In a recent planning commission meeting, significant concerns were raised regarding a proposed residential project on Via Cardolina, with neighbors expressing strong opposition to the size and design of the new home. The discussions highlighted issues of privacy, neighborhood compatibility, and adherence to municipal codes.

Neighbors, including Rebecca and Carl Swan, voiced their dissatisfaction with the revised plans, arguing that despite some adjustments, the proposed house remains excessively large—almost twice the size of surrounding homes. They expressed worries about a new balcony overlooking their property and the impact of a substantial retaining wall on their privacy. The Swans emphasized that the house's height and mass do not align with the character of the neighborhood, which they believe undermines their enjoyment of their property.

Kevin and Annette Lindquist, unable to attend the meeting, submitted a letter through a representative, reiterating similar concerns. They criticized the applicant for not adequately addressing previous feedback from the planning commission, particularly regarding the distribution of the house's mass across the property. They argued that the current design still looms over their home and suggested further lowering the house or shifting its second story to mitigate privacy impacts.

Other residents, including Bob Van Nuys and Mike Herren, echoed these sentiments, stressing that the proposed structure's scale and height remain incompatible with the neighborhood. They called for additional modifications to enhance privacy and reduce the visual impact of the new home.

In response, the applicant's representative defended the design, highlighting efforts to minimize impacts on neighbors, including significant setbacks and a lower roof pitch. They argued that the design is the best possible solution given the lot's challenges and urged the commission to consider the project's reasonable impacts.

The planning commission is expected to deliberate further on the proposal, weighing the concerns of the community against the applicant's arguments for the project's approval.