbors had view studies done.
That admission speaks for itself.
It demonstrates that TOPPS, its families,
and its children were never truly considered
as part of the real world impacts of this development.
Another concern is that the project footprint
and associated features, including retaining walls,
sidewalks, and other permanent improvements
have moved progressively closer to tops
after approvals were granted in 2022.
We are now in a situation where permanent features
are proposed within areas currently leased
and actively used by the preschool.
That raises serious questions about process
and notice, capability and child safety.
At this point, since the project has already been approved,
the question becomes, what concrete commitments
can you, the planners and the city of Arinda,
make to ensure that these children
are not negatively impacted or harmed
by decisions that fail to account
for them in the first place?
Director, last meeting, you mentioned
that this was the first time you had heard of TOPS.
If TOPS was considered, it would be fully represented
in the plans and you would have made a site visit.
I welcome all you planners to come to the TOPS school
and see how this building is now affecting TOPS
in its outdoor play yard.
This should not be treated as a minor oversight.
A preschool serving young children
should never have been an afterthought
in a project that is of this scale and proximity.
Our next speaker will be Sean Barnheimer.
Is there Sean Barnheimer?
No problem.
Good evening, my name is Sean Barnheimer.
I'm an Arundel resident and a father of two young children.
Got a one year old back there named Kalea
and a four year old named Kai.
And Kai goes to Tops right now,
and we really hope that Kalea will have a place
to go to preschool in the future.
Let's be honest, we talked about adjacent tenants.
The Arendelle preschool is not a typical adjacent tenant.
This is a preschool,
it serves children as young as two.
It's been a pillar of the community for 80 years.
So sort of normalizing it as just another adjacent tenant.
And basing all the metrics based on that seems pretty harsh.
And so when we talk about things like air quality,
I heard the comments of no concerns about air quality.
Well, we know that two year old children
are far more susceptible to air quality
than the general population.
Two year olds have much bigger safety concerns
than the general population.
Two year olds are much more susceptible to noise
than the general population.
So just kind of generalizing that we have no concerns
about these things for the two year old children
that are right there.
that is, I think we're losing part of what makes this community strong. And so my main
concern is related to that, that I don't believe that the concerns of a sensitive child care
facility that's located right next to this construction site were appropriately taken
into account during this evaluation process. Related to that, I noticed the sharing of this
additional wall that is now encroaching upon the outdoor playroom or outdoor playground where the
kids play. I guess that's concerning on two fronts. It was framed as it's just a four-foot wall.
Well to an 18-inch tall person, a four-foot wall is pretty big and especially if it's
impeding upon the outdoor playground, the outdoor playroom where they receive their education.
And so it's difficult for me to see how two years
of construction activity, literally on top
of an outdoor playground, can have literally no impact
on the lives and the safety and the health
of two and three year old children.
And so my suggestions or my requests are
to consider some kind of preschool specific
construction impact mitigation plan
or formal child safety mitigation plan,
expressly with the concerns of two and three year olds,
which are different from high school kids,
which may be nearby,
and different from the general population,
which may be nearby.
Also preschool specific health risk assessment.
And then if we're gonna say things like,
oh, we'll try to not have heavy truck traffic
during preschool drop-off,
that's not binding in any way.
So when we do implement measures
that provide some safety measures and protection for kids,
having those be binding in some way.
Thanks very much, I really appreciate the time today.
And as we consider growth in Rinda,
I really hope that we can also consider
the lives of our youngest children in those growth plans.
Thank you very much.
Are there any other questions or comments, public comments?
You have the floor and you're free to come to the podium.
Are there any online?
Okay, hearing none, no additional public comment.
Okay, we have one.
Please state your name and not follow into the thank you.
Okay, hi, I'm Tina Arantes,
another concerned family at TOPS.
Apologies, I didn't prepare any formal statements,
but we wanted to come and support along with the family.
We have Oliver here who attends TOPS now.
It was his first year last year.
He was super shy, but like once he got over going there,
he absolutely loves it.
So it's really heartbreaking for us to think
that next two years, he won't maybe be able
to go to TOPS anymore if the construction impacts it
in a way that makes it really hard to actually learn
in the outdoor classroom and inside the classroom as well.
So we're, and Lucas here also would love to go to TOPS
maybe in one more year, he's still a little small,
but it's just such a great community.
And we're very worried about the impact
the construction can have on these children.
I think everyone here said it really eloquently as well.
We're just asking for some more consideration
before the construction starts and changes are made
that can have a big impact on this school.
So I had some distractors here,
but just wanted to say that before we head out.
We really appreciate the extra consideration.
This is a school we all love.
We all want the affordable housing to also go through.
And we'd be happy to figure out a way
to make them both work together.
We just need a little bit more time.
Thank you, we appreciate it.
Thank you.
Hello, welcome, please make your name.
Hi, I'm Annie Gordon.
I also have a three-year-old at TOPS.
This was his first year as well.
He started speaking there.
He wasn't speaking when he started at TOPS
and I was speaking.
I think that's due in large part
to the community there and the outdoor classroom
that really lets him be wondrous
and create, and let me go to what I was going to talk about
though.
I would like to specifically ask for extra safety measures
to be put in place to account for the vulnerable populations
that live and spend time directly
adjacent to the proposed site, including
very young children, as we've said,
and a quite robust elderly community.
There's two elderly communities that live there as well.
They're also very vulnerable communities.
They've said that they'll install air quality monitors that
will alert construction managers and top should the air quality
dip below a certain threshold.
They've said they've put other things in place.
They also told us they would give us 90 days notice, which
they did not.
I would like to ask that they put these things formally
in writing so we know what will be done,
what to mitigate anything that will sufficiently
impact the daily ongoing of tops.
We need to know how far below the safety level
that threshold is for the air quality and the noise quality?
And should it, either of the noise or the air quality,
dip below those thresholds?
What happens when the alarm goes off?
Won't that be too late?
Our children will have been exposed
to high levels of contaminants for how long?
Or noise contaminants, I guess.
If the levels sit below the threshold
for a significant amount of times,
will cops be alerted then?
I mean, it's still the same thing.
They'll be breathing in those things.
the tops outdoor classroom is a significant part
of their day-to-day life.
It is at least half the day.
For some of the kids, it's more.
I would ask that there be an independent safety monitoring
party put in place, one that has no stake
in losing a day's work and the financial repercussions
that come with it.
I think that is the bar minimum we can ask for.
The tops curriculum is largely centered
around their outdoor curriculum.
Their summer program is completely outdoor based
with no indoor component.
Should there be a breach in the air quality
or noise quality, there would be no recourse
to send children home or diverge
from the expected day's schedule.
The former would put a tremendous burden
on the working parents who rely on tops
for their daily childcare.
The latter would put pressure on the teachers
to come up with insufficient indoor activities
for energetic toddlers who need outdoor time
to regulate their systems.
Aside from monitors that only alert
when harmful levels are in play,
I ask that the developer needs to help provide
extra air purification systems inside the classroom
that will preemptively help mitigate any extra dust
or debris inside what is our very old
and poorly insulated buildings.
The project must ask for permission, not for forgiveness
when the health and safety of our children
are put at risk and affected.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any other public comments at this time?
Hearing none and seeing none, the floor is now closed.
We will move on to item F, continued public hearings,
there are none and we will move on to item G. Can we speak or can we respond? Do we have an
opportunity to respond? I don't think we do because it's not an action item. The matter is
for discussion only so I think with the public comments being closed and the floor is closed
at this time. Can we make a motion for additional action or no from the police? I'm going to
defer to our planning director on that decision on a motion.
Chair Armstrong, this is discussion. There's no decision to be made. Can we make a motion for-
It's not a public hearing item. Can we make a motion for it to become a public hearing item?
There's nothing too open for me to open as as talked as talked about this project with legal
They concur the planning department has no role
It is a approved project
um what
I mean i'm
I rarely take time off. I was off last week, but the office is open
i'm
available to speak to
any of the parents
The files are public files, so anyone can come in and see the files,
the same information that I'm looking at and reviewing.
I just can't, I don't have, I said last time, I have some power, but I don't have power.
I can't say to the director, the board of directors, you need to have an air purification,
you need to have an air monitor, you need to have these things.
I can mention them, but if they decide not to do them, I have no grounds or leverage
to make that happen, but I can give a courtesy call.
If there's-
If there's-
I was going to-
Yeah, if the grounds for, I'm just thinking more in line from if there are things have
changed fundamentally from 2022 when I know both myself and Commissioner Habner, like
information such as TOPS being even a part of the conversation was not included. So if there's
grounds for substantial changes that would have changed that original 2022 decision,
is there an opportunity to work with the developer for those conditions we might have put in in 2022
to mitigate some of these items? Working with the developer is the applicant. The applicant is
is Victoria Smith, that's the director. So as I said before, I don't, the process is
done. I don't have any leverage at this point. All I can be doing is given a courtesy call.
You want access to the files, you have access to the files, the planning department is open.
And it's on the website. That's where I got most of my information.
Okay, and I'm hearing that, again, that there's potentially some recourse or additional public
comments could possibly be made at the city council.
Did I hear that regarding major changes?
Absolutely.
You have city council, you can make, you can come under public forum, but there's no more
I can do to assist with some of the measures that they're asking for.
I'm limited at this point.
I mean, I can take that list and call up Victoria,
call up the developer,
but that's all I'm limited to is telling them,
here's what they're asking for.
But I can't, the process is closed.
I can't say, I'd like to add this condition, Victoria,
will you agree to it?
And then say, no, I'm adding this condition,
city council consider it, it's done.
OK, well, I appreciate your explanation.
And it sounds like you conferred with the city attorney.
And the city manager, if this planning has no role,
this is a civil matter.
OK.
My role, as I mentioned, responding to vice chair
is now limited to that overview part.
So there are mitigation measures here.
There are conditions here.
I haven't seen the construction management plan
that told me what's open was closed but they are required to submit one to me.
The construction hours are here and there's a sentence here that says no
exceptions for this rule may be granted. So I can't just change rules. I have air
quality. Someone said I said there's no air quality but that's the opposite.
There's no noise mitigations but there is air quality mitigation measures. So now
my job is to make sure that that construction follow these rules, follow these conditions,
follow these mitigations, but I can't add to them. But they can take this as a public forum item to
City Council. Absolutely. And before I move on to item G, I'd like to just allow the other
commissioners here an opportunity for final remarks. Yeah, I just had one clarifying question.
is there a time limit on the use permit to start construction this one has two
years since once I to file for the way the city does it is you have a time frame
to file you have a expiration date based on when you are going to file the
building permit so you have two years to submit for a building permit and I think
the last time Commissioner Blussey you weren't present I mentioned to you I
I did run into Victoria Smith an event and she did tell me the plans are
currently being reviewed by Contra Costa County got it does that include the
construction management plan as well or is that yet to be filed and does that
need to be approved before they start construction yes that has to be approved
before she started or before they Brown Brown construction is their developer
has to be approved before that you know if that's part of that package that's
being reviewed by Contra Costa now no because that's my responsibility that's
the conditions of approval.
Got it. And what was the time again,
what was the time limit?
How much time is remaining between,
I guess, now and when construction?
Well, whenever they come back with
their clear set of plans and tell me
that they're ready to start construction,
there's no time frame for that.
Yeah.
If I can maybe just, I'll just state.
I'm a parent of young kids and I sympathize
with everything that you all are saying.
What I am hearing and understanding is that this is,
I wasn't on the Planning Commission in 2022. A lot of us were not. Director Cross was not the
director in 2022 or 2021 when this started. What I am hearing is based on the best faith
assessment that staff has given. This is out of Planning Commission. We can do nothing except
hear you and hear the concerns. And again, I am sympathetic as a parent of young children here.
What I am hearing, however, is that the other options for the TOPS community to explore,
just for folks who may be less familiar with the planning process and the variety of entities
that are involved, you're absolutely welcome to go to City Council and make a public comment. I
don't know where that goes. I am not intimately familiar with that process, right? But you can
go to City Council. There is also Contra Costa County, which issues the building permit, right?
That is not this group. That is a county-level Contra Costa County, right? Again, I'm not
familiar with that process. I can't sit here and make a recommendation. I'm just summarizing
that there are other sort of entities involved when it comes to the issues that some folks
have identified around. Well, we have a portion of this outdoor space that is in our lease that
is now proposed for construction. That's not really in any government entity hands. That's
a civil matter, right? But between your landlord, and again, we can't sit here and do anything. So
I just wanted to kind of summarize, again, for folks in the audience who may be less familiar
with how a project goes from staff to us to the county to whomever that I think
it's out of our purview but there may be some other avenues that you folks may wish to explore.
And I want to say just thank you all for coming. I see and you know hear your concerns and how
you know it's very moving to hear the public comments and so and just your
public participation so we just thank you from the commission here for for
being here thank you so with that we're going to move on to item G which is new
public hearings 42 Charles Hill circle design review elevated deck permit and
exception permit DRA-2026-009, EDP-2026-006, EXC-2026-009. The
project includes modifications from previously approved applications, DRA-2022-022,
022, EDP-2022-010, EXC-2022-017 approved by PC-SOA-2023-002.
Modifications include expanded deck, height increase, increase in the number of floors
and multiple door and window changes. The staff recommendation is the planning commission
adopt proposed statement of official action approving design review, elevated deck permit
and exception permit DRA dash 2026 dash 009,
EDP dash 2026 dash 006, EXC dash 2026 dash 009 for 42
Charles Hill Circle, APN 260 dash 080 dash 001
to legalize the 4,789 adjusted square foot,
three story single family residents
with a 750 square foot elevated deck
subject to the conditions of approval,
including in the proposed statement of official action,
PC-SOA-2026-002.
And now I will confirm has any ex party commute communications. Commissioner doctors. I visited
the site and spoke with no one. Commissioner hubner. I also visited the site and spoke
with no one. Commissioner gel Nick. I visited the site and spoke with no one. Commissioner
morola. This is the site and spoke with no one. Commissioner blitzki visit the site spoke
with no one and Commissioner Armstrong visited the site and spoke with no one and we will
have a staff presentation from the Selena Palmer. You have the floor. Thank you. Thank
you. Good evening, Chair Armstrong and members of the commission. All right. As we just heard
the project before you today as a request for a design review, special design review
and elevated deck and exception permits to legalize a constructed 4,789 adjusted score
square foot which is a 5919 gross square foot which includes the proposed 730 square foot
ADU. Three storeys single family residents on a 26,000 square foot lot within the RL40
the residential low density 40,000 square foot minimum lot size district. The project
is located at 42 Charles Hill circle. You can see the project site location in relation
to the city marked with a pin on this map. And here you can see a more zoomed in map
of the project site with the existing parcel outlined in green. It is located on the north
side of Charles Hill Circle at approximately the midpoint between where Charles Hill Circle
intersects with Charles Hill Road and where Charles Hill Circle intersects with Hartford
Road. It is right on the city of Arrenda border adjacent to Lafayette and you can see Lafayette
is the gray area on the map. The project site is located in the RL40 district, so as I
site is the residential low density 40,000 square foot minimum lot size
district. For the surrounding zoning the site is surrounded on three sides by
other single-family residences in the RL40 district and to the Southwest is an
area in the RL40-R district so that is also residential low density 40,000
square foot minimum lot size but with the added ridge line overlay and that's
the area within the green dashed lines and then further beyond that to the west
is the RL 20 district, so as you can guess, residential low density 20,000
square foot minimum lot size, and that is shown in a slightly different beige on
this screen. And to the east again is Lafayette and Gray. The site is
surrounded by one or two story homes, many of which blend into the hillside,
and as an example I've added to this slide the street views for some of the
surrounding homes. And then going back to the subject site, the site is 26,000
square feet, has an average slope of approximately 48% and contains one constructed, but not
yet final, single family residence with proposed ADU, approximately where the blue marker is.
Alright, as stated in the project description, this project is the result of changes brought
to a previous approval, so we're going to talk a little bit about how we got here.
On January 24, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted statement of official action PC-SOA-2023-002,
which approved the applications for Design Review, Elevated Deck Permit, Exception Permit,
and Free Removal Permit to construct a new single-family residence with elevated decks
subject to project-specific and standard conditions of approval.
And on October 6, 2023, staff approved a building permit application and project plans
for the applicant to submit to Contra Costa County Building Department. On September 25,
2024, Contra Costa County issued the building permit for the approved project, and on April
20, 2026, city staff, myself, visited the project site to conduct a final inspection.
During that inspection, I found that the constructed project did not match the approved plans and
included significant window and door changes, changes in materials, which increased the
building height and an additional floor was added, the upper deck increased in size, and
staff informed the applicant at the time that he would need to repeat the discretionary
process for the project as it is currently built.
So on April 22, 2026, applicant applied for design review, exception permit, and elevated
deck permit for a modification from the previously approved project.
And then just to clarify, we don't have an official project process for a modification,
therefore you have to come in as the new application, so that's why these are all new application
numbers.
Okay, now we'll look at what changes were made during construction, so on this side
we see the aerial view, and I know it's super difficult to see, but some of the changes
seen here include keeping an existing oak which was previously slated for removal, so
that's that little red circle there, the upper deck increasing in size, and the sunshade
reducing in size. So this is a little easier to see here in the elevations. The front elevation,
the top image, is what was approved in 2023 and you can see the approval stamp in the corner
with the proposed project below. So there are changes to the front door. There's an added tile
accent wall. This other accent wall here changed from sandstone to wood, along with some window
changes. On the east elevation, the approved project was on the left, the proposed project
on the right, and the changes include the increase in deck size, the accent wall material,
or doors and window changes, then the accent wall material, the added landing, the increased
building height. It's kind of hard to see in this one, so that red line shows where
it was the height previously was. You can see it perpendicular to the grade, and then
on the proposed is just slightly past that. So it increased by less than two feet. And
the increased aggregate building height again increased by less than two feet. You can see
where the lines meet across there. And an increase in the number of floors. On the west
elevation, approved on the left, proposed on the right, the changes include door and
window changes, the accent wall material, added accent wall, and the increased
aggregate building height, and finally on the rear elevation, top image is what was
approved at proposed project below, and these changes include increased
aggregate building height, door and window changes, the reduced sunshade, and
the increase in number of floors. Okay so it can be hard to visualize looking at
the black and white plans. So here are some photos of the project taken during the inspection
on April 20th. The first two photos are the front elevation, the third is the east elevation,
and the fourth is the rear elevation. We've compared the project to the previous approvals.
So now we're going to focus on the current project. So included as table one in the staff
report is the floor area distribution for the project, which is also shown on this slide.
The proposed project results in a 4,789 adjusted square foot home, and then the adjustments
include the 400 square foot garage credit, and it also doesn't count the 730 square foot
ADU.
So the gross floor area for the project would be 5,919 square feet, and the project would
have an FAR of approximately 18%.
So in the staff report for the project, there's a table that compares the proposed home to
to those within 300 feet of the site.
This project would result in the subject property
having the second largest total living space
and an above average FAR for the neighborhood.
As seen in table two of the staff report,
the proposed project meets the base development regulations
of the RL 40 district for the number of parking spaces,
enclosed and unenclosed, and setbacks.
And the project exceeds the building height,
aggregate building height and number of stories
for which an exception permit is requested.
We've heard me talk about what the project is.
I'm not gonna repeat that one again.
Okay, so one of the permits requested
is for residential design review.
So the standards for design review
are seen on the slide here.
The house sits along the southern boundary
of this irregularly shaped lot,
and the location of the project allows it to maintain
the visual harmony of the neighborhood
by having the front elevation
closest to Charles Hill Circle
present a single-story 15-foot profile.
The building materials are similar to the materials
surrounding properties and are in harmony with surrounding structures. The house is screened
from views from neighboring properties by existing mature trees and vegetation, along with the natural
curve of the street. And in the 2023 project, the applicant had proposed removal of a large oak
to the south of the proposed home. However, the applicant has since revised the proposal to allow
the tree to remain, providing additional screening. The variety and materials provide visual interest
for the site and additionally while the proposed residence includes multiple levels they are not
visible from the right of way and the proposed home has a mixture of natural colors to blend in
with the natural landscape and complies with the required setback requirements for the zoning
district. Because the site is severely sloped the project also triggers special design review.
The standards for special design review are seen on the slide here. So the project is in substantial
compliance with the hillside and ridgeline design guidelines in that it was proposed
to be situated in such a way that the required that required minimal grading and kept the
natural screening from the existing landscaping. So as a reminder, this project or this site
has an average slope of 48%. The project includes an elevated deck and that has increased in
size by approximately 50 square feet from the previous approvals triggering a new elevated
deck permit and the standards for an elevated deck are seen in the slide here.
So the proposed elevated deck is located approximately 40 feet away from the closest adjacent neighbor
to the south and is screened from view from that neighbor by existing mature trees.
Proposed deck is located approximately 150 feet away from the rear wall of the neighbor
to the east in Lafayette.
The deck will be screened from the right of way by the home and then there is no existing
residents to the north of the property. The existing landscaping and trees provide screening
for the deck. And there are three triggers requiring an exception permit. So the aggregate
building height, building height and the number of stories, and the standards for an exception
permit are seen on the slide here. So the strict application of the building height
and aggregate height requirements would limit the ability for the site to be developed as
the site has this deeply sloping topography, again 48%, and a limited area to build on
the site. The slight increase in building height and aggregate height from the previous
project approvals are to accommodate an updated design feature on the front elevation such
as tile wall, and only raises the height of this structure by approximately one foot along
the front elevation. The increase in number of stories did not significantly affect the
overall building height and therefore did not substantially increase the degree of nonconformity.
Further, the third story that was created is proposed to be an accessory dwelling unit,
which helps address the need for additional housing units.
Ten days prior to tonight's meeting, the project was noticed. We received no written comment on
the proposed project by the time the report was drafted. However, I did receive two phone
calls asking clarifying questions. So I confirmed that the proposed project included modifications
from the previous project but not modifications from how the home is currently built. And
then we did receive one item of late correspondence this afternoon which you have been provided
and I have a screenshot of it here. All right. So based on the information provided here
and in the project staff report, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt statement
of official action SOA-2026-002 approving DRA-2026-009,
EDP-2026-006, EXE-2026-009, subject to the conditions
of approval.
Thank you.
Do we have any questions for staff?
Yes.
Awesome, you were about to turn.
Okay, I have a couple.
One is specific to the plan, which
is I notice that the entity listed on the plans,
the entity listed as architect is a corporation,
not an individual.
My understanding is that that is not appropriate,
that an architect needs to be listed as an individual.
Secondly, the only licensed individual
associated with that firm appears
to have had an expired architect's license
at the time of preparation and submittal.
So again, I have questions about whether sort of that's
appropriate for us to even then have a discussion on
if there appear to be sort of material issues
with the sort of plans and the information
that is represented there.
Okay, so there are not current restrictions
on who can be the applicant for a discretionary permit.
You might be mixing it up with SB 9 lot splits?
No, I think it's not about that applicant,
but my understanding is that on land,
so it's not the applicant, right,
but on a project, you need a licensed architect, do you not?
And that the architect listed needs to be an individual
and not an entity.
And if there are questions about that,
I would say my recommendation,
rather than going down an absolute rabbit hole today,
is that perhaps we just continue this for another time.
If there are questions that staff needs to sort out
regarding the information in the plans?
Why, Chair, I don't know that it prevents staff
from moving forward.
At some point that does come into question.
Okay.
Because you won't be able to get through building
without the validity of it.
We could move forward, potentially move forward
and review a project and process,
but then they're just gonna get stuck
at the Contra Costa County building stage.
And remember when we, I was mentioning a minute previously,
when we do approve, we give them that two year,
that two year timeframe.
So in that two year, they could go back
and get the licenses that they need
or what have you update their licenses.
So it doesn't, the code doesn't necessarily prevent it
from going, but.
That's fine.
I just wanted to ask before we kind of dive deeper
discussion. I did one other question just on sort of current state of the project, which is
whether it sounds like Contra Costa County did issue a building permit for the structure at some
point or not. I'm curious where, again, given that we are one body, but there is also the county,
curious to understand that. Yes. On September 25th, 2024 Contra Costa County issued the building
permit for the approved project. That's right. I apologize. That was in the presentation.
Okay. I have other questions, but I sense that you do as well.
Just for starters, your presentation this evening showed the earlier approval
with red lines comparing it to this current package that we received in the printout,
which weren't in this package. So when I started looking at this package today, or this week,
passed, I said, gee, I'm going to go out to the site and see if the story polls are up to show
the new size of the building and lo and behold I get out there and there's a bloody building out
there all built per the drawings that I see here so for starters the package didn't explain to me
in my feeble brain that this in fact is kind of asking for forgiveness not for permission
um this this effort here tonight um the building is there the building is per these adjusted
And it's a.
Unapproved documents.
And I wonder what extractions the city can get for the fact that this
isn't the project we approved and they're trying to get some sort of
blessing on something that we never approved in the first place.
I can add.
I can add, unless you've got a response to that.
I was just going to say, I take significant concern with this.
what was the approved plan that came to the commission in 2023.
This is a very large house.
We don't see houses usually this typically this large,
hence why it probably came to planning commission in 2023.
Then to see substantial changes from what's actually built is just behavior.
I don't think we want to condone and something we don't want to see.
To Commissioner Hubner's point,
I think coming to ask for forgiveness for a building
drastically different than what was approved on a hillside,
on a huge sloping lot is just concerning and I don't find that I could approve this as it is
right now. I think if I can kind of summarize so I share similar concerns and in terms of like
what we are allowed to find grounds for approval or denial on my opinion having viewed the site,
having seen that the site is for sale. Also by the way the notice sign was down, was in the ground,
and I have a picture of that if anybody would like it but I want to state it for the record that it
did not appear to be through properly up when I viewed it this evening. In my opinion and my
assessment is that the structure does not seem to comply with the intent and purpose of the
requirements listed here and actually does substantially increase the degree of the existing
nonconformity. And that would sort of be my read in terms of how I would what I think
of this project. Quick question. Just it was a point of order.
Is there an applicant presentation after this and then we're bringing it back to discussion
or is this, are we just doing questions for clarification?
I was going to ask the chair and said, chair, if there's public comment, you probably should
take that.
Yeah.
These are still questions of staff.
So we will have public comment and then bring it up.
Yeah.
Just a clarifying question for staff is when just maybe education for me, when staff makes
a recommendation is on a project, whether it's new or a resubmittal of something that's
done retroactively like this is.
Is the recommendation purely based off of that structure meeting or the staff believing
that it's close enough to meet what is appropriate city of Brenda, like what goes into the difference
between the recommendation versus not?
I think you touched upon it, what staff, if staff believes that they're close enough in
terms of the findings that they have to make, they make them, present them to you.
But again, you just said it, it's a recommendation.
Subjective, yeah.
Thank you.
I want to go ahead. I had my spiel. You know, thinking up here and hearing the comments from
the commissioners, I do think that this is a somewhat odd situation because when I went up to
the site and I saw a fully constructed house for sale and then being here, we're essentially being
asked, you know, to I guess bless something that already happened and or
was potentially done incorrectly not according to the original plan. So it's
a I'm having having some struggle with that. I just want to state that for the
record. Additional clarifying question. In the event that this is not approved
what are the actions that go from there? If it's not approved the applicant has
two choices one is to go back to what you originally approved and then move
forward that way or you have when you make your decision you read out the
appeal process and they can appeal to City Council. Thank you. Just my one of
if you don't know it, if you
didn't know it, is there any
kind of process other than
saying it's close enough, this
isn't what we approved and does
the city have any recourse
other than, as you mentioned,
forcing the builder to go back
and build it the way it was
supposed to or go and appeal to
the higher body, is that the
City of Arena actually doesn't have it. I've been in other jurisdictions where there is
a penalty that we do charge on the application. But to even go further, City of Arena doesn't
even have a modification to an application. So that's why when you're seeing the application,
it looks like it's a brand new application, but we don't have a process for it. And so
the process is make them go back to their new application. Yeah. Yeah.
And so I have a question, just kind of how it got this far.
Was that more with the county and the building department?
Because it sounds like they were moving expeditiously building this house, but it wasn't in any
way conforming with the original plan set.
And I was just curious, like, you know, how does how would that something like that occur
without, let's say, the Planning Commission or our body here knowing about that?
So we don't have checks like along the way as the project is being built.
We have our final inspection.
We go out with our plans to make sure everything matches.
So when we did that process for this project on April 20th, we saw that there were significant
changes and informed the applicant that he would have to come back through this process.
on what type of projects there are. Sometimes the building department will do checks along
the way, but it sounds like that may not have been required for this project.
I think that then the question becomes does the county building department who does issue
the building permit, they have no duty to inform you that they've blessed changes in
the, I mean, because I know I built buildings and I don't get to build it until I've gotten
approved set of plans so they the permit process must have included these changes. Am I correct?
I mean we kind of it's not your job to know this but I'm saying but but I mean so it sounds like
what had happened was the county issued the project with the previously approved plans
so that was what was issued during construction changes were made and the county has not also
not seen the changes. So he, the applicant would have to go to the county to update those plans as
well, but he can't do that unless it's approved here. One other just clarifying question. I know
we don't have modifications. There's not penalties. What would be the process to changing that like
the city law level? And I'm just thinking because San Francisco, if something like this happened in
in the city of San Francisco, the fines would be tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars
for an applicant.
Yeah, in Contra Costa County had them as well. We would add a 50% penalty to it. I, insight
is I do want to make a lot of changes to our master fee schedule. And I tried. But to do
it, I have to have a Nexus study done. And a Nexus, Nexus
study. So what are the other jurisdictions doing and how to
compare? And that is something that I have been advocating to
our city manager. So until I do that, I can't
Is that something that Planning Commission has any ability to
help influence or support you in? Advocating for?
Yeah, chair Armstrong. I connected you to the mayor. But um, that's your connection that was for me to introduce you to the mayor. Um, but yeah, there's there's there always, I shouldn't say always, but oftentimes asking me about you all. Okay, I give them my perspective. But that would be something that I think would be connect if we could, I don't want to speak for the Russell Planning Commission, but I think that's something
that I personally would like to find a way to help advocate for so we don't see this
behavior and that the city does have a recourse in the event that it does happen beyond trying
to have a blessing of something that's been done when other cities to your point do have
significant, significant fines for something like this.
I would second that.
Just to add onto that, while she stated we would have to go through the NEXA study to
see if there are additional fees or penalties, if we wanted to create a process for modification,
I think that would also include significant zoning text amendments and.
Sorry.
I'm just going to say, we just sort of echo Commissioner John next sentiment.
You can speak for me on that in that regard.
Yeah.
Okay.
If there are no further questions of staff, we will open the
matter for the applicant to resent.
So, you have 10 minutes, sir, and before you start, do you know how long do you anticipate,
and would you like any rebuttals? Well, I guess I'll take my 10 minutes since there's no,
okay, here. Wow, a lot is said, and I hope I have enough time to
get into all that discussion. My name is Edward Patmont. I used to be a licensed architect
for 40 years. OK, 1985, I got my my architectural license in California.
I've also been a general contractor since 1979.
In 1989, I started my business,
Hillside Homes Group, Incorporated. It's a family-run business. My wife's
an interior designer. My son has been working with us.
We do a design build. We're not a typical architect.
if we don't have clients.
Absolutely, I have the right to design a house
without a license.
Of course.
That's the first time I've ever been approached by that subject.
We have a design-build company, so we
have fuzzy lines between builder or architect.
The idea is to build a good project.
So let's just talk about the changes.
The changes are minor.
are minor changes. I submitted the floor plan changes to the county. The county had no problem
with these changes. If you look very closely at the plan, we moved at the suggestion of the fire
marshal who because the house is wide, it's on a hill. It's on a very steep hill and that corridor
got so wide that having rooms on either side, the corridor got very dark. Plus, he wanted
emergency access. So he said, that's a good change. That's the floor plan change that
we did. We put the corridor through, the laundry room moved over there, and the doors are instead
of the windows, okay. In the front, the building is not any higher. It's in fact, I went there
before I came here and measured the top of that wall. It's 14 foot 5 inches. We had 14
foot 6 inches on the original plan. I think that that was an improvement. I'm surprised
that we're having this discussion because that was a very good change, I thought. Again,
We're all just about trying to make it better.
This is my property.
I own this property, okay?
I'm gonna sell this property
and this is gonna be my final hurrah.
And by the way, I've built now four homes in Orinda,
three in the last four and a half years,
46 Crestview, if anywhere on the, and 38 Datos,
in addition to one on Canyon Drive years ago.
The three story all came about because a potential buyer came
and said, can we do an ADU?
And we had the room there.
And that room is permitted as a platform,
a mechanical platform.
So we put windows in the mechanical platform.
If you say no to the ADU, fine.
I went on my own to talk to Selena about doing an ADU
since somebody brought it up.
It's not a discretionary permit.
was told. It's ministerial. So, okay, you don't want an ADU there? Fine, we don't
have to put the ADU in. We put the windows in. It could be just mechanical
platform. In terms of the privacy, that, there is no privacy issue. The
neighbor below us is Terrell Cunningham. She's lived there for years. She
absolutely loves our house. She lives on four acres of land. We can't even see her
house and there's one neighbor the embers they don't have any problem with
I mean we've talked about a bay tree and that letter that was written I think
some of you have read that and responded to that we there's a bay tree that we
were told to keep on the property line I insisted that we could trim it I said to
the neighbor over and over for last two years come on Larry I want to trim that
tree. I didn't trim that tree. I have the legal right to trim that tree. And I didn't.
You know, I'm trying to do the right thing. Okay, where is that Libas? I think I'll just
end it there and maybe have some time if you have additional questions, but I just want
to leave you with this is what I've done and this is not an easy profession, okay. I went
to Cal, I went to Cornell, you know, I got my license and this is what I wanted to do
but it's hard to do what I do. These lots that are the ones that are available are very
That's a difficult site.
We did a really good job there.
That plan that we did, that we came in with,
it has some minor changes, the front door,
the two on the side.
I mean, that's why the county was okay with it.
So we had to come late.
But just to listen to this discussion
before I got a chance to tell you this,
it's just heartbreaking, you know?
Like I'm some guy that just wants to just get in there
and I do things the wrong way.
No, I do things the right way.
And I built 70 homes over 40 years.
And this is the last one.
So come on, please, for my sake, I'm retired.
If I can sell this and I just really want this
to be approved, thank you.
before I have the, ask the commission here
if there's any questions for you,
I'm gonna open the public comment portion and inquire.
I don't see anyone in the room,
but I'd like to just open that.
And if there's anyone online, okay, thank you.
So there's no public comments
and I'll bring the matter back
if anyone has questions of the applicant.
a couple of questions. One is, first of all, I'm the daughter of a former architect. I appreciate
it's a very difficult profession, so I hear you. And I think my biggest question is, given that you
do have such extensive experience in the industry, and hopefully, you know, aware of the fact that
something as significant as door and window changes are material. Those are not minor. I'm
just curious sort of what happened where you ended up building something that was different than the
plans that were submitted from Irinda. I don't think I heard that in the presentation. So just
want to give you a chance to share that answer. Thank you. First of all, you know, there is a
disconnect in the process because we're getting design review approval from the city, but we're
going to the county. All my interactions have been with the county, right? None with the city.
I can show you a permit card. They've been out, you know, 150 times, whatever. And through the
process like I said we don't have clear lines like the industry of architect to owner and owner
to builder so we kind of were fuzzy in those so I'm out there you know making changes all the time
I mean not big changes obviously I did not think these were big enough changes to come to you
I thought we could handle this on a on a staff level uh in fact I told the director I said no
I've never been in this position before, 70 homes. All of them have been changed along the way,
not substantially. And I don't believe this one is substantially changed. So I've apologized for
being in this situation because hindsight is always 20-20. I should have come back. But
incrementally, if you look at where I had to make that decision and then what the result is,
they're very minor. They really are. They're not building. That structure is not any bigger
than it was. The room down below for the ADU, it's just blank room. I mean, it's just blank space.
So the idea is, again, a potential buyer comes along and says, hey, can I do an ADU down there?
Why not? And so that led to the windows. So I hope that answered your question.
Are there any other questions? Okay. Well, then we're going to close the floor.
And just one quick thing. I know you hate to take your time, but that letter that was written by
this person, it didn't even have the decency to show up, is filled with nonsense.
nonsense. I have not been a nuisance but nuisance is the three homes three down of the way that's
been under construction for three five years. There's no there's been no problem with my
the neighbors come by and they say they love the house. Thank you for doing it quickly.
Okay and the matter uh the floor is closed so we will bring this item up to the commission for
discussion? I had a brief discussion with the planning director this afternoon in regards to
this and I may be feeling a little too curmudgeonly then at that time than I do this evening and I
understand that a few window changes and opening up end of the hallway with adding a window and
even a sliding door to get out on that escape side are in fact minor items. I think that however
And I don't know the exact reason why something as significant as essentially taking mechanical space and turn it into living space wasn't something that triggered a need to significantly come back and clarify approvals along the way when it could have been adjudicated in a more logical manner.
Um, so I'm still having a very difficult time with the staff recommendation.
That's where I'm going to put it right now.
Sorry.
Just a clarifying question.
What if I guess dealing with Contra Costa and the building permit side, what would
have been the appropriate course of action?
Cause I've heard a lot of theoretical.
Well, we should do how we should change the code, but as, as the law stands
today in this town, what would, what would it write, what would write have
looked like, I'm sorry, commissioner, but let's see what would, if he wanted
File like what what does that process look like if he so he goes to Contra Costa staff
He then they say these are ministerial changes and they are okay with it and they sign off
What would have forced him to come to city staff?
So this is a unique situation. We have had several projects
Go forward with the county be issued a permit then they come in with minor changes and the county has sent them back for the city
to restamp
Do we have documentation on his correspondence with Contra Costa County that did the staff is reviewed? I
have not seen anything beyond the issuance in September of
2024 but I could go back and review as I share sentiments with the
Commissioners where I fall down or where I come short on their sentiment
Is if our system is not in place or the system is not set up well enough to do that in an efficient manner as somebody
who
develops a lot of projects myself, then I almost sympathize. So it'd be good to understand
the processes that exist today because it, yeah, I guess I'll stop there.
If I can just maybe provide a counterpoint to that. I understand that different people can,
reasonable people can disagree on what minor versus major is, however, this project was already
had approved variances for aggregate building height and overall building height, I believe,
and the fact that those are now even further. I mean, to me, I'm unclear how, again,
somebody who has experience, right, that that wouldn't sort of trigger and say, oh, I'm even
more out of compliance with the variance I already requested. So I hear you on the process piece. I
think it's a fair point. I don't personally feel it's relevant to this particular project,
given what the additional requested further non-conforming bits within the variances are,
is my read on this. I would echo your sentiments as well. And I think approving this leads to
a slippery slope and a precedent that I don't think is what the city wants.
I share a lot of the sentiment. What I struggle with and I'd love to hear from
commissioners here, their reaction to this, that I think of this project was brought
new, standalone, hasn't been built yet. My sense is that the staff recommendation
would be to prove this and I think that I would probably be supportive of that
recommendation. So what I'm struggling with is what I feel like I'm now
acting on is the behavior of the applicant and the lack of the adhering
to the correct process etc. And I struggle with how appropriately to take
action with that with the assumption that I would approve this if this was
actually what came around the first time. And where I keep coming back to is what
we need is what the city of San Francisco has or whoever mentioned it
right which is actually a recourse. And so what I struggle with is what I feel
like is we have the lack of the process to deal with when this happens, but I don't know
that I object, I have a problem with the actual application if it was sort of day one, if
that makes sense.
But I'd love to hear some feedback.
I can counter that just seeing the pictures of it constructed.
I think what we've commented on the past and what was commented on in 2023 is the massing.
So I think by moving some of those features around, there is significant massing and it
being on a hit like a ridge line that would be something that I think we would
have wanted to look at in more detail those characteristics and then a second
point I would add is I'm actually living right next to a construction project of
a similar size and I can say that when you do add when I think we hear a foot
to the building height or two feet it does not sound substantial but when you
see it actually getting constructed if you add a foot or even 18 inches it does
substantially impact that building and change a lot of the views for the
And I think it's easier.
Yeah.
It's easier to see.
The surrounding area, the characteristics of the neighborhood.
So I think it's easy to hear that what the applicant believes is
minor, like a foot here or foot there.
I think if we had studied this as a new project,
to your point and we're able to see that,
I think that we would have had the opportunity to comment on.
Does that make a substantial difference?
And are there elements we want to try to address with the massing?
Because just with that one picture,
I think they can bring it back up again.
like, yeah, I don't think that we can make a decision based on like, well, I don't know,
that's not ideal behavior necessarily. I think where I land is actually great, great, Mr.
John that if this project came to us as it is right now, I would probably have some significant
questions and not necessarily approve. Secondly, in terms of like the actual where I am thinking,
and again, I always want to make sure I'm making the best objective decision. I actually
believe that the updated structure as it was built and as these kind of updated requests for
variances are coming, I think that it does substantially increase the degree of the existing
nonconformity and that is the kind of precise language that for me is where I'm like I think it
I think it does and that is my kind of analysis and read of it. I'm listening to everyone. I
understand, uh, Commissioner Blinsky's point in the sense that there's, there is somewhat of a
disconnect or our system is the planning commission, you know, stamps your plans and then you go and
have pretty much most of your interaction in the building stage with Contra Costa County and the
the building inspectors and those folks.
And it sounds like this applicant had a lot of interaction
and, you know, stamps and plan sign offs.
And there was no, one hand wasn't talking to the other.
And so they were seemingly, I guess approving
a lot of modifications and or things
that the applicant was doing and he was operating
in good faith, I suppose, but they were signing off on it.
And then now our planning staff gets wind of it
and then we have the difficult task to, I guess,
take his word that, hey, somebody else said this was okay
And now it's back to us to say, well, um, no, it wasn't.
Okay.
And you know, what do you do about that?
So that's, I'm just, I'd be curious to know what the commissioners
kind of think of that.
I can, I can add, cause I think we're misinterpreting and the
director can chime in as well.
The County, they're signing job cards.
I know the applicant mentioned like you have a job card for everything.
your electrical inspector is not out there saying you didn't do exactly what your drawings did.
They're saying, did you install your electrical to code? So they're looking at it from a code
compliance. Yes, they're looking at your drawings to some extent, but that's not their primary way
of enforcement. And I can give an example even on a job site, our plumbing inspector came out and we
had a water line. They needed to see the water line before it got inspected. It got buried. They
didn't see it, the next day we dug that water line up. We ripped out asphalt and dug the
water line out. So they're looking at more of the code compliance on their side, not necessarily
for architectural features or the finishes. That's something usually that goes to the
architect and the architect is responsible for working with the city. And if the architect is
the owner, they're working with themselves, but the architect's usually responsible for
working with the city and owner for what is deemed a major change.
this. And I'm sorry. I want to
push back on something. So the
building permits are issued by
Contra Costa County, correct?
Correct. So when they're when
he's changing things that I
agree with you or not, I would
offer not ministerial like
egress to a patrol room. They're
going the building apartment in
Contra Costa is approving that
change, correct? No, um, no,
Commissioner John, because a
little bit on the right path
have have I have some issues because they'd also change staff and so the
younger staffs and the newer staffs don't get how La Mirinda, Lafayette
Moraga and Miranda work with the county but normally I have routinely seen them
catch a change and kick it right back to us it is not Contra Costa County's
jurisdiction and they are aware of that so they usually kick it back to us so
I'm not sure why, what happened.
So the system failed on this.
It is that, hold on.
There's a systemic issue here, right?
That's what I'm getting at is,
yeah, and I don't have a good answer or a good,
the system is broken and, you know,
maybe he used it to his advantage, maybe he didn't,
but I don't, like if this comes up often,
like what do you think about that stuff?
Like what is this, what is this, what is the fix here?
Because this won't be the last time we see this.
and I guess my pushback is for all the reasons
we wouldn't vote yes, I have equal concerns on voting no
because the system is broken.
And holding people accountable when a system is broken
is also inappropriate I would offer.
So I guess what is, is there a plan
to address these loopholes or?
Yeah, I do all the time.
I call the building official
for Contra Cross County all the time.
And I shouldn't say all the time,
but when little things happen for the most part,
I don't find that Contra Costa County
makes these sort of eras.
I've had projects where new construction guy has gone out
and he says they're adding a new window.
I go kick it back to Arinda and they'll kick it back to us.
I've had more of those scenarios than not.
I mean, the most recent scenario that I did call
and have to correct with Contra Costa County
they required a survey stake for a deck that was less than our required inches. And so, therefore,
I said, hey, we don't look at decks above a certain amount of inches as a structure, so we don't need
the survey stake on that. So, it's really working with them, Commissioner Oblinski. They have been
So I'm constantly making sure that they're up to date.
We meet with them on, or I meet with them on a routine basis,
just to make sure we're up to date on anything that we think is
exemptions or, um, ensuring that staff, uh, is aware of what needs to
come back to us and what doesn't.
Yeah, and you're right.
I'm not used to it.
Just wanted planning department set up, but it just feels like that
could be codified a bit.
I think that's all fair points on the process.
I just want to be clear in what we're talking about.
on the process. I just want to be clear and what we're talking about is this particular
case in terms of the vote. And I think that adding a story, adding windows and adding
doors, regardless of whether... So first of all, it's not the building department's job
to approve or not approve that change. I want to make sure we're all crystal clear on that.
Is it a courtesy and theoretically helpful to the overall process and navigating if the
building department flags that for the city of Aranda during the build? Absolutely. That's
the ideal case. It sounds like perhaps that was missed here, and hence we find ourselves
in this situation. But I don't want to ignore the fact that in my opinion and the analysis
of this, those are significant changes. They were not flagged to the city of Aranda by
the architect on the project, as the architect is supposed to do, and I believe they substantially
increase the degree of the existing nonconformity and that is the issue for the particular yes
or no. I totally hear you on the process piece and I think that's a really fair like discussion
to continue to have to say how can we make some of this better as these things occur and I agree
with you on that process piece. I do want to make sure that what we're discussing in terms of the
yay or nay like we're clear on the facts. Clear. I heard another comment. No I was just going to
I think we can echo the same sentiment that this is fundamentally what was approved by the Planning Commission is fundamentally different than what was built. And I think that's just really what is up for debate and discussion.
And do we want to approve something that is different than what was previously approved.
Um, I'm in, um, I think commissioner doctors has, has stated this the most clearly we're
a value or you are to evaluate the project based on the standards.
So it's not what he did with or without permission.
It's not the changes.
It's how the current proposed projects meets the required findings.
Yeah.
Understood.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I, well, I think in common in response to one of the other commissioners comments apologize I can't remember who that if this were the project in front of us as, as I was looking out for story polls went out to the site today.
I wouldn't be troubled to come to the conclusion
that I'm having trouble coming to right now.
I think that's where my vote is headed, if you will.
My trouble is with the process,
my trouble is not with my decision in relation
to the standards and the exceptions
that are being requested here.
So I think my sense of wanting to vote no would be easier to have been done if it were just story
polls that I was voting on today, if you guess what I'm saying. And I just for the commission to hear.
I have a question. It's kind of a hypothetical. So let's say we voted no to deny this change
proposal. What would kind of then be the results for the applicant regarding this project?
Chair Armstrong, as I've mentioned before, Mr. Padmont would have a decision to either
build what was originally approved by the Planning Commission or he can choose to appeal.
And building what was originally approved would mean obviously if the appeal was denied or
that would mean construction changes significant to what's already standing there.
Right, he would be back to the window form and shape that you originally said was part of your
decision. The door changes would be no doors. Okay, are there any more discussion, questions,
comments. Do I have a motion on this matter from the Commission?
I'll make a motion that we deny the application as submitted.
Okay.
Waiting for a second.
I'll second.
Okay, we have a first and a second on the motion to deny this application.
Chair, I'm sure any specific findings or anything you want to add to that or the record?
I'll add the significant variation or the significant extent of the exceptions beyond
the design standards, beyond the applicable standards, force me to vote against this application.
sorry. So used to saying, chair, may I just suggest some modified language there just
around the the structure does not seem to comply with the intent and purpose of the
requirements and does substantially increase the degree of the existing nonconformity.
Agreed. That's what that's what I was trying to say. Thank you. Okay, so that's the motion.
We have a second to that motion. Okay, so we will conduct a roll call vote.
I'm sorry, may I ask a procedural question because the motion is to deny a a yay vote
is in a real agreeing with the deny. Is that completely accurate? Okay, backwards here
from what we usually do. Okay, so the roll call vote is Commissioner
Aye.
Commissioner Gilman.
I.
Commissioner Morolla.
Nay.
Commissioner Blinsky.
Nay.
Commissioner doctors.
Aye.
Commissioner Armstrong is a nay.
Rules and procedures is 3-3 is a denial.
Is a decision.
Sorry, can I repeat that?
Let me check my new rules and procedures.
I believe a tied vote is a.
decision and it's a denial. Typically I think in a tie the motion fails I think
which means it's still on the table. I just want to clear the state into the
microphone so that we are all clear because this was a tie vote the motion to
deny has failed things are still on the table and if another planning
commissioner would like to make another motion we can vote on another motion correct correct correct
what is the event in the tie though if we don't come up with another motion
so uh white sherriff saying a tie vote means the motion fails in the context of a public hearing
on a land use matter um this is the part i was saying a tie vote means denial of the project
okay that's that's what i denial of the project now yeah that's what we have in
and our new rules and regulations.
For the record, could you cite that rule
and read it in the record?
Okay, so it's section seven, voting a tie vote.
Section 7.4, a tie vote means that a motion fails,
but in the context of a public hearing
on a land use matter, which this is,
a tie vote means denial of a project.
So that seems to assume that we made a motion
that was standard. I think because we did the inverse motion, this is called an issue.
Yeah, that's what we have. TIPO means denial of the project.
I mean, to state it plainly, if somebody else wants to make a motion to approve, I think
it will be clear how the rest of the... Or is that not proper?
It still results in... No, no, no.
That's fine. That's why I'm saying.
That's a proper denial. Yeah, if there are any questions about the
legality of the denial. So that's what I'm. Yeah for the sake of clarity I would like to make a
motion that we approve the recommendation. Okay we have a first and second to approve
the motion or the staff recommendation. Okay and so we will do a roll call vote.
Commissioner hubner commissioner gel net no commissioner morola yay commissioner oblinski
yay commissioner doctors nay and commissioner armstrong is a yay I held that motion
it's still 33 still 33 and now it's properly right so with that I'm going to read the appeal right
A decision by the Planning Commission is final unless a written notice of appeal
specifying the grounds for the appeal is submitted
to the Planning Department during normal business hours
within 10 calendar days with the appropriate fees.
The appeal will be considered by the City Council.
If you challenge any actions on the agenda in court
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at or prior to the public hearing.
The time to file action to challenge the decision
is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6.
Item H, other commission matters.
Are there any?
Here's there are none.
Item I, planning commissioners report. I have no report report. Item J, planning directors update.
I have none. Thank you. And item K, do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved.
Okay, do we have a second? Okay, all in favor?