whenever you're ready. Welcome to this December 18, 2024 Design Review Commission.
Mr. Secretary, can we please call the roll? Thank you. Commissioner Basting? Here.
Commissioner Riley? Here. Vice Chair Newsom? Here. Chair Case is on vacation and she has
let the city know well in advance of her absence tonight. So we have three, we have a quorum.
to the consent calendar. Any item can be placed in the consent calendar by the Commission
Secretary when it's expected to be routinely approved without discussion or debate. Do
we have any such thing? We have no recommendations for consent calendars.
Okay. Moving right along. Public communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for
comment on items not on the agenda under the Brown Act. The Commission cannot act on items
raised during the public communications but may respond briefly to statements made or
questions posed. Request clarification, refer an item to staff. Do we have any outstanding
public communications? Anybody here want to talk about anything not on the agenda?
none none okay so we're going to move now on to the public hearing and study
sessions but before we do that I have to ask has anybody had any Ex parte
communications with applicants these on any of the items any items no excellent
okay that said let's move on to our first item which is the master sign
program.
And I'd like to just make a note before we start into item four, and then we have two
items tonight.
The first item is a master sign program of which the Design Review Commission has authority
to make a decision.
So the decision making authority is within the Design Review Commission's hands for anything
to do with signs, including the master sign program tonight.
The second item, the single family development with the subdivision is for recommendation
only.
So we'll be gathering comments, comments and overall recommendations for the Planning
Commission to consider at a later date.
And so the Planning Commission is actually a decision-making body in that instance, right?
Correct.
Okay.
Okay so now we're going to move on to the 2700 Ignacio Valley Master Sign Program.
It looks like we have a staff presentation, so proceed.
Good evening members of the Design Review Commission.
My name is Steven Cook and I'm an assistant planner with the Community Development Department
and before you this evening is a proposal for a new Master Sign Program located at 2700
Ignacio Valley Road.
The project is located within the Shadelands Business Park on a 5.89-acre parcel.
It includes an existing three-story, 106,463-square-foot medical office building that was constructed
in 1984.
The site is along the southwest corner of the intersection of Ignacio Valley Road and
north via Monte.
Surrounding the site, you'll find medical office buildings to the north, Shadelands
and Ranch Museum to the west, the Orchards Shopping Center to the east, and single-family
homes to the south.
On October 16th of this year, the signed subcommittee held a publicly noticed meeting to review
the proposed master sign program.
The initial proposal included three sign exceptions to the sign ordinance, as well as several
sign types.
The signed subcommittee was ultimately supportive of the master sign program, but provided feedback
to address a few areas of concern.
In response to that feedback, the applicant revised the MSP to address these concerns.
The amendments include the elimination of skyline signs, the elimination of one tenant
wall sign and a reduction in the overall size and the total sign area for all sign types.
Notably an additional tenant wall sign was added to the master sign program and a detailed
response document outlining all the revisions made to the master sign program is included
as Attachment 3 on the staff report.
At this time, I'll provide an overview of the amended Master Sign Program.
So the proposed MSP includes detailed signage standards that outline areas such as design,
placement, and illumination methods.
The program proposes a total of three tenant wall signs and two freestanding signs.
Additionally, the MSP requests two exceptions to the sign ordinance, one to increase the
allowable sign area for both freestanding signs and another to increase the overall
allowable aggregate sign area for the site itself.
Beginning with the freesigning signs, the site currently has two freesigning signs,
but these will be replaced and relocated to opposite drive aisles, as indicated by sign
types A1 and A2 in red.
Each of the two proposed freesigning signs will have a sign area of 32 square feet, which
exceeds the 25 square feet currently allowed.
The height of each sign, measured from grade, will be 7.5 feet.
the signs are not illuminated, LED ground lighting will be provided to enhance visibility.
The sign bodies feature an aluminum skin with a black satin finish, while the tenet panels
will have an aluminum skin with a brushed silver metallic finish.
On the slide you can see a rendering of the proposed freestanding sign, as well as a site
plan demonstrating their proposed locations on the property.
The next sign types are tenet wall signs C2 and C3.
with a sign area of 30 square feet featuring halo lighting, the backer panels fabricated
aluminum and are required to match the color of the wall behind it.
Tenants are permitted to use their own logos, fonts, and brand colors.
It's important to note that while the sign subcommittee was supportive of the sign type,
they recommended limiting the dimensions to 10 by 30 feet.
The applicant has made these adjustments accordingly, and for your reference, a rendering of the
wall sign, along with the site plan demonstrating its proposed location on the building, marked
and green is provided. The last sign type is tenet wall sign B1 with a sign area of
88 square feet and featuring halo lighting. The backer panels fabricated aluminum and
are required to match the color of the wall behind it. Tenets are permitted to use their
own logos, fonts, and brand colors. And it's important to note that the inclusion of this
sign type was a direct response to the sign subcommittee recommending eliminating skyline
signs on the upper band as well as tenant wall signs as one tenant wall sign in the
lower band. The applicant has proposed the larger tenant wall sign to be placed in the
middle band with a maximum height of 23.5 feet which allows this sign type to not be
considered a skyline sign and to be more appropriately positioned. And for your reference, the rendering
of the wall sign along with the site plan demonstrating its proposed location on the
building marked in blue is provided.
And to summarize the request, the proposals for a new master sign program that seeks two
exceptions to the sign ordinance.
The first exception is to increase the allowable sign area for both freestanding signs.
While 25 square feet is permitted, the applicant is proposing 32 feet per each sign.
And the second exception is to increase the overall aggregate sign area.
The site is currently allowed 128 square feet, but the total aggregate for the signs would
be 212 square feet. The project is exempt from CEQA for section 15 301 of the CEQA guidelines
under class 1 existing facilities. Staff recommends the design review commission move to determine
that the project is exempt from CEQA under section 15 301 existing facilities and adopt
the draft resolution approving a new master sign program for 2700 Ignacio Valley Road
Subject to the conditions of approval contained therein and that concludes the presentation for tonight staff is available to answer any questions
You may have and the applicant is also present this evening and could address any questions you have as well. Thank you
Thank you
Let's commissioners. Do you have any comments or questions any questions first?
No questions
No questions
Questions of staff. No
Okay
There is there is there a presentation from?
From the applicant
Okay, do we have any questions for the applicant? I do not okay
All right good
It's it isn't it so we gonna we're gonna open the public hearing now, so do we have any?
Do we have any public comments related to this?
Seeing none
Then I think we can move on to any commissioner comments
So does does any do you folks have any comments about the application?
the only thing that I am curious about is the sign that was a skyline sign and then moved to the middle
area
What direction does that face in and is it illuminated? I?
Believe it's facing via Monty which would be the shit door orchard shopping center
And it and it is I believe a staff said it was halo lit
Yeah, great. Thank you. Yeah, so it's demonstrated as
B1 so tenant identification sign B1
It's facing the corner of Ignacio Valley and North Viamante in the middle band
Okay, so it's facing towards sort of the commercial area. That's correct. It'll be visible too from both streets. Okay, perfect. Thank you
Any other comments questions?
Okay
Well, I'll just make my comments. So I am of course in the science subcommittee and I was just pleased to see that you addressed
The comments, so thank you for that
And that's all I have so I think we could probably
Make a motion here. Anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion
great, so I move to determine that the project is exempt from CEQA and that we
adopt a
Resolution approving the new master sign program for 2700 Ignacio Valley Road
Second I'll second that
We take a vote. Yeah
Okay
Commissioner basing. Yes, mr. Riley. Yes, vice chair Newsom. Yes
motion carries
All right. Thank you
Move on to the next thing
thing on the agenda is
Is item 4b presumably which is the Haven
SRF development, so does staff have a presentation?
Proceed and I'm just gonna let you guys know in advance if you have if you're gonna make comments about this
Please make sure you fill out a yellow speaker card and turn it in
Just to know you can turn those in when you when you come on up
You don't have to do it right now
Good evening commissioners. My name is Gerardo Victoria with the community development department
Tonight we're here for a study session to review the Haven single-family development at 1948 third Avenue
Project ID is Y 24051
Some site context the property is located at 1948 third Avenue. It's right here
This is third Avenue. So the west of third Avenue is Larky
Right here the general plan designation for the site is single-family medium the residential zoning is residential 8 and
The site is surrounded by other single-family homes as you see down here in the map area
The project description is to demo the existing single-family residents and the accessory structures on the lot
It is to construct a six lot subdivision as you see here with a private street
It is to provide a five foot land dedication consistent with the city future street set
back standards along 3rd Avenue here, and to provide six two story single family homes.
One of which will be an affordable unit.
It does have a density bonus component with 13 development standard waivers.
It is proposing new landscaping.
It is proposing the removal of 19 trees, three of which are highly protected in Walnut Creek.
They are proposing new fencing and retaining walls.
And it is being reviewed under the SB 330 Project.
Tonight the DRCS task was providing input on the design components of the project which
include the vesting tentative map, the density bonus component which includes the waivers,
design review which includes the site layout, the architecture, the landscaping,
the colors and the materials, the tree removal and the tree removals and the
tree drip line encroachment permits. The project will then go on to Planning
Commission for consideration at a date yet to be determined. As you can see here
the existing site plan this is the existing signal planning home that will
be demoed. This is the accessory structure of the garage. There's another dwelling unit in the back
and there is an existing small shed in this area. The proposed site plan includes six new lots.
As you can see here, the first three are facing not facing Third Avenue, but the first one faces
Third Avenue and then the three are behind in the rear of the property. This is the private street.
The lots range from 2,660 square feet to the biggest which is 4,060 square feet right here
lot number three. The base density of the property is a maximum five units as you can see here at the
top. The applicant is providing one affordable unit and so they get an increase in density
which results in the increase of the six unit single family residences. The density bonus
Part of the project allows relief from standards that would physically preclude feasibility
of the housing development.
The applicant is requesting 13 waivers.
The city is required to waive such standards unless it makes specific findings that any
such proposal would have a specific adverse impact upon the health safety or the physical
environment.
These are the 13 requested waivers, just to go over a few.
The minimum required lot size in the Residential 8 Zone is 8,000 square feet.
They are proposing a minimum of 2,600 square feet.
The minimum front yard setback in the Residential 8 Zone is 20 feet.
They are proposing 4 feet.
The minimum right of way width is 38 feet.
They are proposing 25 feet.
And the minimum road width is 28 feet.
And they are proposing 20 feet.
The first plan is the farmhouse style home.
It is a comp shingle gable roof, as you see here.
It has a board and baton gray siding.
It has white stucco finish with a cream stone veneer finish.
It has a metal gable roof at the entrance,
right here, with a shed roof in the rear,
as you can see right here.
Plan two of the farmhouse style has another comp shingle gable
roof. It has a smooth white board and batten siding. It has a clean brick veneer finish.
It does have a pop out window right here on the right elevation. And this also has a shed
roof in the rear down here. The other style home is the Bay Area style. This is their
plan one. It has a comp shingle gable roof. It has a blue wood paneling. It has a smooth
white stucco finish with a comp shingle gable roof at the entrance and a shed roof in the rear.
Plan two of the Baria style home is a comp shingle gable roof, a maroon lapsed siding,
a white smooth coat stucco. It also has a pop-out window on the right elevation.
And as proposed, the project does comply with the city's objective design standards.
So the packet before you tonight shows the planting of seven new trees and new landscaping
with drought tolerant plantings and shrubs along Third Avenue here and along the front of all six
lots. It has three bioretention areas, one right here, one right here, and then the other one right
here. They are proposing seven new trees. You see them right here. So, the ones in gray, they are
keeping. The applicant has resubmitted after this packet went out. So, they are now proposing just
five new trees. The ones in gold have been removed from their new submittal. So, there is a total of
28 trees on the site. They are proposing to remove 19 trees, which are all outlined in red.
the ones with the stars are highly protected trees which is in walnut creek the valley oak
the coast live oak and the california black walnut nine trees will remain on the site and
they're outlined in green um the powerpoint wasn't able to capture there's a couple over here so i
apologize for that so staff anticipates to use the categorical infill exemption 15332
The project is consistent with the general plan designation and the zoning designation.
The proposed development does occur within the city limits and is no more than five acres
large. The project site has no value as a habitat for the endangered rare or threatened species.
The approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality or water quality and the site can be adequately served by all required
utilities and public services.
So just to review the summary of requests before you tonight, comment on the following
topics for consideration by the design review commission which includes the vesting tentative
map, the density bonus component of the project, the design review component of the project
which includes the site layout, the architecture,
the landscaping, the colors and materials,
tree removal permits, and the tree drip line encroachment
permits.
Staff is available for questions.
Just one quick thing.
I was given additional comments by the public.
I will pass those out as soon as I sit down.
The applicant is here, is available for questions.
they might have a presentation of the PDF I have it can you go off mine okay yeah hang
on hang on a sec so first do we have any questions for staff I don't have any
questions for staff I do have questions for the I have no questions for staff
same for me nice presentation thank you thank you so now now I guess we can move
move on to the applicant presentation, right. We're going to go ahead and open up the public
hearing. Oh, wait, it's not a public hearing. This is not a public hearing again. That was
a mistake. This is advisory only. Go ahead and introduce yourself, please.
Good evening, honorable commission. My name is Siyavash Mozami. I go by Sia. I'm with
Haven Development. Sorry, my voice is a little raspy. Just getting over a cold. I wanted
to thank everyone here this evening,
Gerardo for doing a fantastic job presenting our project
and some of our neighbors and residents at Walnut Creek.
I hope you liked what you saw
and were branding this project as Magnolia Village.
And I think Gerardo did a fantastic job
describing the project.
Maybe you just want to touch on a couple of things.
And the first is, you know, the community benefits
as opposed to the existing conditions.
Currently along our frontage, there's no sidewalk.
You know, the driveway to the existing residence
and the cottage in the back is in pretty poor condition.
So we are building sidewalk along our frontage.
We're putting in a park, right?
In addition to the bio-retention areas,
that'll be a little, you know, neighborhood park
for the six future homeowners,
and we are adding six new guest parking spaces.
And so I guess in addition to the waivers
that density bonus law affords you,
I think we're going above and beyond
what's required under density bonus law
in terms of parking.
So I think that's really it.
I'm here to answer any questions
I've got here with me this evening,
Doug Cummins, Dolan Architectural Group,
Annika Carpenter with Ripley Design Group,
and Justin Joseph, CBG, our civil engineer.
So if you have any technical questions,
architectural landscape type questions,
we're here to answer them.
One thing that I think was missed,
and I have in my, the PDF that I sent it to Gerardo,
is we actually made the architecture
little bit more homey and traditional. We changed the colors up a bit. And so what you saw and what
was presented was a mirror of the enclave, which is our project right down the street that has been
completed at 2670 Walnut. So we've you know we thought because of this Arkey Park neighborhood
and some of the surrounding architecture we would soften things up and go with a more traditional
palette in terms of colors and materials. So, fortunately, I don't have a zip drive
with me to share that with you, but if anyone's got Wi-Fi or Gerardo does, or we could probably...
Yeah, it was the... Yeah, the...
The PDF.
Yeah, the PDF.
It would be great to see the colors.
I actually have it on my laptop, so I could pull it up and...
Okay.
Hand it out.
Yeah.
Have you loaded it to me?
Let's see.
Is that not compatible?
I mean, I could just pull it up and show it to you, you know, if you want to get it right.
Okay.
Thanks for that.
I mean, I think, go ahead.
I mean, yeah, just that's fine.
We could just kind of look at it as maybe as we ask.
Yeah.
Good.
Thanks.
So now we're gonna open up for applicant questions.
Who wants to start?
So my questions are really around the landscaping.
And I have a handful of them.
First, I wanted to know,
and this is sort of a larger question,
is visually what you were hoping to achieve
with the landscaping?
Was there a feeling or a look that you were going for
with this plant pallet?
or what drove it?
Yeah, I think I'll defer to our landscape architect.
She's, we'll put it much more elegantly than I can, so.
Okay.
While she's coming up, my next question maybe goes to you,
is how will the landscaping be maintained
once all the houses are sold?
So, there's gonna be an HOA,
and the HOA will maintain all the front yards
and all the common areas and the private street,
so anything that's in front of the house
will be maintained by the HOA,
and the rear yards will be maintained by the helmet.
Perfect, thank you.
Sure.
Hi, I'm Annika Carpenter with Ripley Design Group.
Our palette, we usually like to use various foliage colors
and textures and create kind of a tapestry of plant material
that will provide interest year round.
Even when they're not flowering, they'll
have color variation within their foliage.
And we try to use plant material that requires less maintenance
and less trimming.
I don't know if there's any other.
Well, I guess the question that the next question I have
is why the choice of these trees?
Oh, so the client would like to reinforce the idea of Magnolia Village.
So Magnolias were introduced as trees into the project.
OK. And then the purpose of the turf in the plan,
there's two areas where there is turf.
Can you just talk me through, like, why, why you're putting in turf?
we're trying to create at least some little open space that families could use or kids could use
without providing them some they have limited backyard space which probably won't work won't
allow a turf area so we decided to try to introduce it into the common space okay um and then my last
question is, why did the number of trees go down?
I, that we found out.
Well, we can, we can actually recover one of the trees
because if we can pull the fence back on lot three
to recover the tree that's the yellow smaller circle,
that large circle, actually the larger yellow circle
is actually, you can see just up to the left corner
of that big circle is a small tree on the plan.
The bio-retention area became larger and didn't allow us to put any more trees right there
in that spot.
We're very limited on we've got a big easement running through that's preventing us from
planting any trees.
Then we have these three bio-retention areas that are limiting us and planting any trees.
And then, so we just, we tried to plant them where we could.
So it's just a lot of utilities preventing us
from doing this, yeah.
What is flowing into the bioretention areas?
Is it simply from the ground plane
or is it also from the roofs?
It's from the roofs and the ground plane.
Okay, so everything is going into those bioretent areas?
I believe so, yeah, correct.
All right, thank you.
Oh, sure, thanks. Those are my questions.
Thank you.
my question is was there any effort to made to retain any of the large heritage trees and and
the oaks in in a site plan yeah i think um onica can also answer that but we we always try to
retain any trees that we can and unless you know the trees and you know in an area where
it physically can't be be there because if it's it's a driveway or close to a foundation
or such, we have to remove those trees. But we make every effort to retain heritage trees,
if and when possible. Thank you. Sure. And I understand your desire to name,
to have the trees match the project name, but was there consideration of more natives?
or native trees um well that's um that's a great question i think because of the name of the
project we we thought and we'd like to include agnolias but um what do you have in mind
we can talk about that that a later part of the rate or now if you specifically have a question
yes but if it if it's for discussion save it for then yes thank you yeah you're welcome
Okay, now it's up to me so I mean going to let's go back to the
The trees to be removed
Could you go back to that sheet?
Okay, so I think
Just confirming this because this this came up as a comment from the community. I think these trees are in fact on
the property and
Then this is a question for somebody. So
Just just restating because this this was another comment
What is the requirement here that you have two covered spaces?
per unit only
So what the requirement is
Okay, so the
You have five six dolls there that are above and beyond
What's required? Yes
Let's talk about
hence lines
so
And mostly about the trash
This is just something that comes up with these places
It's a common question that neighbors have is, you know, let's go through the sequence
of how trash is done.
It says that the trash is going to be stored in the garage but if there's no other place
for people to park, they're going to park in the garage and they're going to put the
trash on the street.
So is there a way that the trash could be put behind the fence line possibly?
Hi, I'm Doug Cummins with Dolan Group Architecture and Planning.
So for the trash, we actually extended the garage itself.
So we have a little bit extra storage,
27 square feet for three bins.
In the garage, there is designated space for those bins.
And then on the sides, we do have some side yards
where if someone happened to use that space,
then they can go on the side yard.
And a lot of times that happens with the HOA as well,
that they'll handle, bins have to be in the garage
and they can regulate that as well.
But we have designated space shown in the plans
for the trash bins.
You're welcome.
While you're up, let me ask you a couple more here.
Talking about the materials.
So I think they did a nice explanation.
I had questions about the colors, that the color is resolved.
I think, let's talk about the demarcations.
So when we talk about the wood trim around the windows,
what exactly is that?
So it's a hardy trim that goes around the windows,
so it requires less maintenance.
And then also with the installation of the siting
and everything is less maintenance for the homeowner as well,
because they'll have this piece of trim
that'll extend past that siding
to give an extra layer of detail,
an extra shadow and things like that
rather than having just the siding come against the window.
So it adds a little extra bit of detail there
around all sides.
How deep is it?
Usually two by four inches,
so half by three and a half inches.
And is that the same for the banding
between the stucco and the board and bat?
So that's a little bit larger
just to give a scale difference between that,
between the stucco and the board and bad
or siding that's above that.
So we should do a little bit larger piece, maybe a two
by eight, and then a two by four, two by three
on top of that to give another little extra detail
around there.
Then that wraps around most of the houseware that happens.
So we're not just designating that to the front elevation.
We're doing full four-sided architecture.
OK, good.
And what else?
So then I would assume, then, that is, is the board and bat,
is that also hardy plank, or?
That is also hardy as well, yeah.
Very, very low maintenance for the homeowner.
Everything is hardy and stucco, and then the stone veneer?
Correct.
OK.
And, you know, one common thing that we have is like, OK.
So like, if you look in this image at the upper left hand,
like the rendering you have there.
So the finishes actually wrap, right?
So like that gray element is there.
You're not these finishes like that bay that pops out.
That finish actually wraps, so you can actually
read it like a bay.
It doesn't try to be plaster on the side, right?
Correct.
Yeah.
OK.
Yeah, everything ends to an inside corner,
so it gives the real appearance of stone
or gives the real appearance of this,
rather than just we call it lick and stick.
That's just on a face.
It'll actually wrap and end by where it really should.
where it architecturally makes sense
and would traditionally be used
for that style of architecture.
Okay, good.
So let's go, I think this is,
I don't know who this question is for,
but let's go to the subdivision map
or whatever that plan is.
A landscape plan would be great if you wanna do that.
It's not really a landscape question,
but it's really a question about setbacks.
I wanna see where the other houses are.
No, keep going.
something that shows, I can't say keep going back
till we see the adjacent houses.
Sorry.
Well, I mean, I guess, is where, is that it?
I mean, there was one that had the adjacent houses.
I mean, that's, that's, we'll work with that.
Okay, so, so I mean, I guess, I guess the question is,
is, cause this, I mean, the question of setbacks comes up.
I mean, obviously there's density bonuses
and we have to allow those,
but just from the common sense department.
I mean, I noticed that on the right-hand side
of the property, there's a bias well development
and then there's lawns.
And the price of that is that the property,
basically these houses or the house in the back left corners
is right up against that six unit building, right there.
So, I mean, let's go to the landscape plan.
So since we don't have a plan that shows that,
let's go to the landscape plan.
And here's just my general question.
Yeah, there it is, I think.
Isn't there like a rendered landscape plan?
OK, all right.
OK, so click on that.
Let's get it a little bigger so we can see it.
All right.
OK, so we have the unit that's in the upper right-hand corner.
the three and a half feet off the property line,
or three and a half, and it's right up against,
there's probably five feet away from it,
from a six-unit building.
And then on the bottom,
I know that's the low side of the property,
and I know there's a bios wheel there,
but what is the value of that turf?
I mean, couldn't those three units be pulled down
to provide a little more space?
There's actually an easement there.
It's a public utility easement for sewer and storm drains,
so we can't build anything over that area.
And we actually, one of the things that I didn't mention
was one of the slides was we did do neighborhood outreach.
I've, either myself or a Haven representative
has spoken to every adjacent homeowner or property owner
that touches us, shares a property line
and we did what we could to shift things around.
But unfortunately we just can't move that lot number four.
It's three and a half feet from the PL,
but the neighbor to the west of us also has a home
that's maybe six feet from property line.
So, you know, we did what we could in terms of movement,
but I think the best we could do is probably move it east
another six inches, but that's outside of losing a unit
and we'd be more than happy to forego our affordable unit,
but because of the economic loss,
but I don't think that does anyone any good either, so.
No.
So maybe, because of this issue,
I know this is an issue that's coming up,
and it's gonna come up in the public comments,
so can we look on that side of the building,
can we look at what the windows do
on that side of the building?
Let's look at which unit it is,
and figure out whether there's windows
that actually face the other building.
Yeah, so, I mean, there are the Schneider's
live to the north of us, we've met with them and we talked about potentially assisting
them with screening to give them some privacy. And with Mr. Collins to the west of us, we
talked about working with him as well. So what we can't do is go pay for landscaping
on other people's properties.
But what we've offered to do is make our consultants
and our contractors available to all of our adjacent homeowners
and let them put in things that they want at our costs.
And we, even development, would commit our time and effort
to making that come to fruition.
So in terms of, you know, unfortunately, one,
all these homes have bedrooms on the second floor,
so we can't just omit a bedroom on the second floor,
and window placement kind of is what it is.
So we looked at the plans, our architect can speak to that,
but fortunately we can't move windows
because of the location of the bedroom.
Okay, I mean, but like you mentioned,
maybe doing some screening off property,
is that something that you'd be amenable to having
as a condition of approval?
We are not willing to pay for that,
but we can make a condition that we'll make
in other cities and other similar situations
where we've done density bonus projects.
We have committed to use our
commercially reasonable efforts to work with the neighbors
to give access to our landscape architect
and to the contractors that will be installing
the landscaping and to the extent
that it's economically viable, and we can do things,
we will do them, but we can't commit to planting trees
that may put the project in an economically
unviable position.
Okay, all right.
So it's like, we'll do our best.
I know, I know, I'm just trying to get ready
for public comments here.
And I've basically, you know, I've communicated that to all the neighbors.
We'll do work with them and they have, I mean, you could add a condition that will use commercially
reasonable best efforts to assist, but it can't have economic.
But not pay for.
Correct.
Okay.
All right.
Thanks.
So that, are there any other questions for the applicant?
No?
Okay. So now we're going to move on to public comment.
Thank you very much.
Oh, thank you.
Yeah. Everybody has, everybody who's turned
into speaker card has two minutes to talk.
All right.
So let's go ahead.
A point of clarification because you had asked a lot
for this one is proposed to either be a plan one or a plan two.
That's the only thing the plan set says.
So which elevation would be facing that to this one right here? What's the site elevation that would be facing that off-site?
Facing that new private street and then this is the one that's facing that property
Okay
Yeah, I mean it makes sense. I mean if you look at the plan, right? So can you go back one to the plan?
Or the floor plan go back to the floor plan. I
Mean that's okay. It's okay. We know those are bedrooms. Don't worry about it just
Did you have another one question go ahead I just have a question and
Along lines what you were saying and this is just a clarification a bioswale can't be an easement
Is that does anyone know if a bioswale can be placed in an easement?
We have that fear from the city engineer here, but he's telling me no it cannot
Okay. Thank you
Thanks for coming
You want to you want to pop up for senator? Just say that that'd be great
Good evening, commissioners Ryan Cook senior engineer with the city's engineering department
So the the easement a question is a sanitary sewer easement from Central San
And so for these our retention facilities since they are stormwater treatment Central San does not allow them within their easement
because in order for them to come through and repair at a future date it would destroy the
storm water treatment portion of it which is required by this day water board so
And they wouldn't be obligated to replace that so they don't allow them within there, so
Okay, so now now we're gonna move on to public comment, and if you turn in a speaker card you can talk for two minutes, so
Let's go ahead mr. Secretary I
Have two cards now if you haven't dropped a card off after if you haven't dropped a card off
please hold on, but we'll have these two come up, and then if anybody else wishes
to speak, just come on up and stand along this line here, and then drop your cards
off at the, with Giordo. So the first saying that, the first speaker would be
Stephen Collins. And thank you for giving me a chance to speak here. I'm
disappointed there isn't the same sheet number three or sheet number two that we
saw in the plans that showed the buildings next to the plan here. But I
hope you can see what building number four, the plan in it literally from the
back deck of my one bedroom, it's the roof's gonna be right there and it's
going to severely affect my the rentability of this place and we've been
in business for 30 years there. We raised our son there. We rent to low-income people
and we're dog friendly. On that three and a half foot setback, I'd like you maybe to
recommend that the engineers revisit the building code and think about the water conveyance
between that building and that foundation
of unit number four and our property.
And how is that gonna dry out?
And in fact, won't the foundation of unit number four
push water, literally push water back towards our property?
So swale and water conveyance, I'd ask you to reconsider.
That there can't be anything done,
Like there's a handcuff here on that bio retention sphere
that it couldn't perhaps be put behind the houses,
the two lower houses.
Can we bring up the site?
That the roofing, the other, I guess that's my time.
Is that it?
Yep.
Okay.
Please help.
I got your notes.
Next speaker would be, is it Ben Collins?
All right, I'm ready.
Just finishing up on what he said,
the unit number four is hanging directly over
our one bedroom right there.
There's a two bedroom that unit number three
will be also looking directly over on.
That's not gonna be as bad.
We have three units on that side up there
that are all gonna get pretty much shadowed
by these three two-story buildings with behind number four, not only are they talking about
having the foundation right there, the retaining wall they're talking about building is made out
of wood that's pretty much in direct contract with the dirt below it. Those disintegrate almost
within the first decade of being built, we wanted to bring the idea that a taller concrete retaining
wall with a privacy fence on top of at least seven and a half feet made out of redwood,
which would match our current fences. And the final thing was the removal of
Reducing guest parking well, I guess we can't rearrange the bioretention areas
We can't move the current bioretention areas
we're kind of
losing options here for what's gonna allow us to get more than three and a half feet between our
Pretty much our deck and the back wall of number four
It's stressful that one because you can imagine why
That's it.
So who do we have next?
So we're going to start to go ahead.
Yeah.
If you'd like to come on up.
I'm Debbie Tabulski, and I live at 1910 3rd Avenue.
I'm not adjacent to this development, I'm one lot over.
Into the microphone, please.
I'm Debbie Tabulski, and I live at 1910 3rd Avenue.
I'm not right adjacent to the lot, I'm one spot over.
And I've lived on third avenue for 25 years.
I've lived all over the country and I really have come to appreciate how special and charming
this community is.
I've seen young people come in, moving in with their families and putting a lot of money
into their homes to appreciate the property values in the area.
and I'm kind of having trouble wrapping my head
around what's gonna be happening.
I know that they're mostly single family,
ranch style homes in the neighborhood.
We have beautiful old trees that have been there for years
and now all of a sudden we're taking out 19 trees,
we're gonna leave five, we're putting in magnolias.
It doesn't look like the neighborhood.
I appreciate that it's gonna be new,
that I'm concerned about that.
And also the fact that there's problems
with overflow parking as it is on Third Avenue.
We have cars parking in front of our lots
at different times of the year
because there's no other place to park.
And you're talking about putting in sidewalks
and I'm wondering how that's gonna impact parking
on the side streets.
So whatever you can do, I would appreciate it.
We just are concerned that this isn't gonna quite fit in
the charming older community. Thank you. Hi my name is Jim Tuggle I live at 1941
Third Avenue right across the street from said project and I want to reiterate
what Debbie said about the parking. I see there's six guest parking slots and no
driveways. So there's going to be overflow parking out onto the street. It's just going to happen
because people these days don't use their garages as garages. And I just see congestion and, you
know, a lack of adequate parking. And also I would be interested in hearing what, if any, financial
impacts this is going to have on the neighboring homes. Thank you.
My name is Cynthia Schneider and we live at 741 Thomas Lane which is on the fence line
of the property where units 4, 5, and 6 are being proposed. I think there's wiggle room.
Haven has a great business plan. They find these lots. They build it, whatever, but it
greatly impacts the neighborhood and changes it. When these two-story buildings get built,
there's going to be direct sight into our backyard, and we use our backyard for entertaining,
and these windows, you know, it's just not the same. But I think there's wiggle room
in the site plan that if we could sit down with the design review, planning, Haven and
ourselves and say, what about if we do this, this, and this? Particularly taking the heritage
tree out by Unit 4, we would like that to stay in, and I believe Jim will talk to that.
And I think that would help the Collins. That whole corner is bad up there. But the other
thing is I'm having trouble with this bonus density when the site calls for five units.
And I respect that California law allows people to, and
builders to add under affordable housing property and then get all these waivers.
But I'm also confused how properties are going to sell for upwards of a million, like 2 million.
How that is affordable, I know there's a lot of rules about that.
But I think it's a little too much and I can appreciate that Haven doesn't want to affect
their profitability.
But we don't want to affect our lifestyle either.
So I think there can be some adjustments to the site plan that we can maybe get a lot
of people happier with.
The Collins, you know, three and a half foot setback is ridiculous.
Talking about parking.
I think we need to go back to the drawing board not to start all over, but as community
partners, which I really believe that Haven is, I think we can maybe accomplish something
without throwing the baby out with the water.
So I know that clock hasn't started, but my time is probably up.
I put my comments in the letter that got sent out.
So this is really where I'm coming from.
And I think that the setbacks, the privacy, and accepting the contractors from Haven at
their price doesn't do it.
We spent over 150,000 this year on our property, solar roof, painting, and we're going to do
the same with landscaping.
We shouldn't have to incur more costs, just because this development wants to be six buildings.
Hi. My name's Jim Drew, and we're partners.
I won't have much to add, but just want to say that I wish you had the site map of page
two, and I know Steve wanted that too, but you know what?
It shows that they're making a gesture of leaving existing trees.
And if you can find that, it starts with 111, 112, 117, 118, 121.
And it implies they're doing a great favor to us.
those redwood trees are on 111 and 112 are on our property,
117 and 118 are on Edward's property,
and 121 is on Granger's property.
So they're acting, so it states it down at the bottom,
the existing trees to remain redwood trees.
They're not their trees to discuss.
And tree number 112 is about a 30-foot redwood tree.
And that leads to a concern is,
in talking with landscape barbers,
if they're grading a lot,
the root system on the redwood trees
could be severely damaged.
And we have a contractor telling us
the house in Lafayette they worked on
where the tree fell over on the house four or five years later
because they cut a severe root.
So at the very least, some fencing has to be put around
to protect all of our trees there that they're talking about.
These are beautiful.
Tree number 111 is about a 70 foot redwood tree.
These are gorgeous trees that, you know.
And one last thing is tree number 110 has to stay.
That black oak, that will solve the problem
of correcting the setbacks
because that'll be a beautiful tree
if it's trimmed and properly.
And the arborist report said it was in good condition.
So it needs some work, but, so anyway, that's,
and one last thing is on page two also shows
that the common fence along four, five, and six
to be removed.
That's a common fence that we've spent big money on
a number of years ago.
We don't want that fence removed.
I don't know how we stopped that,
but we have an equal share in it,
so we need more information on it,
but they can't just cut that down
and replace it with something else nice.
Thank you.
Thanks, Council Members.
I'm Scott Lowry.
I'm at 2614 Buenos Aires Court,
which is right around the court.
I've been living in my residence for 25 years.
When we moved here 25 years ago,
My daughters were six months old and two years old.
And so I raised my family on Bueno Serres Court
and I raised them on Third Avenue over 25 years.
And I've seen how the neighborhood has changed
and how it's grown.
And it's great that we're adding more housing
and we're trying to get more people a chance to live there.
But I also want you to understand a little something
about our neighborhood.
Our neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks.
We have lots of kids.
I'm the old guy on the court now.
We have nine houses on Buenos Aires Court.
Six of those houses have changed ownership,
and they all have young families there.
And those young families all play in the court.
They all are learning how to ride their bikes the same way
that my kids were learning how to ride their bikes.
And the main path that they take is down Buenos Aires Court.
Turn right on Third Avenue, and you head out to the open space.
or you head out to Larky Park or in my daughter's case,
she was an interpretive guide over at the Lindsay Museum
for about 10 years and so when she was a little kid,
she'd walk around, head over to the Lindsay Museum.
That area is going to become incredibly dense
with this project.
To the other people's point here,
there isn't enough parking.
You know, we all use our garages for other purposes.
Cars don't have a place to park.
they're gonna park out on Third Avenue,
there are not sidewalks out there.
If you walk out at eight o'clock in the morning,
you'll see people running past,
you'll see people with their dogs.
If you go out there at three o'clock in the afternoon,
you'll see kids running up and down
and riding their bikes there.
And if we choose to let the property density go forward
and we don't put proper sidewalks
and we don't put proper pedestrian stuff in,
it's a safety hazard and something's gonna happen.
Hello, I'm Dot Edwards, I live, Terry and I live right next door to Jim and Cynthia,
so we're the properties that will be very much affected by this development.
One of our concerns, or I guess our concern primarily is the trees, and we have redwood
trees in our back, and of course, if there's a grading and all of that that's going on,
don't respect property lines, so our redwood trees that we have are going to be perhaps
badly affected by this development.
But other than that, we took out trees permitted, we took trees out by permission in order to
install solar.
So we spent money getting trees out, money installing solar.
We have an electric car.
Now, if this development comes in, I don't know what—I couldn't quite understand what
the landscaping plan is with trees coming in, trees coming out, how big the trees are
going to be coming in.
I just don't want trees coming in that are going to make our efforts to have solar invalidated
because we're going to end up with these huge trees right behind us, and their property
directly abuts our property.
that's our concern. So thank you very much. Mike Granger from Lark Lane. I had a
couple of comments. One was I was concerned about the overall height of
the building, the second story. It seemed ambiguous in the planning documents as
it implies it's going to be 25 feet but also mentioned it's going to be up to 30
feet high. I'd like to see it restricted to the 25 feet height. The second thing
is obviously there are lots of windows that overlook individual's properties, we've mentioned
it here. I can't see why there can't be an added stipulation of putting frosty glass
opaque windows into things like bathrooms or hallways. I'd appreciate it can't be in
bedrooms, but in areas where it'd be less intrusive for both the neighbours to be looking
at each other. It also, particularly if in this plan, where there's only three foot,
six foot between some of the lots anyway. The last question we've talked about, this
grass area by lot six.
Why can't it be removed entirely?
Why do we need it?
We could argue we have a park within a quarter of a mile,
within walking distance that everybody's using.
Why is it necessary to be there at the expense
of a 3.5 feet side area for the Collins?
So anyway, thank you for your time.
Good evening, everyone.
My name's Nick Burke.
I live in Walnut Creek and I am Michael's neighbor
Larky Lane. I guess I want to say what I what they all said so I won't take too
much longer. My principal concerns are really frankly the density and the
problems I think that will cause. Just down the street in Larky towards Geary
there was a development put in, I think in 2019, two lots were combined into
one I think a developer there were two half acre lots so one acre in total they
put four single-family homes on that lot there seems to be adequate parking
there they have two car garages there's parking sort of inside that larky court
but invariably there's overflow parking that kind of runs up to the larky market
which is on the corner of first and larky that corner from larky to third
is on kind of my daily dog walk and it can get a little congestion with cars
coming up third. Unfortunately people use Larky Lane kind of as a cut-through to
get to BART or 680 because there are no stop signs on Larky Lane and so people
can go too fast. So maybe that's another meeting. So my concern principally is I
I think just the density and the kind of issues
that that could cause around parking.
I can't remember the gentleman's name.
But yeah, there are no sidewalks really
on that whole side of Third.
Never has seemed to have been an issue
for people walking, riding.
It's a busy place.
And I think, too, Michael's comment about Larky Park
being just around the corner is great.
It's a great place to build community,
to share kind of an open space together.
It's always busy.
It's just around the corner.
I think we could do probably with a few less units
on that lot, but appreciate all your time here.
Thank you.
Hi, my name's Mark Croy, and I'm here on behalf
of my 95-year-old mom who owns the property at 1920 Third
Avenue, which is adjacent to the project.
I would echo that of the previous speaker
I think the density is too high for the neighborhood.
And when you look at the parking issues that will flow out on inevitably
Florida street, I want a couple of homes, one of them in a Pittsburgh neighborhood.
And I can tell you from when this is, they kind of following the same building
plan, these cars do end up all over the neighborhood because.
Although this is going to have an HOA, as I understand it, which may
alleviate some of that, but I still think that you're going to have rental issues in there,
you know, single-bedroom rentals and along with it will come extra cars, and just the
density of the project doesn't fit the neighborhood.
And I think that it will generally, I mean, it's good to have additional housing units,
cramming six houses onto point seven whatever it was of an acre is just too
high. It's like apartment buildings at this point in the middle of single
family dwelling neighborhood. So I would ask that the density level be reviewed.
I also worry about the fire access going down a non-standard width road to
which basically is a T or a hammerhead what they call just for fire engines to
maneuver in that tight space at the end and you do multi-stories
So you're not going to go in with an engine that you know doesn't have a ladder
You know you're going to need to have some support that way you need to review that I think that's under the fire
California 15.20
fire
Provisioning so I would just ask a review on the density if you can reduce it somehow I'd appreciate it and thanks so much
My name is John Fuller. I actually live in Concord, but I own a home on Keith Court, which is directly across Third Street from this development.
We're a family living.
One of the concerns I have is, and I'm not that familiar with this project in terms of the details of it,
and there's, and one of the things you had mentioned earlier is there's no
surrounding
presentation of any things that are but this on any of these maps, at least almost none of them.
But what I am concerned about or I would be concerned if I was an next-door neighbor is the fact that I'm assuming
They're changing the grade on this property because they have to start to make everything drain toward that that
Clean water device the the detention facility or whatever you want to call it
And one of the other
commenters had mentioned that they're going to be putting retaining wells on the property line and I would like to see how they're going to
Be changing the grade at the property line because this entire area is sloped from Larky down toward
Down Third Street. It's all downhill
And so if they raise the site and put in a retaining wall
There's an issue of what's going to happen to the surface drainage that is you know when it rains
And it just sheets off of the property
It used to be able to go from one property to the other if they put in a retaining wall now
Now there's nowhere for that water on the uphill property to go.
It has to go somewhere or it'll pond against that retaining wall, one or the other.
Or it will concentrate it and put it out on some other corner of the property.
So I think that this development and when you present this stuff in the future you need
to be showing how the grade is going to change on the property line between one property
and the adjacent property if they're going to be putting in retaining walls that will
significantly raise the elevation of adjacent property and potentially brought
drainage from the upstream property. And also that if they raise it that in turn
makes the house that's two stories even that much taller looming over the
property next door. Any other comment cards? All right then we'll move on to
Commissioner comments. We're closing the public comment and moving on to
Commissioner comments. So who wants to start? I can start. The first was
something I sort of saw looking at the map after this conversation came up
about the setbacks and can we have I guess the landscape plan brought up
again. My question has to do with the possibility of moving the bioswale to
lot where house number three is and if you look at that map, that lot is
slightly larger, correct? So if you were to draw a line, say, from where the crook
in that fence is on the front facing and go straight back to make that side yard
the same as the adjacent side yards, could you not fit the bioretention area
in that space there and then move those houses down
and get a bigger setback, warehouse number four is?
I guess that's not a comment, I guess that's a question.
We'll take the comments and we'll have a discussion
with the developer at a later date.
Okay, it just seems to me that that's a big enough lot
to make some room on it.
The next is talking about the trees.
So I think that I understand the theme,
wanting to have a theme,
but I think that everyone in this room
and myself included feels that the native trees
and the loss of those native trees is significant
and that maybe we need to take a step back
and put in native trees where instead of higher water,
non-native trees.
So there are, we could, there could be live oaks,
native sycamores, chalopsis,
which is a really beautiful native tree that does well
in drier climates and has pretty flowers.
It's gonna be a little bit more decorative,
like a magnolia redbud also,
which is native to this region
and is more decorative or even buckeyes.
So there are a lot of choices that could be used
and I would strongly recommend that those trees
that go in are native trees.
I also think that if the shrubs themselves,
that the species that are in the bioretention area,
I think is a really solid pallet,
it's highly native centered.
I think that if the pallet of the larger collection
of plants could have at least like 50% native species,
that would also be a nice compliment to the design.
And I also have a, there is a sidewalk going in, correct?
Yes, there is, because there was question about that,
but then I thought I heard that there was.
And I think that's the extent to my comments.
So my comments, that was a great comment
about moving that bioswale
and possibly moving four, five, and six down,
and that gives us potential room to save that black walnut.
I'm just saying.
So, I would like for that to be considered.
I would also like the developer to consider the elevation
on the left side of the house
that faces not only that back corner of number four,
but also Third Avenue in house lot number one,
because it's the least attractive elevation in your pallet,
and I would like for you to do something with it
to make it more palatable.
Then one comment is the developer mentioned
how much the affordable housing component is costing him
in order to get that density bonus.
So I would ask why they need the density bonus
if it's costing them money,
and in which case maybe they can decrease it
to five units instead of six.
I would just like for that to be considered.
I agree with the height restriction
in view of the surrounding neighborhood.
I think 25 feet is, as you had originally,
discussed it is probably enough so I would like for that to be considered and then
I mean it I think I would echo
Pretty much what everybody said I know I've been through a few of these. I'm
I'm the one person who's been on this
These are these are new members. So I've seen these projects come in and I and I know there's nothing that we can do
about the density, I mean, I do,
it is worth asking the question
if the affordable unit is not viable,
then take it out and get more space around it.
But I assume that's, it does affect the viability.
So I'm gonna not say that.
I'd say I like the revised color palette.
I'd say, you know, I think the landscape architect mentioned
that they could recover one tree if possible.
say make it possible. I also heard comments about the wood retaining wall adjacent to
the highest side of the property. I really think that should be a concrete wall. That
would be my recommendation. I do question the 25 feet versus 30 feet. I think is the
highest elevation plan to be 25 feet? Let me explain how our roof heights work.
For single family or residential projects that have roofs, I think it's 70 or 75% of
the roof area has a 3 in 12 pitch or greater. The total roof height at Ridgeline can be
be up to 29 feet, and that is consistent consistent with a 25 foot height limit.
And that's throughout throughout the city. Okay. But that's at the ridge line. Okay
so that nothing to say there. I like to comment about frosted glass at bathroom
windows that that helps I would recommend that. And definitely echoing
and the response about the native trees.
Architect comment, let's make sure that the trim
and the bands are all minimum of two biomaterials,
so you get a nice shadow.
Those are my comments.
So I guess the way this is gonna go, Chip,
is we're not gonna make any motion,
we're just gonna-
Well, what I'd like to do is just,
I think I've captured most of the issues
that you've discussed,
And then if I haven't remind me
and then we can just kind of reach consensus,
we need, you know, two hands to say
that this is a viable issue to pursue.
Okay.
Okay.
So the first one was take a look
at moving the biosquales to lot three,
which would shift in turn, shift the house on lot four,
further down, increasing the side setback
and also potentially preserving the walnut tree.
Did I get that?
Do we have consensus on that?
Yeah.
Okay, and then use native trees instead of magnolias
and what are the other tree that's called out?
Yeah.
And I would suggest that the suggestion would be
to use native trees that are listed
on our highly protected list.
Phil?
Yes.
Okay.
Study fenestration on the elevation
on the side of lot four for privacy issues
to the adjacent neighbors.
Yeah?
Yeah.
Also, take a look at replacing the wood retaining wall
with a concrete retaining wall.
I don't know how high that wall is, but we could,
is that a consensus item?
With the fence on top, yep.
Okay, and provide some trim detail,
Make sure that the trim was at least, say two by four.
Yeah.
Okay.
Have I missed?
Yes.
Yes.
So lot one and lot four,
I requested that that side elevation
that faces the neighbors and faces the street
have some attention to detail.
It's very plain and it looks like.
So as I would ask that they take a look at that elevation
and- Which elevation or?
The left, so the elevation on the left elevation on lot one
and the left elevation on lot four.
It's a plain wall.
So like a change of color, change of material.
So around the front, it's a different color on the top.
Continue that around the side or something.
Break it up.
Spice it up.
Yeah.
Before we wrap this up, can I ask a question on,
this is again about that easement.
So like is unit six, is that right up against the easement?
Okay.
Where's the easement boundary?
Where is the easement?
Also it's off property line.
Yeah, I mean, so I think that's a great, great idea
to maybe try to move the bioswale.
I mean, I think that if that could be done,
that and then that, I mean, so the bigger comment
that could be could that be moved so that building four could four five and six could move down the
page maybe save a tree get a little more setback that that'd be a great improvement i mean it's
we're not these are nothing is cast in stone here so you're going to work with staff and if it can
we're if it can happen enough it's not it's not it's just just get rid of the easement it's not
happening okay I think we're good thanks all right so I think we're good then
right any other comments well there is also some issues about the HOA maybe a
condition that would require maybe parking one at least one car in the
garage or what else was that what else did I hear the trash yeah the trash has
to be kept inside the garage and that they have to park in the garage so we
can discuss that okay cool there was one other item and it was in regards to
density bonus and the extra unit and that that that density bonus unit was
costing them so it will get an explanation on that and figure that out
okay are we all yeah I mean I had added more native species in the mix but I
think that that would be good okay plant pellet as well plant pallet we can add
that okay okay so I think we're done that with that agenda item then right
correct okay so let's move on to commissions considerations so do we
have any Commission considerations, Chip? We do not. Okay let's move on to
Commission member and staff reports and announcements. Does anybody have a staff
report or announcement? Staff does not. Excellent. So then I think we can adjourn.
Thank you.