Lafayette commission approves variance for front-deck trellis at 1060 Leland Drive, 2-1

The Lafayette Design Review Commission on June 23 approved a hillside development permit and variance for renovations to a carport, deck and trellis at 1060 Leland Drive, voting 2-1 to adopt staff recommendations and conditions.

City planners said the application would replace an existing, long-standing carport and second-story deck with a renovated carport wall and a shaded flat roof (described in project documents as a trellis). Nicole Zettle, the city product planner, told commissioners the 0.24-acre parcel sits on the eastern side of Lafayette across from the Leland Reservoir and occupies a historic 1934 subdivision pattern of narrow rectangular lots. Zettle said the property’s existing deck and carport already sit about 5 feet from the property line while the R-10 zoning district requires a 20-foot front-yard setback; the proposal would maintain the existing 5-foot distance rather than increasing the encroachment.

The project team argued the trellis and raised slatted guardrail would make the front deck usable year-round by reducing wind and sun exposure. “The existing deck is an amenity that leads off of the main living room of the home,” Patrick Perez, the project architect, said. Perez said the owner, Gino Regalia, had limited usable backyard space because of a steep hillside and sought to make the front deck more habitable. Regalia told the commission he had repeatedly lost temporary shade devices to wind and that the proposed permanent shade would allow his household to use the deck more safely and comfortably: “I’ve gone through, I don’t know, at least 10 to 12 umbrellas each season,” he said.

Staff reported the proposed trellis would reach just under 17 feet in height, well below the existing building ridge height, and that three existing cherry blossom trees on the property would remain to partially screen the frontage. Zettle said staff found the project consistent with the Hillside Overlay District design guidance (noting neutral materials and muted colors) and recommended the commission find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approve the project via Resolution R2025-09, subject to conditions.

Commissioners split over whether the application met the required variance standard. One commissioner said the variance standard requires showing a physical circumstance that leaves this property unable to enjoy what other property owners can, and expressed concern that the proposed façade and tall railing would read as a heavy, unarticulated mass from the street. Another commissioner emphasized the deck and carport are existing nonconforming features built decades ago and said the renovation is a reasonable effort to make the space usable and consistent with the rest of the house. After discussion, the commission approved the staff recommendation with an added condition that the flat deck rail height be reduced to a standard guard height—specified in the motion as 42 inches or the equivalent agreed with staff.

The motion to adopt the CEQA exemption and Resolution R2025-09 passed 2-1. The commission’s action is subject to a 14-day appeal period. Staff noted the application was noticed at least 10 days before the hearing and that the city received one written comment expressing concern about the stucco and slatted screen appearing as a looming mass, plus a letter of support from the neighbor at 1056 Leland Drive who sits at a lower elevation.

The commission’s approval requires the applicant to complete the conditions in the staff report, including the lowered rail height resolution with staff, and to address the identified structural repairs stemming from prior unpermitted work. Commissioners and the project architect discussed that the existing deck had structural issues after a previous contractor’s work; the owner said the contractor did not finalize permits and the deck materials failed, creating the need for replacement.

If appealed, the city will process the appeal within the local review period; otherwise, the applicant may proceed with permitted construction once conditions are met and required permits are issued.