Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves setback variance for tiny East 5th Street lot after neighbor objections
Summary
After more than two hours of public testimony and staff presentation, the City Council approved a variance to allow development on a substandard, 2,500‑square‑foot East 5th Street lot by accepting the Planning Commission’s two‑story design (Exhibit B) with side setbacks modified to 4 feet each; neighbors cited safety, parking and CEQA concerns.
The National City Council voted to approve a zoning variance that will let a developer build on a substandard, 2,500‑square‑foot lot on East 5th Street after hearing extensive public comment and a staff presentation.
Planning Division staff member David Welch told the council the parcel is roughly half the size of a typical RS2 lot and that the applicant sought reduced minimum lot area, street frontage and setbacks to allow a single‑family residence with an accessory dwelling unit or a two‑story version shown as Exhibit B. "The lot is 2,500 square feet… it's substandard per our code," Welch said, describing the site constraints and the three findings required for a variance.
Neighbors urged the council to deny the variance. Daisy Alcantar, who said she lives next door and is a nurse, told the council the project would eliminate critical spacing and could block emergency access: "Cutting these setbacks eliminates vital spacing. It physically blocks access for paramedics and firefighters," she said, asking the council to "put our neighborhood safety first and deny this variance." Alex Fernandez raised procedural and environmental concerns and questioned the staff’s CEQA exemption recommendation.
The applicant’s representative, who identified herself as Vanda (Flavia) Gomez of Offset Design, said the team revised the design in response to neighbor comments and that Exhibit B — a two‑story schematic — provides larger front and rear setbacks and would allow a carport to be added through a subsequent engineering/curb‑cut process. The representative said the owner plans to sell the finished home to a family and that the two‑story design was developed ‘‘to be consistent with the adjacent homes and the surrounding neighborhood.’’
Council members discussed parking, on‑site access and the limits of local authority under state law. Planning staff and council members noted that state law (including provisions affecting ADUs and local parking rules) constrains what conditions the city may impose and that parking requirements near transit are limited.
Council member Rodriguez moved to approve the Planning Commission recommendation (Exhibit B) but to set the east and west side setbacks at 4 feet each. A second council member supported the motion; the clerk then announced: "Motion approved with council member Bush absent." The motion did not include an explicit numeric roll‑call tally in the record.
What this decision means: The council’s approval allows development under the two‑story Exhibit B configuration, subject to the conditions and building permit review described in staff’s report. Off‑street parking, curb cut and driveway width issues will require a separate engineering review and, if necessary, a separate variance or administrative permission for the curb opening. Members of the council emphasized they expect the applicant to work with neighbors on final design details and noted the subsequent building‑permit process will include additional checks.
The public hearing record includes neighbor objections focused on public safety, parking impacts and whether the project’s CEQA exemption is adequately supported; those objections remain part of the record even after the council vote. The council closed the public hearing and moved to the next agenda item.
