Neighbors press city board over proposed second‑story addition, driveway and tree loss at 967 Garcia Road

The Single Family Design Board heard a pre‑application consultation for a proposed major remodel and additions at 967 Garcia Road and continued the item indefinitely with detailed requests after multiple neighbors raised concerns about scale, setbacks, driveway alignment and tree removal.

Applicant Adam Graham and designer Risa Hong presented a plan to remodel a 2,202‑square‑foot, two‑story 1946 house, replace mechanicals and roofing, convert lower‑level space into a legalized accessory dwelling unit, construct a new detached 400‑square‑foot garage and a 322‑square‑foot cabana, and add a roughly 476‑square‑foot third‑story element. The applicants reported the proposed total of about 3,419 square feet on a 14,374‑square‑foot lot (roughly 80% of the stated floor‑area guideline). Staff emphasized this was a one‑time pre‑application consultation and that staff had not completed a zoning compliance review.

Multiple neighbors speaking in person said the project felt outsized for Garcia Heights, questioned technical calculations and raised privacy and construction‑impact concerns. Connie Barcliff, a neighbor across the street, asked why the applicant classified the work as a “remodel” rather than a “substantial redevelopment” and urged staff to confirm whether substantial‑redevelopment thresholds apply; staff confirmed that a substantial‑redevelopment affidavit is required at application if more than 50% of foundation, walls or roofing are structurally replaced. Kevin Sheridan, who lives 130 feet from the site, warned of construction impacts and told the board: "All of that work will be noisy, will be complicated, will be shaking my property and all the whole neighborhood." Several commenters also said removal of mature trees (including an orange and a macadamia) to create a new driveway would reduce privacy and habitat.

Board members and staff identified a set of requested follow‑up items before formal submittal. The board voted to continue the item indefinitely and asked the applicant to provide: a neighborhood study focused on the 20 closest houses to establish compatibility; clear documentation and calculations for floor‑area ratio and the project’s classification with respect to the city’s substantial‑redevelopment thresholds; elevations and sections for the proposed garage and cabana; a landscape plan that preserves or replaces mature trees (staff noted the city generally requests 1:1 replacement for trees 4 inches or greater in diameter, subject to native status and other standards); and a solar/solar‑access study. The board also recommended the applicant study moving the added massing so the second‑story element fits more centrally on the house where feasible to reduce perceived intrusion into the front setback and uphill neighbors’ views.

Action: The board continued the pre‑application consultation indefinitely and recorded a motion with the comments above. Roll call: Board member Mosley — yes; Board member Richards — yes; Board member Grafati — yes; Vice Chair Sherry — yes; Chair Andrew Lewis — yes. Motion passed.

What’s next: The applicant may revise plans and return with the requested neighborhood study, FAR calculations, garage/cabana elevations, landscape/tree‑replacement plan and solar study. Staff reminded neighbors that substantial‑redevelopment affidavits and documentation will be required at application if structural replacement thresholds are exceeded.