Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

difficulty for people that are online. Okay, we're good now, all right.

All right, thank you. So the areas noted in the kind of orange color, those are where the addition will occur. So the front elevations on the left, the rear elevations on the right. These are both the side elevations. Again, with the areas noted in sort of the orange color being where the addition is proposed. And here's the site plan. So you'll notice that a lot, the big portion of the addition, or if not all of it, is located sort in the rear of the property and a little bit to the side. And then here are the proposed floor plans with the first floor on the left and the second floor on the right. So the project is subject to the city's adopt a single family and duplex residential design guidelines. And it is found to be in compliance with those guidelines and that the project is utilizing high quality materials compatible with both with the neighborhood and the historic nature of the house. The proposed reform and the material of the roof are also appropriate for the type of architectural style. It's a Queen Anne architectural style. And the project is designed to reduce privacy impacts by primarily locating the addition towards the rear of the property and along the street side. The project has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA, specifically sections 15332 and then 15331. And so lastly, staff does recommend that the hearing officer determined the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA, per the sections noted earlier, and then approving the significant property alteration and architecture review permit. And that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, Tracy. So do we have an applicant that's here? All right, so please come up to the podium. Just state your name and have a doesn't have to be a preposition or anything, but just things that you want to say and support your project.

Hi. My name is Robbie Iannucci.

My name is Lainey Iannucci.

And I don't really know what to say, but we're happy to answer any questions.

I guess we can talk a little bit about the project. And so we moved a whole two blocks to this location. We lived on Clifford for the past, what, 11, 12 years, and then had a very small house with three children of mixed genders in a triple bunk bed and decided we need a slightly larger place. We looked throughout Santa Clara. We love Santa Clara. We love the old quad. We love our school, Washington Open. And so we knew we had to stay within that district. We looked at modern homes, which were, you know, beautiful on the inside to stay for maybe a day as a hotel experience, but not something that felt like home. Walked into this very strange, wacky, used to be a bed and breakfast property. And I'm sure our real estate agent thought we were crazy, but the two of us were like, this is absolutely beautiful property. And we want to turn this back into the single family home that it once was. And so that is the process that we're on is removing, you know, sinks that are in bedrooms on carpet. And the addition that you see in the orange that maybe looks scary is actually the part that is already there. We are knocking that down and rebuilding in the footprint because when it was originally added on, it was not made to match the floors. So both levels of the floors do not match. And we've already had multiple injuries and band-aids with the children who have fallen over those steps. as well as been advised from our structural engineer and contractors that it should be for safety reasons and for, you know, be rebuilt. We'll have our architect.

If you have any questions with like the structure itself, you know, the challenge was, You know, it was kind of butchered up interior as a bed and breakfast. And the addition was, you know, poorly done and just wasn't consistent with the historic fabric. So, you know, our goal was to just bring it back to a nice historic residence and have the addition now be consistent with the historic. And so I think we accomplished that as, you know, as the architecture. And part of the problem was too, the addition, the basements, the lower level didn't match either. So it was just poorly constructed. So we kind of tied the whole thing together as a whole and made it a beautiful home again. And that was our goal. If you have any questions, we're happy to answer.

Thank you. I don't have anything to sign, but let's see if there's any members of the public that bring up anything.

Okay, thank you.

So now open up to the public. Is there anybody in the audience here or online who wants to speak? Please raise your hand. Okay, seeing none. So yeah, I don't have any questions. I know this went to the Historic and Landmarks Commission, the unanimously recommended approvals. So I do respect their insights and recommendation for this project. So I will close the public hearing and I will determine the project to be categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act for the infill as well as the historical resource restoration rehabilitation exemptions and approve the significant property alteration architecture review for this project. Consistent to it, the findings and the condition of approval. So you are approved. There's a seven day appeal period. So work with Tracy beyond that. So thank you. Okay, next up is item number three, Public hearing action on architectural review, PLN 2600207, 431 square foot first floor addition to add a bedroom and a 338 square foot covered deck addition resulting in five bedrooms. This is located at 517 Bancroft Street. The CEQA status is exempt pursuant to existing facilities. So I'm just gonna ask, is there anybody, other than maybe the applicant that wants to speak on this item. I don't see anybody online. I know, I think we intended to waive the presentation because we didn't think there was any comment that we heard, but I will open it up for the applicant. I believe they're online. Maybe they just want to speak to their project.

Sherry Campy and I am the owner with my husband, Richard Campy. We're here to answer any questions you might have adding that extra bedroom downstairs because we don't have a master bath. We have a half bath downstairs. So this will allow us to age in place.

Thank you.

And my name is Cynthia Munoz from Stecker Northway Architects. If there are any technical questions about the project, I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Good to see you again. I worked in Palo Alto on a project. Okay, do we have anyone from the public then that wants to speak on this item? Just asking again. I didn't have any... Questions or comments on this one? I think it was pretty straightforward. I think you guys did a good job with kind of meeting the guidelines and it was a straightforward addition. So with that, I'll close the public hearing and I will approve, determine the project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to existing facilities exemption and approve the architectural review Or is project subject to the findings and conditions approval? So there's a seven-day appeal period to work with on this one. Well, that is it, you're approved. Okay, item number four, and then I know there'll be a comment on this one, is a public hearing action on architecture review PLN 2600188. City Council Chambers, is for 517 square foot first floor addition and 1000 square foot second floor addition to existing three bedroom one bathroom single story single time residents. City Council Chambers, At 2261 retail court the proposed sequel status is exempt the sequel pursuant to an infield development so Alex I think you have the presentation.

Yes, children. Thank you so much. Good evening, everybody. Alex is associate planner here with the city of Santa Clara. And tonight we have two, two, six, one read a court as described by the development review officer. The request is for an architecture review for the first floor addition in a second floor addition. This item is tonight at the hearing because any new second story element requires approval through a development review hearing under Santa Clara city code 18.1 30.0 30. This property is a 6,272 square foot lot. It is surrounded by other similar uses being single family residential R1-6L. This is the proposed front elevation for the proposal. It's turning the house into a modern farm style home. The applicant has worked with staff to redesign the elevation to simplify the mass forms and to add some accent materials and also to modify the entry feature. Here's the site plan. On the left is the existing and the right is the proposal. The second story is 20 feet away from the property line. It's required by our design standards. But measuring from the rear, I guess, mass of the second story to lot 41's living space, it's over 54 feet from the structure. This was the property that had concerns about the development, and I will describe more Here's more detail on the floor plan, which was the, on the left is the existing and the right is the proposed first floor. And this is the proposed second story. The windows facing the rear are for egress due to fire standards. That's why they're dimensioned that way. The goal projects that go through architectural review need to make sure they're consistent with design guidelines and objective standards. As mentioned previously, this project does meet our objective standards under the R1-6L zoning district, and also complies with the single family and duplex residential design guidelines. that were approved in 2014. The building height and bulk are appropriate relative to the neighborhood as the second story element is substantially set back from the first floor wall as the other two story residents in the track. The proposed architectural features of the structure are appropriate to the neighborhood as they're derived from other features found in other residents across the track. Also, the materials are working in conjunction with one another, and they are consistent with the proposed architectural style of the building as there are typical materials and found in modern farmhouse style residence. As mentioned previously, we did receive some public comments for this proposal. As required by our early notification policy, we mail out 51 notices to 51 owners, tenants within 300 feet from the project site. We did receive one comment in opposition. The rear neighbor has privacy concerns due to the proximity of the second story element. At the time of the staff report was written, we didn't receive any comments. We did receive right after the agenda was posted by the same neighbor, they had concerns about the landscape condition of approval, mentioning it wasn't strong enough to reduce the privacy concerns that they have. Staff based on that feedback and also the documentation given to the development review officer suggests and proposes that a tree will be planted for the landscape that is tall and evergreen and fast growing and to be planted in a site that will, I guess, increase the privacy of both this property and also the neighbor's property. All projects needs to be evaluated to be compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act. This evaluation was determined that the project is categorically exempt under guidelines section 1533-2, which is a class 32 infill development project due to the site being less than five acres. It is served by utilities and it's complying with the general plan. Therefore staff is recommending that the project be determined exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the architecture review for this first floor addition and second floor addition to the existing single family home with the findings and conditions of approval. The homeowner and the architect are online for any comments or questions.

Great, thank you, Alex. Right now it's the opportunity for the applicant to present. You may not have a presentation, but please speak to your project. And then also, I do understand there's been some comment and hopefully you were able to review those and maybe you'll be able to respond to some of those here. So if you can raise your hand, we can get you to speak. Okay, I'm gonna start with Nandita. Nandita, you should be able to speak now.

All right, thank you. Hi, I'm the property owner from 22618 Accord. Thank you for the time and opportunity to speak a few words. My name is Kasturi. My wife, Nandita, and I are on the line. Our family has been residents of the city since 2018. We enjoy all the recreational activities offered to our toddler, and we very much appreciate renovations taking place across the city, across, for example, Henry Schmidt Park on Saratoga Avenue. The city has a lot to offer. We would love to call the city our home with our growing family. Having said that, we have aging parents that will want a place to stay when visiting their grandchildren. And so that's where this design for this property came from, where the current property being only 1,075 square feet with one bathroom, it's not adequate for our needs, for our family, for our extended family. And it's always been our intention to expand this property to accommodate that family. And we're finally in a position to do so. And so thank you for this hearing. This project is exciting for us. It offers us a downstairs bedroom for visitors and the grandparents to stay, and it affords us privacy by way of having a second story that has bedrooms and bathrooms for our immediate family. Throughout this process, we have explored various designs, taking into account all the requirements, including that of our own privacy and of our neighbors. And we understand the concerns raised, and we very much appreciate the planning division taking a thoughtful approach in hearing the concern and addressing it. And we are looking forward to working with the city and our neighbors in, you know, in kind of this approval and seeing this project through to permitting and completion. Thank you for your consideration. Laura, who is from our design team, is also here to explain a bit more about the architecture. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I'll go ahead and invite her in. So Laura, you can now speak. Laura, are you there? It's available, but she's not sure what's happening there. But I guess while that's getting sorted, I have a question for you then. Hearing the Reading some of the comments from the neighbor, what kind of window coverings are sort of proposed for that second story in the rear?

Hi.

Oh, okay. We got Laura now. Okay.

Hi. Yes. So in regards of the privacy, we want to say that in the design, we didn't do like no second floor balcony decks or terrace or any elevated outdoor living areas are proposed. So we are 40 feet between this property and the neighbor. So we thought it was a meaningful distance between the two homes. We know that the city was asking for some landscaping in the rear yard that we are planning to include. We have a public utility easement. We will do some landscaping that is appropriate with these requirements and the requirements of access to the public utility easement.

Okay, yeah, I think I understand that there's a condition. They mentioned shrubs and bushes, which I don't think are gonna really address some of the concerns because they probably don't it wouldn't rise or grow above the fence line so i think that's why um you know i think alex had mentioned the tree and of course staying out of the you know any required easements um so is that something that would be acceptable go ahead you guys are still um i mean the owner yeah go go ahead

Yeah, I mean, thank you again for the concerns. We completely understand the concerns. We also care about our privacy. And I think we're kind of okay with working with the city through the building permit in kind of coming to an understanding on where the tree can be located with respect to this public utility easement, et cetera. We just wanted to clarify if it's one tree or multiple trees, but I think we're generally willing to work with this condition of approval on our side and kind of understand where to place a properly sized piece of landscaping.

Okay, we may need to keep it more flexible we'll hear from sure we'll hear from the neighbors as well, but just want to understand this time and then just I had a question about any window coverings that you would have like it might be blinds or curtains I mean are those proposed.

I mean, as part of this architectural plan, we don't have any coverings. I think those are kind of interior finishing. We're not planning any exterior window coverings. But given that these rooms will be bedrooms, we are expecting to have some level of interior finishing. That side of the house is also where the sun sets. So we definitely will need some sort of window treatment to kind of reduce the overall sunlight coming in.

Okay, thank you. All right, so right now, I'm going to invite members of the public to speak. And so I'd like you guys to just stay online, be muted, and then you'll have an opportunity to speak afterwards in response to anything that the public may say, okay? So next up, then, I'll ask if there's any members of the public that want to speak on this item. Okay. Come forward to the podium.

Good afternoon, Commissioner. I'm a little nervous because I don't do much public speaking, but I did put together a speech so that way I don't miss anything. So my name is Dora. This is my husband, David. We live directly adjacent to the rear of the proposed pocket debt. Just want to be clear, we are not opposed to our neighbor improving their property or adding a second story. We came here today to ensure that our privacy is adequately protected through the appropriate landscaping, just as importantly, through a careful evaluation of the real world elevated sight lines into our home and outdoor living space.

Just make sure you're by the microphones because they're picking us up.

And that is our actual courtyard. You will see that our home was specifically designed in a U shape facing the backyard with floor to ceiling windows surrounding the living area. For the past 17 years, we have enjoyed our open views of our backyard while maintaining a sense of privacy. It is important to us that we are able to preserve that experience moving forward, given the design and placement of our home. We are simply asking for a solution that allows us to continue and join our property with the same reasonable expectations of privacy that we nearly had for two decades. So today we're presenting three boards that will show the real world privacy impacts on our home and why additional protection is warranted. So how do you grab the board? So board one is the direct property relationship. First board shows the immediate relationship between our one story lot and the proposed two story. The project introduces a substantial two story mass directly behind our one story at approximately 25 feet. It will face our backyard, courtyard and indoor living space. protecting both our privacy and the existing open sky view. This photograph is the perspective that matters. This is our home, our courtyard, our living spaces. And this is the critical point. If we can see that second story from here, the occupants of that second story can see back towards us. This is the elevated sight line we're asking the city to address before it becomes permanent and cannot be undone. This concern isn't simply seeing a larger house. It's the combination of height, mass, close proximity and elevated living space directly facing the private areas of our one story home. The red arrows show the areas of concern our backyard courtyard kitchen and interior living spaces. We're asking the city to look beyond the plans and consider what this actually means to our home and privacy. And importantly, the city's own design guidelines,

I've got a copy here, so no worries.

Okay, sorry. And more importantly, the city's own design guidelines state, a proposed two-story design must demonstrate that it protects the privacy of neighbors. That is exactly what we're asking the city to evaluate here. Does this design actually protect the privacy of our one-story home? So board two is the sight lines into our home. A project can meet height and setback requirements and still create a real privacy problem for the neighbor. The plan shows a two story at approximately 11 feet, eight inches, rising to a maximum height of approximately 25 feet. Our home is one story with an open courtyard. Our courtyard is surrounded by large windows and glass sliding door. the second story rising behind us, those private areas of our home become much more exposed to an elevated view. These aren't just windows. They're the spaces where we live every day. As you can see, I don't know if Our fence, lattice and pergola provide ground privacy, but they cannot screen elevated second story views. At night, our courtyard and interior spaces become much more visible. This is the view the plans cannot show you, a 25 foot occupied second story rising directly behind our living space. That's why we're asking the city to look at the actual elevated views In lot 14, not just whether the height and setback numbers meet the requirement. Board three, and I'd like to address the condition P2 and landscaping. We do appreciate that the staff recognizes the privacy concern by including condition two, which calls for a rear landscaping to reduce visibility between the properties. One tree is not going to make an impact on our privacy. The real question is, will P2 actually protect our privacy? P2 is intended to protect the privacy of lot 14. The city should first verify that it will actually work. P2 calls for bushes and hedges, but it doesn't explain how they will be screened, elevated to elevate a second story view into our property. Bushes and hedges cannot block a 25 foot second story. As written, will not protect our privacy. P1 is very specific about the tree requirements, and we're simply asking for that same clarity with P2. Since G3 already requires the conditions to be shown on the building permit plans, and P6 requires the landscaping to be maintained, We're asking that P2 clearly identify lot 14, spell out privacy landscaping and show it on the approved plans before the building permit is issued. We're asking that P2 define what will be planted, where and at what height and density. So the privacy protection is real, effective and enforceable. not something just left open. Our request, our action before the impact becomes permanent.

So if you can.

Oh, sorry, sorry. I'm giving you guys a couple more minutes here. We're just asking that our privacy be reasonably protected as part of that improvement. So we just request if the city can consider a few practical measures, repositioning or raise the second story windows facing our home, use clear story or obscure glass windows where appropriate and require specific and effective solutions under P2. Whatever solution the city determines is appropriate, we ask that it be clearly defined, shown on the approved plans and enforceable before the building permit is issued. Meeting the code is one thing, protecting the privacy of our home directly behind this two-story elevated mass building is another. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to speak regarding this item? I see no one else. So now, Laura, Nandita, now that you've heard the neighbors and their concerns, it's the opportunity now for you to respond to that constructively, of course, in a way. So giving you guys the opportunity now to do so. OK, you should be able to speak now.

Yeah, thank you. So as I mentioned, this project is exciting for us. It offers us kind of privacy within our extended family, having a first and second story. And throughout this process, beyond the requirements in the design guidelines, we've taken into account the requirements for our family, including that of making sure that this property would afford us reasonable privacy with respect to all of our neighbors. The plan right now calls for bedrooms in the rear of the property. And so that is also very much a private living space for us. And we fully acknowledge and understand the concerns raised by our neighbors and thank you for that. And we're looking forward to really engaging with the city here on taking a thoughtful approach in addressing the concerns. As I mentioned, we're okay with the current kind of conditions and we're happy to take that through the building permit process in whatever level of specificity needed.

Okay, thank you. um so yeah i'm not creating a debate or anything between um the property owners the architect and neighbors and and myself i just just now just doing everything i'll be able to at least come to some kind of resolution for the project and i think i understand first of all thank you for the detailed i got the documentation here in the multiple pages and uh it's it's very nice that you guys put that together and clearly you guys are very passionate about The issue in your in your property so i'm not going to go over your the code requirements, because I think you guys are very clear about they can have a second story and they meet they meet the setbacks a step backs. You know really the privacy issues we try to focus on the side property lines, because those are there's a lot less space there we're talking about five feet typically maybe up to 10 feet between. And then you also assume that there's another 20 feet for, you know, the adjoining properties. And then you have the issue with, we see high sill windows on the side versus the rear. Again, because you want to, we're more concerned about, I think, the privacy on the side than the rear. You need to have the access windows, or in case there's a fire emergency, you need to get out. So you need those egress windows and you put those in the rear. I think the issue really, what we can do is really bolstering this condition about the landscape. I don't think bushes and hedges are really appropriate because again, I don't think that's gonna really grow that very much above the fence. There are types of columnar evergreen trees that grow kind of quickly. have a smaller footprint so maybe you could do multiple trees i don't know if we could specify right now what that looked like but we can draft the condition that could at least get the intent of what we're trying to do and i heard the you know the applicant um saying they want to engage with the city i i want to you guys engage with the neighbors right because there's going to be this construction project going on and clearly it's it's um making an impact in a way so i think you guys need to get together right and and talk a little bit and strategize about um about the landscaping so i think that's um i think that's the condition that i want to alex i don't know if you've been drafting anything do you have any ideas i can put something together but i free me you might have something for the rare, so this is P2, and I think it's like the owner or designee shall develop a landscape plan that shows evergreen columnar trees with the intent that would obscure sight lines from the um from the proposed um second story addition that's to the extent that we you know we can do we just have to base it on any species that are really appropriate that will grow in that space and considering any of the of the easements that are on the ground You need to go to.

You're looking at the width of the house.

Sorry, you're looking at the width of the proposed development home, which there is no landscaping there. The only thing there is, is one mature avocado tree, which belongs to us. Other than that, that is complete open space. So I'd like to understand and how one tree or the type of trees is gonna be very important to cover that entire space. Our courtyard in the evening with them on a second story is they're going to be able to look into our home. I invite you to come to my home and actually take a look at how close the feet from our back of our home to the fence line. It is in your face right now. And that is how that second story is going to rise above us. We are going to be looking at a tall mass of home. That's fine. The windows are going to be looking down into us. More importantly, during construction, that's where the privacy impact is going to start because we are going to have construction workers working on the second level, looking into our backyard if P2 is not implemented before building permit is issued.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so I think I've heard everything. I appreciate that. There's some species of trees. I'll just throw one out there, maybe like a pittosporum. It's kind of a smaller type of tree that grows fast, columnar in nature, evergreen. To consider, construction impacts are going to be they always happen and they're just kind of temporary. I'm hoping that people are doing work and they're not looking into your backyard, right? So, or the same thing with your neighbor, you know, it's kind of awkward to be glancing, you know, so let's, you know, we got to, we live in an urban area and I think I just have to kind of understand that. So the best I can do, I think here is to add that condition that I mentioned. So with that, I will close the public hearing and I will determine the project to be exempt from, California Rental Quality Act pursuant to an infill development and approve the project subject to the findings, the condition approval, including the newly drafted one. So the project is approved. You have the opportunity to appeal to the Planning Commission if you feel you think they can do something different for you, that's fine. You have seven days to do that. But otherwise I do like you guys to work together. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to the next project. So item number five, in case you missed it, that one was withdrawn by the applicant. That was indicated early on. And that was 128 Cronin. So that was item five. So moving on to item number six. This is a public hearing action on architectural review PLN 2600273 for the demolition of an existing single family residence and the construction of a 3,317 square foot, five bedroom, five bathroom, two-story single family residence. And this is located at 2288 Manhattan Place. The sequence status is proposed exempt pursuant to an infill development project. Alex, you have this one.

Thank you, Sheldon. This is now item six, as mentioned, is 2288 Manhattan Place. Again, my name is Alex Diaz, Associate Planner here with the City of Santa Clara. As mentioned previously, the request tonight is an architectural review for the demolition of an existing single family residence. They're here to construct and propose a 3,322 square foot, five bedroom, five bathroom, two story single family residence. It will have an attached two car garage of 459 square feet. This project should do to be demolition requires an architecture review approval through a development review hearing under Santa Clara city code 18.1 20.2 point seven. The existing site is a 6,863-square-foot lot. It is surrounded by other similar uses, single-family residential, R1-6L, and has a general plan designation of very low-density residential. This is the proposed rendering for the project. It's a monocular-style home. On the left is the existing site plan, and on the right is the proposed site plan. As you can see, the lot is not square. It has an interesting geometry. So to meet our guidelines and setbacks, the project has, as you can see, some mass breaks in articulation. On the left is to propose first floor on the right is to propose second floor, as you can see the step backs of the second floor for this project. They meet our standards. All projects in front of the development review hearing need to meet our objective standards and design guidelines and being consistent. This project, after being reviewed, does comply with our city's single family and duplex residential guidelines as the building height and bulk are appropriate relative to the neighborhood as the structure has a larger than required front and side setback, which creates mass breaks between the entry foyer and the second story fourth bedroom. The proposed architectural features of the structure appropriate for the neighborhood or they are deprived from the features found in other modern but not current style homes found in the track. All materials and finishes are working in conjunction with one another and are consistent with the style proposed. This project also had an early project notification due to being a two-story structure. Notices were mailed out to 85 property owners and tenants within 300 foot radius of the site. Staff received no public comments for this proposal. 10 days prior to this hearing tonight notices were also mail out to notify the same 85 property owners of the public hearing and staff received no comments prior to the public, a punishment of the. notice. This project was evaluated to be consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. That's how the projects need to be. This project was determined to be categorically exempt under the guidelines section 1533-2, which is a class 32 infill development project. As the project site is less than five acres, it is served by utilities and complies with the general plan. Therefore staff is recommending to the project be determined to be exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act. and also to approve the architectural review in front of you tonight. The applicant, the homeowners and the architect are here in person and they're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Right, thank you. I'll invite the applicants now to podium to say a few words in support of your project.

Sure. My name is Kyle Chen, I'm the architect of the project, and I'm here together with my clients, David and Alice Wen. And yeah, we're here to answer any question, but first of all, I just wanna briefly describe the project a little bit, because again, privacy is very important for us. So we designed the house to push it as fun as possible. And we did reach out to the neighbors and we actually received some of the consent letters from the neighbors and is included in the application. In terms of the windows, we maintain at least 15 foot on size and at the back is at least 25 to 28 feet away from the property line. So yeah, we're here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Now I'll see if there's any members of public who want to speak on this item. I see none in person or online. I don't have any questions for the applicant or staff regarding the project. So I will close the public hearing and I will then determine that the projects exempt from the California environmental quality act subject to infill development project exemption and approve the architectural review subject to the findings and conditions of approval. So you have seven day appeal period. So do you work with your planner Alex on that? Thank you. The last item is a public hearing and it's an action on architectural review PLN 2500417 or an approximately 236 square foot first floor addition and new possibly 960 square foot second story addition to an existing single story family residence located at 1855 De La Pena Avenue. The SQL status is new construction, exemption or conversion of small structures. Tracy.

Thank you. Tracy Tam presenting on the item at 18755 Delapano. So as noted, the request before you today is an architecture review permit to allow for a first floor addition and a new second story of approximately 960 square feet to an existing single family residence. The architecture review permit is required because there is a new second story proposed. The existing site project site is located on de la pena kind of in between the two intersections that you see on the screen there, we also know decided is located in a primarily single family neighborhood. As indicated by the yellow color and everything nearby is owned r16l same as the project site. And so, this is the rendering of the project from the front elevation Luna it's a two car garage a porch. A couple shutters and a bottom grounding material. So this is the proposed site plan you'll notice that the second floor more or less sits on top of the first floor and so provides a larger setback exceeding 50 feet and complies with the side setback requirements and the front setback requirement as noted in our zoning code. And so, this is the proposed floor plan on the left hand side you'll see the first floor noting that the two car garage family room living room kitchen and a bedroom on the first floor. The second floor being comprised of three bedrooms and three bathrooms with like walk in closets things like that. So as noted, the project is required to comply with the city's adopted single family and duplex residential design guidelines. The project is found to comply with those guidelines and that the project does include a step back from the second floor exterior wall to the first floor exterior wall. The second floor is also, the square footage of the second floor is also less than 66% of the first floor, approximately 60% of the first floor. It does include high-ceil windows on the second floor. One of the side elevations doesn't have any windows, whereas the other side elevation has high-ceil windows. And the project does include exterior materials that can be found in the neighborhood and also a porch, which a lot of the homes in this neighborhood do have a porch as well. And so, because it is a new second floor proposal, the city did send out early notification of this proposed project. Not really any public comments were received. I did get a phone call about it, but it was more asking about other construction projects within the area, but not necessarily this project. And before this hearing, staff also did send the notice of public hearing and around 61 notices were sent out, but staff did not receive any further public comment. The project is found to be category exempt from CEQA section 15303 for new construction or conversion of small structures. So therefore staff recommends that the hearing officer determine the project to be category exempt from sequel and to approve the architecture review permit for an approximately 236 square foot edition first floor square foot edition square foot. First floor addition and an approximately 960 second stories for fit addition to an existing single story single family residents. And that concludes staff's presentation. I believe the applicant team is here as well.

Thank you, Tracy. All right. So I will now invite the applicant to speak at the podium.

Hi, I'm Tom Wachowski. Oh, this is Joanne Lynn.

Yeah, we, uh,

Appreciate the opportunity for the hearing. We're looking forward to having the extra space for us and our daughter. Grand's parents will also be there for some extended visits. And we definitely appreciate the isolation that a second story would provide, as well as my own sanity. Yeah, if there's any questions, I would be happy to field them and hear as well if there's anything you can help with.

Thank you. I don't have any questions at this time, but we'll see if there's anybody, members of the public that might have any questions or concerns. So thank you. So now I'll invite any members of the public that want to speak on this item. Please raise your hand. Okay. Thank you. Please come to the podium.

Even so, I'm the neighbor directly behind the building. So I just wanted to know if a similar measure can be implemented for any type of plants or trees that's fast growing to kind of help with privacy concerns.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Is there a person online? Okay, so now hearing that, the request for, is that if you come back to the podium, just a response to that, if you're amenable to that, any issues or concerns?

Yes, absolutely um we'd actually it's not currently in the plan set, but we had been planning on putting a row of the small form factor, but tall and. I believe that cutting first trees you'd mentioned something with a smaller footprint, but a higher elevation along the back wall, we would also appreciate the privacy from the neighbor side and absolutely amenable to a condition to. Okay, thank you.

All right, with that, I'll close the public hearing. Tracy, do you have a condition proposed? It might be pretty similar to, I guess, what Alex had used.

That's correct. And you mentioned we would probably be able to do something similar as the prior project and stating that prior to the middle of a building permit that the site plan or otherwise landscape plan must indicate added landscaping towards the rear to ensure privacy impacts are maintained.

Okay, that sounds good. All right. Seems to head nods maybe You want more specific than landscaping, like a tree? or something tall or like a columnar type.

I have a question regarding to the utility because our backyard, we used to have three palm trees that's fairly close to the power line. And I think the city had to remove those because it was too close. So I don't know if there is similar concern here that we are talking about, hey, we're gonna put the trees, skinny tall trees there, but in reality it's like too close to the power.

power lines. Yeah, we definitely need to stay away from the utility easements. And yeah, palm trees are not very good in that situation.

So I think we got it.

I think we got the condition regarding landscaping to kind of secure some of the sight lines. So I think that sounds good. So I'll determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. City Council Chambers, pursuant to new construction and then I will approve the the architectural review subject to the findings and conditions, including the new condition regarding the landscaping in the rear, so thank you that's approved as a seven day appeal period for that. City Council Chambers, So thank you for your participation today now adjournment I now adjourn the development review hearing at the time of 501. The next regularly scheduled meeting is on September 16th, 2026 at 4 p.m. So thank you.