Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay, cool. Uh, welcome to Planning Commission. Tonight's March 2nd, Lafayette Planning Commission. Um, we will go ahead and start the meeting. It's just about 7:00 and we'll start with attendance and roll call. Uh, Commissioner Leange present. Commissioner Deorgio present. Commissioner Mason present. Vice Chair Deming present.

And I'm Commissioner Chair or Commissioner Radnich. I'm here. Can I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I

um item four on tonight's agenda is public comments. So to right now is an opportunity if you do have comments that you would like to make for an item not on tonight's agenda, now would be the time if you want to fill out a speaker slip and hand it to staff. I don't see any for items not on the agenda and staff's indicating there's none online. Okay. Item five, consent calendar. We have one item to continue the item without discussion to March 16th. Can I get a motion to adopt the consent calendar? So moved. Second.

All in favor? I. Item 6A, new public hearing. Um, this one is a request for multiple things. State uh density bonus, major subdivision, grading permit, category 2 tree permit, and it goes on. So, I'll turn it over to staff for presentation.

Thank you, Commissioner. Um, sorry, just waiting for the presentation to show. So, so good evening everyone. Um yes, as as the chair stated, um this is a request for a state density bonus um and design review, major subdivision, grading permit, category 2 tree permit, public art permit application, which is being processed under um SB 330, which limits the project to a maximum of five public hearings. In addition, the project is being processed pursuant to AB130, which establishes a stat statutory exemption for certain environmental review requirements. Um, this is the context slide. Um, the property info includes the site which is located at 3458 Mount Diablo Boulevard. Um, the lot size is 64 acres. The zoning is C1. The general plan um designation is downtown east and district. The surrounding land uses are to the north multifamily residential to the south the McDonald's uh to the east mirror gardens and to the west uh commercial office complex.

So, the project went through um a a study session um May 12th in 2025 and as well as a public meeting February 9th, 2026. And um this slide summarizes the key changes since those meetings which includes um a reduction from 31 units to 30 units. Um a height increase from 58 to 62 feet 3 in massing um added upper level stepbacks on the southeast and west elevations to reduce perceived bulk. uh the main facade along Mount Diablo. Um they replaced the dog wash bike storage area with two commercial spaces on the ground floor. They expanded the planting area and added trees along Mount Diablo frontage. They reduced the thickness of balcony posts, opened trellis elements above the balconies, removed the horizontal band banding to simplify the facade, and eliminated corrugated metal panels and replace them with light gray cement plaster. The current submitt replaces um a previous proposed uh as mentioned earlier the dog wash and bicycle storage area along Mount Diablo Boulevard frontage with two new commercial tenant spaces. The residential entry at the corner of Mount Diablo Boulevard and Second Street has been refined into a more defined entry plaza with integrated stepbacks and pedestrian walkway. Additionally, a public art program will be developed within the entry plaza. The updated plans show expanded and more continuous planting areas along both frontages. Additional street cheese trees have been added to soften the building's presence.

At the study session and public meeting, the design review commission provided feedback regarding density, building massing and height, balcony projections, banding, and the main facade along Mount Diablo Boulevard. The revised design introduces more stepbacks at the upper floors. Materials are now used more intentionally with lighter materials framing edges and darker materials emphasizing the recess planes. Ground floor glazing and storefront elements are more prominent. The balcony placement and window groupings appear to be more varied. Two commercial tenant spaces um are now included along the street frontage. reduced thickness of balcony posts, open trellis elements above balconies, and removal of the horizontal banding to simplify the facade. on the rear um elevation as seen from Orchard Hill Boulevard. The revised plan include a staircase to improve access from Orchard Hill Court and um incorporates upper upper level stepbacks and the horizontal banding was also removed on this elevation. on the left elevation. Oh, on the right elevation as seen from Second Street. The design review commission expressed concerns about the two-story parking podium, particularly along Second Street and Mount Diabo Boulevard. The podium was described as a two-story blank wall for pedestrians. The applicant attempted to address the DRC's concern by adding residential units, wood siding and architectural detailing, refined entry plaza, and um remove they remove the horizontal banding and and eliminated the corrugated metal.

And on the the left elevation, the the design review commission commented that the design of the building was boxy. In response, the revised plans incorporate stepbacks at the uppermost residential levels, add trellis elements, and upper level decks to further break up the building's bulk. This is uh the level one and two floor plans. The level one um floor plan includes 29 parking stalls, two commercial units, a mail and package room, trans facility room, long-term bike room, and uh the lobby area. Level two includes 25 parking stalls, uh, two two bedroomedroom very low income units, uh, commercial mezzanine, fitness room, lounge, restroom, electrical room. The level three floor plan includes two and threebedroom units. Uh private and shared outdoor space and level four includes uh two and three bedroom units, one two bedroomedroom medium income units and private decks. Level five in includes two and threebedroom units. It features private decks. Level six all includes three bedroomedroom units, private decks, a dedicated residential club serving as a primary indoor amenity space for all residents. The parking and access plan um on level one access is from second street. There are, as mentioned earlier, 29 parking

stalls, a 24 foot drive aisle, uh five foot pedestrian circulation, and level two includes access from Orchard Hill, uh 29 parking stalls, 24 foot drive aisle, and 5-ft pedestrian circulation. Um, regarding the landscape and and open space, the design review commission emphasized the importance of landscaping to soften massing and reduce boxiness, especially at the podium level and along facades. to address the DRC's feedback. The revised plans include um on the first level continuous planting areas along both Mount Diablo Boulevard and Second Street to break down the building's massing, a visible residential entry plaza located at the corner and a public art program. Street trees are proposed along the main facade on Mount Diablo Boulevard, storm water treatment. And on the second level, the perimeter of the building features outdoor patio decks that wrap around the residential units. These terraces include a mix of raised planters, seating areas, and shared gathering spaces accessible from common areas. The outdoor spaces are directly connected to the resident lounge. The roof plan, um, there are two designated areas. um are enclosed by mechanical screens to hide HVAC and other utility equipment from public view. Uh staff roof is centrally located. The elevator roof is positioned near the central center south. Multiclar story elements are distributed across the plan providing natural light to the levels below.

This is the um material and colors board. Um as far as sighting and panels, the there will be composite wood siding panels, wood composite panel dark in dark gray, cement board wall panels. Uh the metal finishes includes uh perforated metal panels for the balcony railings. And as far as concrete and glazing, CIP board form concrete wall, cement plaster wall in smooth and gray, aluminum windows in blue gray color, and um a green screen wall. This is a rendering. Um to the left is the street view and southeast corner. And to the right is the aerial view street frontage. And this rendering on the left is a view of the entry plaza to the commercial space. And the rendering on the right is the eye level view of the commercial spaces. The project also proposes a major subdivision. Um they are proposing to remove uh the property lines that divide parcel three and four and removal of an existing 5-ft sewer easement uh to create 30 condominium units um to commercial units and common areas. Regarding tree protection, under the city's code, all trees and commercial zoning districts are protected. removal requires approval and mitigation. Um the existing and proposed removal

includes uh 20 trees and um the removal includes 18 trees to accommodate the building equipment. The driveway access and public improvements. The requment requirement includes 18 replacement trees in 15 gallon size. Uh the proposed mitigation includes three 24in box white crepe middles and three 24inch box fairy magnolia. Uh the proposed mitigation does not meet code requirements and a waiver is requested under state density bonus law. The the project proposes a density of 23 dwelling units per acre, which is well below the maximum 3 35 units per acre allowed under the C1 zoning district. Um while the co while the code requires 10 feet for the front side and rear, the project proposes between 0 to 10 ft to accommodate the building footprint on the corner. Waivers are requested for the minimum required setbacks. The maximum height is 35 feet, but the project proposes a height of 62t 3 in. A waiver is being requested for the height as well. The code requires a 10-ft landscape setback from any property line. The applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce this to between zero and 10 ft. The project um complies with the the parking requirement in terms of the the number of parking spaces regarding inclusionary housing and density bonus. Um

the the site has a base density of 35 units per acre which allows for 23 by right units. Applying the 15% requirement to the 23 unit base results in 3.45 below market rate units. While the 0.45 fraction would normally trigger and enli the city has not yet adopted a fee resolution. So only the whole units are required. The applicant is providing three below market rate units, two very low units and one moderate income unit. By providing these affordable units, the project qualifies for a 27.5% density bonus under density bonus law. So the total allowable units combined with the 5% credit for lot consolidation under the housing element allows for a maximum of 31 units. The applicant is proposing 30 units. The city's municipal code requires that affordable units be dispersed throughout the building and be comparable to market rate units in both bedroom count and exterior design. The project consists of 30 total units, 27 market rate and three below market rate, including 20 two-bedroom units and 10 three-bedroom units. The proportional BMR requirement is two twobedroom units and one three-bedroom unit. Um, all threebedroom units are twobedroom configurations. The two very low income units are situated on the second level east of the garage. Because the BMR units are all two-bedroom units rather than a proportional mix of two and threebedrooms

and are concentrated in in specific areas, the applicant is requesting a concession under state density bonus law. This specific design concession requires approval by city council. the applicant. Um, regarding a density bonus, uh, this table summarizes um the the waivers that are being requested. Um, waivers are are allowed for the project if they phys if um they physically constrict the design. Under state law, a waiver is is a request to deviate from developmental standards that would otherwise physically preclude the project from being built as at the proposed density. Unlike concessions, there is no statutory limit on the number of waiverss an applicant can request, provided they directly relate to the physical necessity of the construction. Concessions are deviations from local requirements intended to result in actual cost reductions for the development. Because this project includes at least 5% of its units for very lowincome household, it is legally eligible for waivers and one concession under state density bonus law. The applicant is currently requesting a series of waiverss covering parking design, height, landscaping SK setbacks, minimum size and rear yard setbacks, building design, third story step back and um as well as the uh tree protection replacement requirement and uh and a concession for the inclusionary unit bedroom count and distribution.

The the project is being processed under AB130 which mandates consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes. A formal meeting was held on January 14, 2026 in involving the tribe, the applicant team and the and city staff. Uh protection of cultural resources and and tribal monitoring. The the tribe has requested active monitoring during ground disturbing activities. Um, specific protocols have been established for the treatment of any tribal cultural resources found during construction and all requested protective measures are incorporated into the project's formal conditions of approval to ensure compliance. The project was referred to out other outside departments and and um agencies. Uh the city engineer um mainly this mainly this commented on the the garage access from Orchard Hill Court, the location of two nose in parking spaces, the replacement of deteriorated sidewalks, and um storm water treatment. The fire district um needs to ver verify the water supply. Um determine compliance with emergency escape and rescuing open requirements requires a land development permit and um fire district approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. Um, regarding the sanitation district, the applicant is processing a quick claim for an existing 5-ft sewer

easement. And, um, the public art committee noted that the building's blocky design and emphasized that art must be accessible to the public, not on private rooftops. and the landscape consultant noted that um there were concerns around the tree replacement ratios. These were the two um storm water treatment options that the applicant proposed um to address the site's runoff. The our city engineer prefers option one. This place this option places the treatment facilities along street second street. It is the fer the preferred choice because it aligns with the site's natural drainage allowing water to flow by gravity. This follows LI principles. It's more reliable and carries lower operational cost because it does not rely on mechanical pumps. The primary downside is the removal of three on street parking spaces along Second Street. Uh option two, which would be located on Mount Diablo Boulevard, um will have alternative plate treatment facilities along that street. Um there are it would um while this preserves one extra parking space compared to option one, it requires a a pump system because of site grading constraints. Um the engineer re view views this as a secondary option due to higher construction costs, increased maintenance, and a significantly higher potential for system failure over time. At the February 9th meeting, the the design review commission selected option one as the preferred option.

Because this is a new multifamily development in downtown in the downtown specific plan area, it is subject to phase one objective design standards. Um this slide summarizes where the project meets the the standards um for outdoor space. Um 43 points were achieved where 25 were required. Um ground level plaza and commercial glazing provide high visibility and pedestrian engagement. Under creek and landscaping they met the requirements provides 240 square ft of planting and two treat street trees or two trees in the front setback. Um under parking and circulation they met this standard. All parking is within the building podium. No no no surface parking in the front setback. Regarding height and scale um they met the the standards for they they receive high articulation scores through balconies material changes and fenistration variations regarding building design. um they would be able to meet that with a waiver. While the second floor exceeds the 95% floor area limit due to the parking podium, upper levels, third and roof feature significant setbacks. The downtown design guidelines provide a qualitative guidance for development within downtown Lafayette and are intended to implement the vision of the downtown specific plan. The project reflects several of the downtown design guidelines objective as the as described in in the staff report.

The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan as described in the staff report. Um for land use um the land use element um mix mixeduse support aligns with go LU-8 policy LU-83 by proposing a new development that inc integrates residential units without conflicting with downtown retail focus. It has um economic benefits consistent with go LU9 and policy LU91 by providing ground floor commercial space intended to serve local needs and achieve the tax and enhance the tax base. Um for the circulation element um it has multimodal mobility pedestrian connectivity supports C-6 through a well-designed system of walkways that connect the site to the downtown core and public transportation. um alternative transit burders go C-8 and policy C-82 by providing 23 bicycle spaces encouraging safe cycling alternatives to single occupant vehicles. Um house under the housing element inclusive growth vibrant downtown promotes go to and policy 2.2 two by encouraging a mix of residential and commercial uses through coordinated downtown zoning. Uh fair housing and choice address go five and go six by introducing new housing choices two and three bedroom units and three dedicated below market rate units. Infill efficiency consistent with go 8 and policy 8.1 by utilizing an existing infill site to leverage current

infrastructure efficiently. Um growth management element coordinated planning land use coordination meets go C-4 by coordinating circulation planning with highdensity residential diverse housing option fulfills go H2 and policies H2.1H-2.7 by developing diverse housing types in a commercial area where visibility is maintained and infrastructure is optimized. The project has been evaluated in accordance with SQUA and is determined to be statutoily exempt pursuant to AB130 as described in the staff report. As part of the standard process, we mailed notices to all owner own earner owners within 500 ft radius and posted notices in the immediate area. Um the public comment was uh attached to the staff report. Um therefore, uh based on the record as a whole, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution number 2026-02 recommending that the city council approve the project subject to conditions um under exhibit A. This concludes the staff report. Um feel free to ask any questions. We also have the applicant team here and they also have a presentation as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Um I'll ask commissioners. Are there any clarifying questions for staff? Commissioner Mason? Yes. Um concern is the waiver to reduce the drive val width from 26 to 24 ft because it's been 26 forever. Can you pull up the first and second level plans? I wanted to see where the handicap uh accessible parking spaces are because I was mostly concerned about handicap uh vans being able to operate in the reduced uh uh driveby and if it pleases the commission we could ask the applicant to address that in their presentation or rebuttal.

Yeah, that that's correct. I was going to give staff the the first option and then you know commission can weigh in. Okay. So, I think we'll save that one then for the applicants team and then if we need to follow up with staff, we can. Thank you, Commissioner Mason. Any other questions? Okay. Any others for staff? Commissioner Deming. Sorry, can you just clarify again the below market rate units? Um, those three two bedrooms and no three bedrooms, but you also said they were located kind of in one area, which I know is all I didn't catch where they were located. They're located um adjacent to the parking. Yes. Got Okay. Yeah.

Sorry. They're on the parking level. So that was it was that they're on the the second floor. It wasn't they were necessarily like grouped around like the entrance or something like that. Yeah. I think the applicant can demonstrate where they are locationally and if that's not available to the applicant during their presentation, we can share that as well. Are are you prepared to bring up the uh Monica, are you prepared to bring up the Yes, I have their presentation. The plans to illustrate. Yes, I have the too. Yes. Commissioner Leange,

just was curious. are was were story polls required of this and if not I mean I don't know how high story polls go but I'm just curious if they were I I would I didn't see them they were not required of this um the applicant said that it would be difficult to install the story pools as there were existing there existing tenants on on site I'm Sorry, they're existing tenants on site.

Okay. Is there anything in in staff and I'll just for applicant to maybe they can answer this too. Anything visual that we can see tonight that would show the relative height of this proposed building to anything around it either in block massing or any other form. I didn't see it in the report so I'm going to assume the answer is no. So, I'll just let the applicant answer that one. The applicant might have um you know, they have ren renderings, but um I don't know if um the applicant prepared anything regarding regarding that.

I think for anything that's got waiverss of height, just high things, we should always have that. It just I'd hate to look back two years and have you know people in town go you guys didn't know how tall this was you know so anyways [clears throat] any other questions staff. Okay. Um would like to welcome the applicant team if the applicant team would like to present for 10 minutes. You don't have to if you would like to. [laughter]

I don't know if that one is plugged in. So maybe if you What am I going to the particular if you're going to be using a laser pointer? The angle of that from a seated position directly in front of the commission is questionable. So I would ask you to use the lect turn standing and the microphone is if you press the button it should become active. You can tap it to N. Yeah, that is Hello. Yeah, perfect. That's on. Thank you.

Good evening to the planning commission. Uh my name is uh Guts Frank and uh with me here is uh Paul Pharaoh. We are principles at Ascend Architecture and we are the architects on the project. Uh the planning commission uh and Monica they already gave a excuse me do you mind um maybe raising the microphone? Oh sorry can you hear me now? Yeah. Is that better? Yeah. Thank you. Oh oh oh yeah. Okay.

So um yeah the the planning commission's uh presentation was already quite extensive. So we wanted to focus more on uh maybe showing you some of the renderings and then highlighting the changes that we've done uh to the project. Um we had already a number of meetings and uh we tried at after each meeting to incorporate the changes uh into the project and make the project uh a better project also uh responding to the comments. So uh maybe next if we can go. So uh here uh you can see a rendering that is from the uh south uh southeast side from Mount Diablo. And that was uh uh the previous version. And then if you go next so here these are the changes that we incorporated uh after the last DRC meeting. So we have removed uh these facade bands that were on here on the uh on the facade to to uh to give more uh calmer massing and and a more unified app appearance. Uh we also opened up the trelluses that are up here so they're lighter and and that is uh open up the view to the sky. We have uh reduced the frame around this balcony, pulled it more inwards and make it more lighter. And we changed the the material spec uh for these wide volumes that uh occur all around the building from corrugated metal to a more warm white stucco uh

which uh the DRC thought was asking us to propose a material that was less uh urban and and a bit more in harmony with with a more rural environment so That's what we came up with. So next, so this is uh the view from southwest from Mount Diablo. And so again, that was the previous version. And then if you go next, that is basically that's now a version with with all the updates. You can see here on the corner uh the more softer uh less shiny material. This is the stucco. Uh we added also a tree to the front uh of the facade just to provide more landscaping in our uh uh for our building. So you can go next. Uh this is a view from Second Street across the street. There's an existing large tree here in the foreground and uh there's no change since the last iteration but this is was a view that we showed already the last time. It's just showing the the level of street activation that we tried to achieve with uh with the project. So we have this large lobby twotory lobby space on the corner. There will be uh an art work placed uh on on the twotory space here behind this screen. And we have a small entry plaza here at the corner with steps where you can walk down. And here you can see the tree that we incorporated in this walkway. And that walkway leads to two commercial spaces that the applicant also added after the first uh meeting. with a design review board. Uh and then

on the side you can also see we uh that we added these two residential unit in the in the podium to uh yeah to to uh enliven the the podium area and the parking program is really uh almost entirely wrapped by activated program. So there is parking on the inside here but on the outside you cannot really it doesn't look like a parking garage. So next uh yeah these are just uh the area plans. You've seen them already. So we can go next. Um this was a graphic just showing uh the the areas that we pulled back after uh the first meeting. So where we just tried to uh reduce the uh roof plan like like the upper floor plan you can see all areas in green were uh pulled in so that the the building recedes back on the top. Okay. Next. Um, and that is also a uh comparison to the to the initial uh to the initial scheme that we presented after and then the changes that were made after the first DRC meeting. So you can see that the the large four story element and and a bigger presence to the front. And then on the right hand side you can see how we basically pulled this down. So it's now a threetory element and the top is pulled in. So next uh this is showing you the uh the old version on the ground floor had a bike parking and a dog wash and then the comment was that the DRC desired to to have a higher level of activation of of

the pedestrian space. So then on the updated version you can see that the uh that the applicant added two commercial spaces. Um and so uh yeah we thought that was a actually a great commitment by the applicant because uh it's obviously not uh easy to operate these commercial spaces and really find uh tenants. But uh yeah so next and there you can see the second floor of the podium. So, the old version was was uh the parking garage here. And you can see there's more of that parking garage uh was basically facing Second Street. And then on the updated version, you can see how we added two residential units there. So, you know, to line that parking garage more with with an activated space. So two of the you you had a question before where the uh below market unit would be located. So here you can see uh these two units are uh the very low income units. So they're on the second floor and then if you go maybe next hopefully we have a plan there. No we don't. Uh but on the fourth floor and I can show you later on another floor plan. Uh the other uh middle income unit is on the on the fourth floor. Um so uh these are uh just uh renderings showing the level of activations ground uh at the ground floor level. So this is the view that you saw before from uh second street. Uh, and then down here you see a more aerial views. You see this little plaza situation with a with a large entry and with with these louvers there on a on a corner to give depth to the facade. And there will be

an an art installation that we will um coordinate with a with a art um commission. And then on the left hand side you can see these two uh commercial spaces uh that can will have outdoor seating and uh will be accessible along here. Uh yeah. So next uh we just added uh this slide because there was a concern with with the balcony at the at the DRC. they they were um voicing concern whether the balcony is is is quote looming or or is overlapping the public right of way. And we just added this to to point out that the that the whole building is actually set back by 10 ft from uh from the back of the sidewalk and there's planting there. And then even within the facade where the balcony occurs, uh, it occurs in a in an area of facade that is set back a further 2 and 1/2 ft. So the the balcony is really just only protruding like 3 ft out from the uh from the main facade plane. And that is still set back 7 ft from the back of the of the sidewalk here. Uh next uh yeah so so we have looked at a side drainage option already. So if you go next I mean there's I think there's nothing to add the uh the only thing is that uh actually we we we were able to fit four parking spaces here in the front and we have one. So in terms of parking spaces, we actually believe that this is also um um equal to the other option and uh anyways this option was preferred I think by by everybody. Uh

and then next. So if you go next we can just scroll. Oh, this was just just maybe for for your information. This is an an area because there is this number of excavation which seems very high on the face of it when you hear oh there's 2,600 cubic yard of excavation. Um this is actually just showing you that there is no excavation uh happening in in the front uh of the site and we in fact try to uh locate the building within the site with as little uh of of interference with with the current condition as possible. Uh but you can see the how the topography slopes to the back and as we go back and we are establishing this podium for this parking here there is this excavation in uh incurring there on the back

that's 10 minutes chair okay thank you do you mind wrapping up your presentation yeah I think uh we we're through with our we wrapped perfectly on time, but we are here for for uh any if you have any pre uh questions questions. Okay, thank you. Um so yeah, uh questions for the applicant team. We'll start with Commissioner Deorgio. Hi there. Thanks for the presentation. Um so I want to clarify on the storm water options one and two. Did I hear you say that you've managed to make the uh the parking spaces neutral to the options? That is there are the same number of parking spaces for each option or did I misunderstood?

Yes. Yes, I think so. Yeah. Mhm. Mhm. So, option one is the option that you're presenting. Um, yes. Uh, can you help me? That was confusing with the option numbers. Yes, option one is the applicant's preferred option, the um city engineers preferred option, and um the DRC's preferred option. Perfect. Commissioner de Georgia, did you have any other questions? That's great.

Okay. Commissioner Mason, did you have any? Yes. Uh I had mentioned it earlier. Could you walk through the location of the handicap accessible parking spaces and address any concerns about the reduction in the drive by width as it pertains to handicap accessible vans?

Oh, for sure. Mhm. Um uh if we could go uh back maybe to a first floor plan where if you could just keep Yes, there we can see. So, so our uh handicap parking spaces, they are located on the on the ground floor uh over here. Oops. Over here. So, we have here. So, we have a we have a van accessible here and a regular here. And then we have two here on the other side. and uh and uh the users would then walk over here and then they have direct access uh to the lobby here. They go right in in there in the lobby and there's an elevator and that they can go up. Um we we don't see that there is uh we don't think there's any uh concerns with a 24. uh I mean 24 is actually in a lot of cities that is the the standard width but uh even here is you can see that it's really widening up where the actual ADA occurs is is is even wider here and uh because you know we have this kind of weird geometry and the bottleneck really occurs here whereas here it's it's opening up further. Um,

thank you. Yeah. Any other clarifying questions for the applicant team? Commissioner Deming.

Uh, for the blow market rate units. Um, first sort of question. It was three twobedrooms, no threebedroom, and I mean buff not to ask like why not having a three-bedroom below market rate unit. I mean the site the [clears throat] this is a this is a very uh it's it's a very tight site and and to make all the the floor plans work uh is quite a diff difficult task and then of course there there are the the the pressures for for the for the applicant also to to to make the the project financially uh pencil and and and he had basically uh we have uh the top floor is reserved for larger units, more for families and but these are also the the units that yield a higher um you know return for the project. So I think it was just very hard to to incorporate that uh within the floor plan. So that's why he's asking for for a concession here. And I I maybe want to remark this is this is not unusual that this concession uh is granted. We we we actually re referencing another project here in Lafayette that also was working under similar pressures and and they asked for that concession and uh it was granted.

Um I mean I I

it's also I mean may I may I add to it? I mean it's a I mean in that project size you have I mean it's not that um how can I say there is I mean we we only have 30 units and and we are we providing uh three two-bedroom units so I mean they are pretty standard units I mean it's not that we are providing three two studios and one bedroom or so. I mean, they they're kind of in in in the center of the program that you would typically uh provide for for for units. Well, that's actually my follow-up point is that two out of the three units are at a certain point in my life being easily accessible to the parking space might have been a, you know, plus. Um, two of them being located on the parking level and in fact the only residential units on the parking level. I was wondering if you could speak to that and why they weren't more dispersed throughout the building. I mean the there was not really uh I mean we added these these units uh also with with the intent to to activate uh that floor. uh the space there was more constricted in in terms of of the width and so that that space really uh offered itself up to to use for the below market uh unit because they are uh smaller than than the market rate unit which is also normal and I I think understandable. So, I think it was really just that reason to find to find the best use uh for for that space and then they they

just offered themselves up. But they're they're nicely designed units. I mean, they're, you know, they're just more uh valuedriven in in in size, but but they're perfectly fine units and and they're they're on the floor. I mean they are with a parking level but it's they're not really they will not be impacted by the parking in in in any way. I mean they will have the the acoustical isolation and and they will be close to amenities. So I think they're fully functional perfectly fine units.

So if they wouldn't be impacted why would not one there and then one other located throughout the building? Well, it's I mean to be honest, the the only reason for that would be that it would be more difficult in in that particular uh location to fit a market rate because there's not the width. I mean, that's really just the the only reason that that sometimes with with these very tight sides to lay out a floor plan is a bit like a like a chess game. And that's that's where they worked out. I mean, there's Yeah, I mean, not not a not a they're not at a more disadvantaged side. I mean, they're they're lower in the building, but we have another one that's on the fourth floor that is higher up. So, Okay, just one more commission. Yeah, that's fine.

Tiny follow-up question. Um, the trash unit that's on I think level one, the trash area. Um, would be right below those those those and so is there going to be an exterior door? How does that work? Is that like basically rollin roll out area that so it' be to the street level on the cycle street? Yeah, that's right. Yeah. All right. Thanks, Commissioner Mason. Another quick followup to uh because I have the same concern as Commissioner Demi has and we always, you know, when I was doing this, we always derisively called those crypt units. Um,

crypt units. So, you know, when you see them, the natural reaction is, well, they're the less desirable, but the fact that they're for the very low income means that I'm I'm okay with those. Did you have a question? No, no. I was just adding to the same concern I had with putting those there because that's routinely where instead of distributing them through the building, you routinely tuck them in under the adjacent to the parking in the parking with uh under the podium.

Okay. Um let's focus on any questions and then when we're we can bring anything to discussion after public comment. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Leange,

thank you for the presentation. Um, uh, regarding the concession on the the the three-bedroom, this is the one thing I'm really struggling with. Um, because my understanding, well, I would ask you to give me your understanding because maybe you understand it better. It it because well, I'll tell you what I think and then you correct me. Um, it's an affordability question. Okay. So, that that tells me the affordability between a two-bedroom and three-bedroom is the difference between this project going forward or not. And and my gut is that's not true. So, I guess what I would like to implore on you and whoever the applicant, final applicant is, is figure out a way to put a three-bedroom um below market. It's important for what the city's trying to do. Um it might not yield quite as much. I know because I'm in the development world that you guys have already put together a proforma. So you have some dollar amounts that you've established for each room. So I probably could ask you and I would I will what's the difference in price you would get between a below market two-bedroom and a below market threebedroom? And if you're willing to answer that, I would say is that really the difference between you doing the deal and not doing the deal? So, so this is I mean I think this is ultimately a question to to our to our client because because he is really the the I mean the the applicant and and and he you know is is the holder of the financials. So I think we I mean what we could do I mean we'll bring that that comment uh back to him and and you know I mean we'll we'll respond to that accordingly.

Okay. Yeah. I I would imagine that the city council will really want to know that. So, I think it would do you best and it would do the best for the community at large to understand that because this is a state law that we're dealing with and it's predicated on the idea that you need that and that's actually a local that's a local one I think that you're asking to be a concession on. So, it's a Lafayette one. Sure. So, um appreciate that. I Okay. Yeah. No, I understood. Thank you.

Okay, chair. the there is a raised hand uh Nquille who I believe is the uh applicant uh that the the presenter the architect this evening spoke to. So with your permission I'll allow him to speak and I I believe he will address your question. Thank you. Nquille guest on Zoom you're enabled to speak but you're muted and now you're unmuted. Okay. Hi. Hi. Hi commissioner. Sorry I couldn't be there. I'm actually overseas in India. Very loud.

So we'll we'll try to adjust it here but yeah I think it's adjusted here. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

So so so so thank you for uh for this this session. Sorry I couldn't be there. Um I'm going to try to answer the question about the the affordable units. Um we are permitted to build an affordable unit which is 30% 20 or 30% smaller than the the market rate units which is a practice across cities. Um the the trouble we run into is stacking these units one above the other. So it's impossible for us to build a three-bedroom unit which stacks below the other three-bedroom units but have it be 30% smaller. So, we default to having build a full-size unit, which obviously has a much greater impact than having a smaller unit, which is why we would like to have um three twobedrooms. Um we have some smaller two-bedroom units is which is where we have the on the fourth floor. So, those are the two bedrooms which are in the 900 to 1,000 foot. I forget the exact square footage. And then we were able to put in two other two bedrooms which are again in the 900 to,000 ft size. These are not super compact two bedrooms. These are good size twobedrooms but finding a threebedroom which would stack along with the other ones was a was impossible for us to do. Um nothing's impossible but it was really hard to kind of figure out a solution which is not disruptive or bad for the other ones. So it just from a construction from a constructibility standpoint it's not just the revenue loss for going from two-bedroom to threebedroom but it's the constructibility and the impact on the entire stack that we are trying to deal with. Um hopefully that explains why we are asking for the concession that we asking for. And to Monica, I think Monica already touched upon this. We entitled to one concession. So we were like what should we use it for? Should we um use it to wave the art requirement which is another cost to the project or should we use it here? And we determined that the constructibility of having not being able to stack three bedrooms was a bigger problem for the project. So that we choosing we're choosing to use it here. Um hopefully that answers your

question. I'm happy to kind of uh answer anything else you may have about it. Okay. Thank you. Uh thank you for clarifying. I'll just ask Commissioner Deming who asked the question if did that's um answer what you were hoping to answer. It kind of does. The problem is I need I need my followup with staff essentially of what the because he said, you know, 23rd I understand what market practice is. I understand market practice to stuff them next to the parking lot, but I'd like to know like what's our actual standards and that's I think would then lead to more followup is the problem. Okay. Well, I think for now we have you're good. Yeah. The applicant's response and then we can follow up with staff during um discussion. Commissioner Leanch, I see your light on.

Yeah, thank you for that. I I would It sounds like you're trying to decide which concession to use, which I understand. I would just ask that you guys really take a deep look because it's I think it's more important to the city to have more uh inclusive familysiz housing than art. That's my opinion. But if I were on the city council, I would be leaning that way and they're going to be the ultimate deciders of that. So just I would come prepared and if there's another concession you could consider, I would ask that you consider that. That's one more family that will have a chance to live in Lafayette than whether there's arter there or not. So, thank you for uh calling in and answering that. Appreciate that.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicants team? Okay. Uh thank you. We will go ahead and open it to public comment. So now is an opportunity if you would like to provide comment on tonight's item, kindly fill out a speaker slip and if you are online, please be prepared to raise your hand. We'll start with speakers in the room. Are there any speakers for tonight's item? I have I have uh three speaker slips for the next item on the agenda. Are there any speakers in the room for this item? No speakers in the room for this item. Anyone online, please go ahead and raise your hand using the feature in Zoom if you would like to comment on this item. Seeing none.

Okay. Um, now is when the applicants team would get a chance for a rebuttal. Is there anything additional you'd like to add? Okay. Uh we'll go ahead and we'll close the public comment portion. We'll bring it to the commission for discussion. So let me pull back up our agenda. So again, um our charge right is to we're holding the meeting, review the proposal, and then uh potentially make a recommendation to city council. So with that in mind, I know Commissioner Deming, you're needing to leave. Um I know you had a clarifying question you would like to ask staff. Do you mind asking it before you depart? The question was simply the standard that is applied for below sort a unit to count as a below market rate unit. Is there a percentage of square footage difference? Is there a location permissibility? You know, stacking the mall on the second floor there in the parking zone. What is the actual requirements that must be met in order for it to qualify? our local inclusionary ordinance, if you can increase the volume on my mic. Thanks. Uh requires um percentages of below market rate units which are are set forth. It recognizes that below market rate units can have a a uh reduced square footage does not stipulate what that is. We have used 80% previously as the benchmark because you know twice the size for market rate versus a below market rate uh does not

seem reasonable but 80% of a market rate unit seems reasonable. Uh similarly the fit and finish the the expectation and the requirement is not marble or granite countertops. They could be nice laminate. Uh so the appliances don't need to be um high-end. they can be good appliances. So there there are no prescribed standards with respect to those features. We've used 80% as the square footage threshold, but the the requirements are that they be the same mix. So if it's 30% onebedroom, 30% twobedroom, and 40% the the BMR units would follow that percentage mix of one, two, and threebedroom. and that the the units would be distributed throughout the project and not segregated or congregated in one generally less desire desirable location or one building which is um somehow different than the rest. The intention is that they um look and feel externally um by the passer by just like any other unit.

Okay. And I did not bring this up previously and I'm assuming it didn't come up in staff report so it's not applicable. Um, this is an awfully large building that's sitting below the density for its plot. Is there any sort of minimum density that must be met? And I'm assuming they're above it. This is just a clarifying question. It's just a really big building and only so many units. I just didn't want I just wanted to double check. Um I think I heard you say that it's sitting below the density that I thought that's what was permitted

below the maximum density. Yes. I just wanted to check just was more of a clarifying question like this minimum floor density especially for a building of like going to be twice the height that it's otherwise you know they got to see. Yes. I I think I would agree with you that it's surprising that it's twice the the number of stories permissible. Yeah. Yet incrementally bigger than what it for building of its size. Is it I'm assuming there's not like a you must have so much density.

Um correct the the they are the only standard on under minimum density is 31 dwelling units per acre. Um which I believe this meets or exceeds. What's the density? All right. So, I'm asking there's a maximum, which is understandable. You don't want people getting packed in. So, this this is sort of almost the reverse of it of like it's essentially a large number of high-end units, which from a financial perspective in today's market, I understand why investors would find that attractive. Y um but I was checking to see if there were any particular local local

requirements to say like maybe we can get a few more units out of this. Correct. bud. So yes to your question, this is a housing opportunity site in the housing element. It is uh required to have at least 88% of the permissible maximum density. Thus in the 35 dwelling unit per density zone that would be 31 units per acre. I'm asking the project planner, what is the proposed project density before density bonus?

Thank you. Okay. Anyone want to start? I will reserve mine for the end. My thoughts. I'll go. Um, at first I thought it was too big, but I've changed my mind. Um, I did go back and look at the development just to the west of it that's already expired, so it's probably not going to come as that development, but we did that back in long time ago and it was in the realm.

I'm just personally having a hard time hearing. So, if commissioners can just really eat the micro. Yes. the the So, what I'm saying is no, we we're having difficulties regulating the the gain on the mics relative to the to the output volume in the speakers and so this is actually a very good gain on my microphone and um we'll see how it is on on yours. Okay, perfect.

Okay, so I was I I I'd gotten past that point. Um, in terms of the uh below market on the second level, I actually like how those were done. I think we'd seen one in the past or when this first came up years ago where there was like I don't I can't remember if this is an actual deal or or a a a suggestion of why it wouldn't work where there was like a back entrance for a certain or or that was in New York. I can't remember. But it was clearly like that's bad. This doesn't seem bad to me. It seems reasonable for a smaller unit. I was a little concerned with the one that there's one of the units I think it on on the north side the head of the bed is right next to a parking spot and I just hope that when that person's laying down and the car pulls in that there's really thick insulation there. Um, so my only thing at the end of the day, I clearly expressed it was trying to hold that one-third three-bedroom below market. And I and I part of wanting to say it here was to put them on so they think about it, but also for the city council because I think that the city needs that. So other than that, I'm good and I'm ready to vote.

Thank you, Commissioner Deorgio.

Um, thank you for the staff report. I I echo previous commissioner comments that I I would like to see or say it might benefit the city council to see a graphic that would show the relative height to both Merrill Gardens as well as the you know at the um an orchard hill court as one basically will come out of the the rear of this development and head up the hill. There are twostory buildings on the top of that hill. It' be interesting for the city council to be able to get a sense of how high this development is relative to the other buildings around it. Um but uh I I other than that I I don't really have any um concerns that need to be addressed.

Thank you, Commissioner Mason.

Um I can support this project. Uh, one thing I would advise is in this town, people show up at the last minute, so you'll probably have more attendance at the city council. Uh, they're very a lot of this what we're doing is non-discretionary, which we realize, but the general public does not. So, the more information you can provide them, the easier it is going to be. They may not like the information, but at least that way they can say that, hey, this is how tall it is relative to the PE places next door. This is, you know, this is why we did did this. Um, you know, at the end of the day, it's it's the best you can do, but the more information you throw out there, the more less likely you're going to have is people saying, "You didn't tell us this." So, good luck to you.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Um, I'll start with a couple pros. [sighs and gasps] I do appreciate that the applicants team has taken the feedback at previous meetings and incorporated it into the project. I do think this is the best iteration of the project. Um, I do appreciate engaging the east end of town. I know that's where the parcel just happens to be, but I do think that's great. We need more in the east end. Um I [clears throat] do acknowledge that the project does exceed many of the objective design standards for the downtown uh for the point system. I acknowledge that and public art oftent times is a con uh a concession that's requested. However, oh and I will also say I can make the findings and I do understand that we will be approving this project. However, there's a couple concerns I do have. Um, I did not appreciate the statement that well, we're entitled to a concession, so we tried to figure out which one to use. I understand that. I understand how the law works. I understand how uh waiverss and concessions work. I did not appreciate that comment. It felt like, oh, we're entitled to it, so we're just going to try to find a way to use it. when I do agree with my fellow commissioners that families in Lafayette, there's a lot that could use a three-bedroom unit. Um, so just food for thought. Um, I also feel, and this is maybe a comment more for staff, that if an applicant is going to be providing renderings, it needs to represent the project. When you're showing the corner view from

Ariel or from the street and it's showing a rolly hill park to the west with grass, that doesn't exist. Unless that's part of the project, I don't think that should be allowed to be on a rendering depicting the project that then the community is looking at. the plants and the overhangs, unless those plants are included in the project on the balconies, I don't think those should be allowed. So, I'm not sure if they are or if they're not. I'm guessing they're not included. Um, something to think about. And I also agree, Commissioner Leange, and then Commissioner Deorgio mentioned this. We saw a project recently and it was as simple as creating the massing and dropping it into Google Earth to show what this what that particular project looks like in the context. That's a very simple, very cheap way of still presenting the community with a realistic representation of what the project is. Um, so I'm hoping that maybe staff that could be something that's required. I don't think it's the applicant's fault that that wasn't presented if no one's ever asked for it. So hopefully that's something that could be shared in the future. Um I also question the um the reasoning for no story polls. I do acknowledge that six stories is very tall for story poles. Um but saying it's because there's tenants. Yeah. In one little portion of the site there is a building but um I don't know that didn't really I just thought that was interesting. So I can make the findings. I do understand our role on this project. Um half of

what I just said that was also for city council's benefit like my fellow commissioners. I will entertain a motion if anyone is interested in making one. I'll make a motion. I move that we adopt resolution 202602 recommending that the city council approve the project subject to the conditions of the approve approvals attached as exhibit A. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor?

I. All opposed. And I will note just for staff for the minutes, uh, Commissioner Deming has left the hearing. So, Commissioner Deming did not vote. So, it's four people voting, all four eyes. Correct. Commissioner Deming left about 8:10, I believe. So, uh, yes, 4 to zero. And we'll note the Commissioner Deming's absence. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Good luck at city council. Thank you.

Okay, let me go back to the agenda and also I guess if the applicant is still online uh feel free to drop because the item is done. Yeah, unless unless you want us to go. Thank you.

Okay. Um, item 6B, just give me one sec. HDP33-25, DR24-25, LLR05-25, GR10-25, TP69-25, Collins, owner in the R40 zoning. Um, I'll look to staff for a presentation. Monica Thank you. So, this is a a hillside development permit request. Phase one um phase one hillside development permit reviewed. It's reviewed by the planning commission. determine the most to determine the most uh appropriate building site and massing to minimize site disturbance, reduce off-site visibility, maintain neighborhood context, and um the phase 2 hillside development permit reviewed by the design review commission and they review it for architectural materials and colors, landscaping, lighting, final design and uh detailed project impacts. two vacant hillside parcels um created through a minor subdivision. Um the parcel m uh remains undeveloped. um the phase one um phase during 2020 2011 and 2014 phase 1 um HDP applications were submitted for two 5,000 ft² homes and on March 17, 2020 um 2014, the planning commission

approved the phase one HDP and lot line revision with conditions requiring reduced massing and size um and size minimum 20% reduction. And then on 20 uh 2015 through 2018, uh a phase 2 application was submitted for a 6,50 foot residence. Um and on June 18th, 2018, planning commission approved um the project. Um that project included um a 3,000 cubic yard cut, 500 cubic yard rocket fill, and removal of nine protected trees. Um no construction has occurred to to date. And in 2015 to 2018, a separate application was submitted um for a 6,592 ft residence. Um, on August 6, 2018, the planning commission denied the project and on in October 20 uh2nd, 2018, the city council upheld the denial. And then in 2021, the new a new application was received and filed by the subsequent owner uh and it was deemed incomplete. And then um now in 20 and then in 2025 um uh the application which is the current application was received for a new phase one um um HDP application filed by the current property owner. Um this propo proposal differs in sighting massing height and grading quantities and tree removal. Um the bottom left um is

it shows the the site. The site is um um unress is um 7.93 acres and is located in the R40 zoning district and um on on to the left of the site is um is 3991 Happy Valley Road. Um, it's 4.71 acres and it's also in the R40 zoning district. So, um, parcel A, which is the the parcel to the the west, um, it has, um, an existing area of 205,262 square ft. And um the project proposes a lot line adjustment which would um increase that area to 232,000 um 52 square ft. And um the line if you look on the right side of the screen the the red line is the is the line to propose to be removed and the blue line is the the new I mean the the green line is the new adjusted line. And um regarding parcel B um once um if if the lot line revision is removed the the existing square square foot area is 345,368 and the new um area would be uh 318,578 ft. So for um the development um the project

proposes to construct a 6,160 ft two-story single family residence on parcel B. Um the maximum height proposed is 22 feet 4 in. Um locating um the site is proposed to be located on a natural bench in the lower central portion of the site. Um the development is positioned outside the class 2 rgeline setpack. Uh the project is designed to minimize visibility and reduce and respond to the natural topography. The new driveway access proposed is um from from Happy Valley Road with uh step step uh retaining walls. And um on on the left of of the parcel was the the previous proposed um single family home which was uh never constructed. The site uh here's the site plan. Um the front setbacks are um the front setback is 65 ft. The minimum required is 25 ft. The left set back is 20 feet. Um, and the right set back is 27 feet. Um, and the minimum required is 20 feet. The the required aggregate sideyard is 40 ft minimum and the applicant proposes 47. And regarding parking spaces, the applicant is proposing six spaces and the required requirement is two. And here's uh um the closest um property is to um the proposed

single family home is um is roughly 240 ft away. Um these are the sections. The top section, which is the section through the garage, illustrates how the residents transition from the main living level to the garage level. The garage is set lower into the hillside, which helps reduce the perceived mass from the street. The main living spaces are supported on on a crawl space foundation, allowing the home to follow the natural grade rather than requiring a large flat pad. The lower section illustrates how the home is designed to follow the natural slope of the site rather than creating a large flat pad. The the need for excessive uh grading and helps the building building step into the hillside. This approach minimizes visual prominence and maintains the natural landform. on um on the top is the south elevation. The south elevation presents a predominantly horizontal profile that steps with the natural slope of the site minimizing vertical exposure. The maximum height of the structure is 22 ft 4 in. Um changes in materials, recesses and step roof lines help reduce the perceived bulk. Um the north elevation faces the uphill side of the property appears lower in scale due to the building's partial embed bentment into the hillside. The massing is articulated through material changes and modest window openings

on the the east elevation. uh demonstrates how the res residence is integrated into the steep downs slope condition with portions of the lower level embedded into the hillside to reduce vertical exposure. The design maintains a strong horizontal emphasis through flat roof lines, sun shades, and articulated wall panels. on the west elevation. Um the the resident steps down with the natural slope of the site with the garage level partially um embedded into the hillside to reduce the overall perceived height. The design emphasizes horizontal roof lines and incorporates material changes includ including vertical wood siding, smooth stuckle and stone accents to break up the facade and minimize visual bulk. Um, large sliding glass doors and recess elements provide articulation while maintaining a low profile that remains consistent with the the hillside setting. In terms of uh site design and and the constraints analysis, the 7.93 acre site is a steep hillside parcel with significant slope constraints and protected trees, particularly toward the upper ridge line area, which remains undisturbed. The proposed residence is strategically sided on an existing lower natural bench to avoid steep slopes and the class 2 ridge line setback while minimizing grading and visual prominence. Driveway access follows the natural contours and tree removal is limited to the 10 protected walnut trees within the building and driveway footprint allowing the majority of the parcel to remain in its natural condition.

Um a geotechnical report was submitted um for the site. The report confirms the site is geotechnically suitable for development. Provided recommendations are incorporated. Um recommends peer and footing foundations step to follow the natural slope. Provides guidance on retaining walls, drainage and sub drain systems. uh addresses grading practices to minimize settlement and slope instability, requires compliance with report recommendation at time of grading and building permit issuance. Our city engineer has reviewed the geo technical report and uh noted that it was very thorough and doesn't believe that it needs to be peer-reviewed. Um a hydrarology and hydraulics report was also conducted. Um the hydrarology and hydraulics report uh analyzes um analyze 10-year storm event conditions. Compare pre-development and postdevelopment peak runoff. includes proposed on-site detention and metering systems to control discharge and design designed to ensure post-development flows do not exceed pre-development uh levels. And then so there were two reports submitted. One one was for the east drainage area and one was for the west drainage area. Uh regarding the each the east uh drainage area, it was modeled after a 6,000 square foot residence. Um and the and the tribut and the tributoriatory drainage areas is 83,600 square ft. Um the pre-development flow is 2.26 cubic feet per second and the post-development flow is is 1.94 cubic

uh feet per second and um the the detention system is 90 LF of 21 in storm drain pipe. Um, and then for the west drainage area, um, it was modeled after a it was modeled for a 6,000 square ft residence plus 5,600 square ft driveway paving. Um, uh, the the tribut the tributary drainage area is 68,800 ft. The pre-development flow is 1.23 uh, cubic foot per second. um postdevelopment flow increase subject to control uh detention system one um 130 LF of 21in storm drain pipe. Uh the city engineer has uh reviewed the hydraology and hydraulics reports and um and recommended evaluating bio retention basin attenu attinuation within the hydraology model. and he also said that the reports need to reflect the most current plans. Um the the the current project proposes uh a 6,160 ft resident. So it does exceed what the the east drainage report area uh model. And so, um, the applicant is is aware that, um, um, after this meeting, um, the planning commission and and the public might, um, be requesting some design changes and would like to update the report based on any recommended design changes. And, um, the engineer also um, didn't think that this um, report needed to be peer reviewed.

Um the project was also referred to um outside departments and and other agencies. Um, in addition to the comments the city engineer um stated uh earlier, um the the city engineer also requested clarification of bio retention basin design and driveway improvements and the applicant has been in contact with the engineer regarding these um um regarding um providing clarification. Um the fire district also um provided comments um and the sanitary district as well. Um the project was noticed to surrounding neighborhood neighbors within um a 300 ft buffer and um and notices were posted um near the site um 10 days in advance of the meeting. three neighbors um sent in letters in opposition to to the project. Here are the findings required for for um the requested entitlements. The the planning commission determines whether the the required findings can be made. Staff has included the findings in the resolution. Therefore, based on the record as a whole, staff recommends that the planning commission find the project exempt from SQA and adopt uh planning commission resolution 2026-03 approving the project sub subject to conditions and this concludes the the staff report.

Okay. Thank you. Um I'd like to ask a couple questions and open to the commissioners for other questions. Uh, you noted that actually can you go up to go back to that you were just flipping through? I want to see the distance to the closest home. Yeah, that image. So, from the black box being the project uh proposed potential home to 4001, what is that distance?

Uh, 240 ft. So if that's 240 ft to the closest neighbor, I assume the mailings went out based on the property boundary of 300 ft. So do you know how many mailers did go out? Um I would have to check the the files for for an exact count.

Yeah. Well, if you don't mind just over maybe during staff, excuse me, during the applicant's presentation because I'm just curious. These are large lots and if we did already receive three letters um opposing the project, I'm just curious how many notices went out. And then do you mind going to the image that the title is site design and constraints slide? Yes. Um this Yeah, [clears throat] this one's fine. Or we could just use this one instead. What I'm Oh, actually, sorry. Do you mind going to the site design and constraints? I'll make easier. Okay. So, I know we're um part of the request is a lot line

revision. Yeah. Okay. So, when we see images like this, is this the proposed lot line or the existing? This one is the existing.

Okay. because um I guess I maybe I'm just having a hard time looking at it. I'm having a hard time envisioning the proposed building with what we're making a motion on tonight which includes a lot line revision as well as massing and siding. Right. So, in the future or if the applicants team is going to be prepared to pull up a slide that could show the proposed um location for the potential housing site with the correct lot line. I think it's easier as a planning commissioner to vision that. Any um clarifying questions?

Yeah. From commissioners, Commissioner Deorgio, I have several actually. So, um I I just want to make because there was there's two APNs. One ends in 03, which is the westernmost u parcel, and then there's the one ending in ' 04, which is the current one. So, my understanding was that the previous application on 04, right, one we're considering, Yes. was denied. Right. That's correct.

So, I just want to clarify that. And I think um we'll get her public comments about this or reflecting the public comment letter. There are no existing conditions uh affecting this particular parcel. Is that the correct way to think about it? If the previous projects were denied? Yes. Um this is a new application.

Okay. Then the next question I have has to do with the notices. Um, and I know you're going to check on that, but I I was curious because the public comments came in on November 23rd. They were dated November 23rd. And if I was curious about that timing, why why was public writing in on November if it's only been recently noticed? Um, the project was previously not noticed before and then the item was continued. Okay. um because the applicant needed to submit more materials for the lot line revision. That's what I I couldn't find it, but that's what I suspected. But so was this round also noticed?

Yes. Okay. Um I'll hold off on drainage. Um the parcel A that was approved back in 2018. That's correct. So have have all has that expired? I mean yes. Okay. So that will have to come back through another process. Yes. Okay. And then you mentioned three letters from the public. I only saw two in the in the packet. One was just sent uh today and I forwarded to the commissions as soon the commission as soon as it was sent. Okay. Thank you. I'll look for that then.

And maybe I can ask uh staff whenever it's appropriate if you can please provide a summary of that uh just to make sure that in case it was missed. Understood. Yeah. Thanks. 19 people, 19 addresses, property owners were on the mailing list and were sent the notice of public hearing and the area was posted physically in the vicinity of the project. Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Mason, you finished? Yeah, I'm done. Thanks.

Uh, I just have two questions. One is could you pull up the east and west elevation? I'm having trouble seeing figuring out how you got the 22 foot 4 in maximum elevation and could you walk us through that? Um, should I pull up the Yeah, the slide that showed the east and west uh elevation.

East and west. I've got that as sheet seven and Okay. Can you walk me through that? How you came up with the 20 2T 4 in elevation because I don't see it anywhere there on on either of those. If you could zoom in to the lower right where it actually is dimensioned, that would help inform the discussion, I think. Okay. or just bring up the project plans which should show it.

Specifically, what I was asking about is on the Oh, sorry. What I was specifically asking about is on the east elevation, your dimensions are are cut off. Um, but from your staff report, it looks like uh garage level is above the crawl space at the uh the bottom left. That's cut off. There's my the other one. You could maybe shrink that. As you see that garage level looks like it's above the crawl space, which would actually make that building taller. And that's where I was confused.

Yeah. Uh the garage is sort of um so cut into the the hill. Mhm. But whereas going from the east elevation, it doesn't look like the garage is the lowest portion. Yeah. Of the residence. And we have to take the um total height from the lowest point, not the way everybody else does it. Um so, uh one is if staff could if you could check that

and clarify it. The second thing is I was curious about the recommendation that the drainage report doesn't uh need to be peer-reviewed. Uh, one is I remember from last time there's a lot of concern from the downhill neighbors about water runoff. And just looking at your assessment of the report, the first obvious question that comes to my mind is you're still dealing with all the water coming off the hill and looking at the sections and the retaining walls. It's basically you're creating a dam that all the water has to run around and you could have the same amount of water but directed in different locations in different outfalls. And given how much attention this got last time, I was surprised that we didn't have a a peer review recommended to make sure this is as bulletproof as possible. So um the conclusion of the report was that the post-development peak runoff would actually be reduced by approximately 15%. Um due to the proposed improvements um and that's for the the east drainage area. Um but the the project app applicant would still need to update this this study to reflect um it's its design iteration. you know, um the applicant anticipates receiving feedback and possibly having to reduce the size of the the property and that would change the the impermeable and permeable surfaces which would change the design of the drainage and the runoff calculations would change because of that. And then so um

yeah was I'm not worried about the drainage onto the house but if you look at uh again the west elevation concern is [clears throat] all the water coming down the hill because I've got uh a terrace two uh retaining walls there which is essentially block the water and directed around the house and that that's the concern not not the water that's hitting the roof that'll all be collected or the drive that'll all be collected and disposed stuff. It's just that you've got six, seven acres above. Okay, thank you. Good. That's it.

Okay. Any other clarifying questions for staff? Okay. Uh we will welcome the applicant team. You have 10 minutes. Good evening. Um, my name is Edward Patmmont. Um, been a licensed architect since 1983. Actually retired officially this year. Um, I've been a longtime u architect and builder. Uh, started my company in 1989, Hillside Homes Group. That's basically all I've done. Uh it's kind of ironic for me to be in city of Lafayette because I've never done a home in Lafayette. I've done many in Arinda uh city of Walnut Creek where I lived for many years uh Alamo and of course uh earlier in my career uh Oakland Berkeley Hills. So u I know about hillsides. I know how to build them. It's all pure and gray beam. And uh so I came into this project a little late. There's a lot of history. We're going to hear for from the neighbors. Uh some of them I met uh trying to meet. So um this is two lots that have been around for a long time. Um the owner approached me to try to reset this and so we designed a modern home. um a lowp profofile home. You know that you've seen two designs um one from uh the other lot which Mr. Patel is here tonight. You need to speak with him. That was approved. The the one

that was done on this lot was not approved. This is an entirely different house. It's a half in actually it's a a balanced cut and fill which is quite interesting. So, in other words, as much cut as there is fill, probably there'll be some offhaul because just the way it goes, there's there's drain rock that you have to put in. But that's the that's the idea is to set this thing into the hill. So when I first got um involved with this, I was quite struck with not how easy it was, but how how clear it was where this house should be uh put. And that's where it is. It's not too close to the street, and it's certainly not way up the hill, which the view would be amazing, but that's not what's being proposed. The these are two homes with a shared driveway which has already been approved and the lot line adjustment has already been approved um although expired I guess. But um I want to stress a couple of things. One is um the engineering will obviously be state-of-the-art. Uh homes uh that I've built don't fall down the hill. Maybe they have some leak issues, which is always a challenge, you know, with modern uh architecture, but as far as structural stability um in my 40 years doing this and this lot is as about as good as it gets geologically and it really is. That's a sandstone mound up there. Now there is some colovvium down below which is going to be excavated and redone and keyed in and all the drainage

and commissioner Mason you mentioned about the drainage on the retaining walls. I mean retaining walls are including um a subdrain and that's all routed into a system that terminates at the bottom with a bioretention structure. In this case, the east lot um or no, excuse me, the west lot, all of that drainage that now goes down to the street will be diverted into a storm drain system that goes to upper Happy Valley. So, the net result when both of these houses are built is that the hydraology, the water coming off that hill will be greatly reduced, not by 15%. by over 50% I mean enormous 90% probably. So um that is that is a a real benefit of this uh of this site. As I said geologically we're drilling into the peers. We've got sandstone. Um it couldn't be any better from my perspective and I built on some some pretty marginal sites, you know, because you get what you get. This isn't one of them. Uh we're taking great pains, reduce the massing. Um again on that that height, it is 22 feet from the bottom of the garage to the top of the roof. Now on the other side, I guess on the east side, what you were picking up, that's the deck. So there's the house and then there's the deck. Yes, the deck does re involve a skirt wall and we've taken pains to canolver the structure. So there's a little shadowing going on. Again, lots

of landscaping. If you've just taken a quick glance at the landscaping plan, a woman I've worked with for many years, um she's amazing. I mean, this will be a showcase in in landscaping, and that's what it should be. You know, coming on Happy Valley Road, looking up, glancing at this site, the homes will be set back. Landscaping is what you're going to see. Uh, taking out a bunch of old walnuts that are all dead, leaving all the oak trees. Um, yeah, that's about it. um be happy to answer your questions and uh we'll go from there.

Thank you. Um I will ask any of the commissioners if there's questions. Commissioner Mason, did your question get answered? Thank you for answering my questions. For the record, I have no problems with the house. I have no problems with your ability to build a house safely structure on a hill. The only concern I had was the drainage and you answered that. So, thank you and I do appreciate you proactively answering the addressing the questions rather than waiting for you to be asked again. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Deorgio.

Hi, thanks for the the presentation. Um I I walked the site this uh this afternoon uh this morning I means and um and I was just curious about the angle of the houses arranged because the one corner the that would be the um the west the I say it would be the the part where the pool is. Right.

Right. It's really right up against at the where the hill really starts to go up where you on the grading plan it's the 50% level and higher. Right. And earlier I was I was going to follow up on on Mr. Mason's comments. The retaining wall is that going to be raised how far like a a foot above the the slope, you know, or what's how high were you planning to do that to keep mud or water from flowing into the house?

Right. I think they call that freeboard. Engineers call that freeboard. Uh different sites require like if you were on a site that had a lot of suspect, you know, debris flows, you you would want that up. I've done them two and a half, three feet. This one is a that's a sandstone mass up there behind the retaining wall. So, I don't anticipate uh there's normally a V ditch and then probably 6 in above and if anything was to come over that, yeah, it would it would have to be cleaned up. But I think it's a you know, and this again is an engineering question, but I I just don't think it's um probable to be a major concern.

Okay. And then I'm curious about your comment saying that some of the water is going to be diverted to upper Happy Valley drainage system. Um, and from my recollection, uh, your site is, um, below upper Happy Valley Road, right? So, how is that water going to get there? Yeah, I actually received that information from the city engineer um who reminded me because I I wasn't you know where this is phase one of phase two and then we have engineering after that. So I really wasn't focusing on on that until he mentioned it

and I have the plan here that yeah it it it ducks out to upper Happy Valley. So, all of that water is will be in a city storm drain. Now, the interesting thing and and I'm sure some of the neighbors will will comment on this. There there's a there's a storm drain inlet. There's a catch basin right below our site

and that that catch basin is a pipe that goes under the street and apparently ends at one of the properties. It in other words, it goes nowhere. So we don't want any more water on that and we won't because the bio retention facility that we put on our property will address that in a 10year storm. You know 100redyear storm probably will exceed that. But the design parameters generally speak to a 10-year storm that we handle all of that water. And uh but with respect to the overall site, what's really interesting is that half of that site the the water goes to upper Happy Valley. Okay.

So what you're left with is is a fraction of what's coming down now. Okay. I I want to follow up. So the the shape and of the proposed driveway, it it angles down and and basically terminates across from 401 address, you know, which is the um and I noticed that there is a storm drain there right in front of their property. But my concern was um would would your plan and I know you're going to do the engineering and all that later. Yeah. But are you going to be able to prevent water from running down the driveway and over overflowing that storm drain into and have it go into the property at 4001? Of course. Okay.

Of course. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you. Um, go ahead. Well, I was going to say we do have a request for a five minute break. Um, so if that works, we like to take five minutes. When we do come back, we'll take public comment and then the applicant will have um five minutes to provide response to the public comment. So, it's 8:55. We'll come back at 9.

According to clock up there, it's 9:02. So, welcome back. Uh, we're going to go ahead and open the public comment portion. Again, reminder, this is item 6B on the agenda. Um, I do know we have a couple speakers in the room. Uh, so I'll turn it over to staff to introduce the speakers in the room and then ceue up anybody who would like to provide public comment online. First speaker in the room is Charlie Glavin. Mr. Glavin will be followed by Tom McClintic followed by Paul Saxs. Thanks. Thank you, Greg. And thank thank you all for your time. I'm Charlie Glavin. I'm a resident at 3983 uh Happy Valley Road which is uh cross been there for 25 years. We've lived across from the hillside proposal. Knew the previous owner Dan Koshlin. So we are very aware of the history and any claims in regards to that. I myself am a CFA and an engineer plus a member of the city's investment committee and have been an adviser of the finance committee since 2008. Since 2018 uh 13 we've been coming here so and I've already given you a couple of submissions. So for the sake of time I'm going to um talk expert uh off and forgive me if I cite a lot of uh figures. It's the analistst in me as my wife would say. Um, I have included pictures from the packet. Um, I'm sorry if I uh Commissioner, can I call you Anna because I'm gonna

I know my last name's hard. Yeah. Great.

Um, I realized that in the August uh 2018 meeting, uh, Commissioner Sturm, Commissioner Ellis, and yourself were very vocal about the lack of progress that have been made in design. That's the fundamental problem that we've seen. There has been no fundamental design and there's continues to be incorrect statements that have been made including as I should notice um we did not receive any notice. Um, I can tell you that Malcolm Farban, who is the owner for the last two or three years, um, who's the second closest, did not receive either in November, nor, uh, the current one. Malcolm could not make tonight, but he was very adamant about this is a ridiculous design. Would have liked to have attend. There has been, contrary to um the assertion, there has been no effort to meet with the neighbors. The last meeting uh had been made in April 12th of 2014 at which time Gary Collins had indicated to us including two of the members five of which folks we're going to tell you whatever you want to hear so long as we get the approval. This has been what we've been faced you know the entire time and complete disregard for the resolutions and the um uh recommendations uh that have been made. Um I would also refute the notion that there has been no slides. Um within the last decade the bridges and uh flowers property which is the next adjourning uh spur which has very similar characteristics did have a major uh issue. Anybody who has kids at happy valley school or along Happy Valley knows of the issue from the flooding that occurred including the mudslide that that came and protruded. In addition, for those who are familiar with the upper Happy Valley Road, the um estate drive, which was on similar type of peers, slid off those foundations during a um irregular uh rainstorm. I

believe that was 2005 if I'm not mistaken. Um I can go back and and check. Um a couple of other things to note. Um that the storm drain, which is uh directly below the east property, is not connected to the uh main line. In addition to that, we have had three floodings from that areas, including existing sandbags because of this situation. And as I would point out within the packet on November 24th, there was a 15-in branch that was cut that resides on the Fair Baron side of the property line. We checked and checked with Miranda shortly thereafter. No permits could be find. And when we approached all the members who were cutting uh the branches at time, we found no supervisor arborist on site overseeing that. Um this seems to be indicative of what we've encountered with the Collins and the Milor projects over the last decade. I realize my time, you know, is up, but be free to because we have a lot of supporting facts,

including a very thick folder beforehand supporting uh those contentions. Thank you. Okay. I think just uh hold on please because there might be questions. So, thank you for the comment. If you do have binders full of information, I hope that is submitted um to staff because I do know that takes more than three minutes. Yeah. And if if I could just make um make one mention the 20 Oh, sorry. Hopefully, someone will ask a question that'll allow you to uh share more information. Okay. Thank you. Um Commissioner Deorgio, do you have a question?

Yeah. Um, thanks for coming tonight. So, regarding the storm drain that's kind of near your property um, across the street. Yes. That's not It's not connected. Does Does it extend underneath the road and then go to a drainage ditch or do you know what happens to the

No. In fact, the uh city came out in the last week and noticed that the drainage even with that has now compromised the previous patchwork. there had been a water main break and they're going to have to redo the u uh paving around that area because the water has been coming down and that is to the east of the storm drain that doesn't occur. So you actually have a compromised situation in the road um already not even factoring that storm drain which goes into Petros and then comes down towards our property in Kilifer and again because of the history we have to retain sandbags uh because of the of the drainage that comes by and Paul will be telling you about flooding that he has on the west side of the property

and I go you were about to mention something I'm curious just what that was.

It It's in regards to the 20% and it's a little bit of a bait and switch and it's not the first time that we've seen it, but at the time that the um in 2014 uh the January 17th plans when those were made, the size of the property was 5750 and at that time the commission uh made a requirement that both the um overall side not just livable space and reduced visual impact had to be reduced by 20%. had not been here for four uh for four years. And Anna, this is where you uh Commissioner Stern and Ellis also uh cited at that time the U not only did the uh size go up to 5873, but between the beginning of 2018 and after the commission had mentioned it, it actually went up another 12% to 6592. So it's a bait and switch. increase it to 6592, then reduce it down. Then you look like you're compliant. Even though the recommended amount that was uh put into the minutes by the commissioners back in 2014 was 4600 square ft. I'd also point out a couple of uh things that I've noticed in regards to the setback. If you take a look at where the driveway is, it's not 40 feet back. It's closer to 35 feet with an elevation about 30 31 fi uh feet above. That's a 40 uh degree slope that is going to be overhanging with all of those trees removed. So to your point um in regards to the drainage and everything, all the sites have been removed. The biggest branch that was going to block the uh visibility as you come up valley, that 15 uh inch uh branch has been removed. So yes,

does that answer your question? That wasn't really the question. I went beyond. Sorry. Um, are there any other questions for the speaker, Commissioner Leange? Believe it or not, we've had a lot of these meetings where the two parties have not met till they got here. So, I will ask you a simple question. Do you have time after the meeting to meet?

Gladly. And we've met we've been willing to meet with the lawyers, Bill Went, I believe his name, and he he's apologized. says he only gets what's given to him. Um, so we have been very amendable. In fact, Bill brokered that meeting in 2014. We asked again in 2018. We asked again in 2022. So, we have uh as a neighbor neighborhood uh reached out. Okay. And then hopefully you can meet. I I don't know if the owner is with you, but hopefully you can meet. Yeah. And staff also offered to have a meeting in December, but unfortunately we could not attend. And and I I mean um I think I think I'm good. Thank you. Appreciate you being here.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. One more. Uh your address is 3983 Happy Valley, correct?

Okay. Thank you. Um before I call the next speaker, just want to offer something as staff to think about while the next speaker is up. Uh would you be able to pull your records to see who received notices and confirm that um 13983 is within the 300 ft radius that you noticed. And then if so if a mailer was sent to that address and I do not know the address of um Malcolm Fairbank unless 3972.

3972. Thank you.

So, I've I've asked staff to just clarify who is included in that. Okay. Thank you. Uh, next speaker,

Tim McClintic. Hi. Um, hi. My name is Tim McClintic. I live at 3997 Happy Valley Road. And the way the addresses go, we're right next to 4,01. So, I I actually thought I was closer to the house than 4,01, but if if if she's closer, that's fine. Uh in any case, uh we've been there, my wife and I have been there for 35 years. And this again seems a little bit like deja vu to me because we were here in 2018 and a 6,000 square foot house uh with a lot of massing was denied. And so on this one, I I'd like to concentrate more on the retaining walls that are if you stood for example at the top of my driveway and look across, it's quite it's a very steep slope and it goes up quite high and the retaining walls according to the materials the that were submitted are anywhere from 3 feet to 16 feet in height and there are two of them. And I think at the at the area where my driveway meets Happy Valley Road, that's the highest elevation because that's where the parking pad is and that's that's where the house part of the house sits. And u I can see that there could be potentially two 16 ft retaining walls there. The artist's rendering of the plan doesn't show any uh doesn't show how close to the street the retaining walls start and how and how tall they are in any particular area. And I'm wondering is it possible to have story

poles uh to show how the retaining wall height goes and how close to the uh to the street that is. So that's the that that's our contention there. And I think that o overall our contention has been all along that the building that the pad that the house can be built on is too small for a 6,000 square ft house, especially when added to it all the requirements for the fire engines to turn around and the parking and that. So that's all I have I think.

Thank you. Um, let me see if there's any questions. No questions. Thank you.

The third and last speaker from in the room is Paul Sachs.

Uh, right. My name is Paul [clears throat] Saxs. I'm at 3995 Happy Valley Road, uh, directly south behind Mccclinics. We're where the water goes. Hence my strong interest. But first, thank you for what you do. Good citizenship matters. Forgive me, but I have to hold things close these days. Um, I'm going to address two things, two things only. Hydrarology and the wall. What? Why am I here? Water comes downhill. I get it. We've had floods. We all know about the house sliding into the creek down the road at Toledo Court. Um, it's a problem in Happy Valley. And the slope we're talking about, you can't tell from the pictures, but that is probably the longest, steepest slope in Lafayette. And the pad we're talking about is that tiny portion, tiny portion at the bottom. What's going on is that to accommodate the fire engine turnaround hammerhead driveway need, there has to be a large expansion of the pad. I laughed when I saw the staff report. You have to check a box if you're going to move more than 50 cubic yards of dirt. This is 2400 cubic yards moved to accommodate that large hammerhead driveway. Imperous service surface. What I'm interested in is having an independent peer-reviewed hydraology report. Uh the first report submitted in 2010 was um laugh laughed at by my hydraologist father who said, "Son, that's just lines on a map." That same engineer now submits the current so-called hydrarology report, which is arithmetic showing surface water flows. What we need is cores, samplings,

something that gives us a bonafide hydraology report that tells us where the subterranean flows are and where they're going to go dealing with all of this mammoth impervious imperous surface. Uh I go back to the design review commission May 29, 2018 page 23 lines 18 through 30. They went through all of the misrepresentations this developer had made. The the repeated statements that will say whatever it takes to get it past the city engineer, measurements that were proved to be incorrect over and over. DRC said unanimously in those minutes that this project requires an independent peer-reviewed hydraology report. Uh and I don't I what's changed? land's the same, developers the same, the flows are the same. I just think they're trying to run out the clock and hoping that enough of the commission changes. And I I I would ask you not to be gamed that way. Second, the wall. Um, in a in a nutshell, um, the DRC, Planning Commission, city council denied the prior proposal. Why? 20% reduction in square footage. This house is larger. 4650 they were targeting. That's what the city council um said you had to get to. These people wouldn't. And now they're coming back with a larger number. Um second,

you mind Excuse me. Do you mind wrapping up because your time is up? My time is up. Uh wall. Yeah, just wrap up. None of the proposal shows us the height of the wall, how close it is to the road. Something in there is about retaining wall. Some are three feet, some are 16. At one point early on, contiguous right next to Happy Valley Road was a wall about the size of that ceiling. Take a look at the one picture that's on the website of the house. The walls are larger than the house and they're going to be looming right next to Happy Valley Road. Maybe 16 feet high, maybe 27s, maybe 14, but there is no depiction whatever here. Okay.

Nothing in the staff report and nothing in the proposal. There ought to be. Thank you. Thank you. Any uh just one minute, please. Any questions for the speaker? No. Okay, we're good. Thank you. Um, we'll look to staff, see if there's any hand raised online. The first speaker is Gil Berkeley.

Thank you. My name is Gil Berkeley. I live at 3981 Happy Valley Road. Um, frankly, the prior neighbors who spoke articulated most of my concerns. Um I just I if nothing else I want to express my frustration with the process that we've been put through. Uh we have been to I don't countless meetings uh in the past several years with respect to this project. We thought we actually had something that ultimately was approved that we could live with and now we're back again confronting all the same situ, you know, issues that we dealt with previously. I know one of you were able to go look at the site. Uh that building pad that that the architect referenced as being the logical place, I I'll agree with that. It's the only place on that whole uh 12 acre site between the two parcels that anybody could consider building. And what we're confronted with now between the Patel parcel and this one is almost 12,000 square ft of homes that they want to put on what most people would consider at best adequate for a one home site. So, um, I really do think that this project goes well beyond what's suitable for that piece of property.

Thank you. Any questions for the speaker? Okay. Thank you.

Any additional speakers, please raise your hand. Seeing none. Okay. Um, now the applicants team will have an opportunity to speak to any public comments that were presented and you have five minutes. Okay. Um, so I guess a lot of history which I've missed missed out on when you talk about 2014. I mean that's 12 years ago, right? If you would address so that let let's get to the fact here. Excuse me. Excuse me. Um if you could just please address your yeah your rebuttal to us. I'm sorry.

And then it'll be captured in the microphone as well and then

Okay. This is a brand new proposal with respect to the branch cut on a tree. We had to cut that tree. I would have loved not to cut that branch on the tree, but it was about this height. Couldn't even get a truck in. That's that is where we had to access to put our story poles up. I would have loved to have saved $1,500, but uh there is no there's no permit necessary to cut a branch that's providing uh blocking access to our parcel. Um with respect to uh it being too small a site, I mean this is this is 14 acre site for two homes. You know, most of this site is going to be viewed forever and ever by by the city residents, by everybody. I mean, this is where homes have to go. The the the tremendous cost of of building now is is, you know, from my experience, it's just exploded. And of course, you have to do homes that are of certain size. And it's about the massing. We're here to talk about the massing. Massing. We have a singlestory home. In fact, I have another design on the other lot which I uh shown to Mr. Patel. You know, one-story home with a garage below. That's the way to to do these sites. Not not the oldfashioned way, which which you saw and they saw years ago, which was two stories with a big roof. You know, those are massive. They they they they loom over the site. Not this one. This is very different. Um, you know, a lot of talk about water, a lot of talk about water and and it goes back to the reports and you guys don't believe them, but the hydraology is is an engineering discipline. It's

done by engineers. Okay? Whether you get it peer-reviewed or not, it's done by engineers. In our case, human company, longtime engineer, ISAT, you know, very qualified. I mean, these are just calculations that that are done and it's either you make it or you don't. So, I know there's a lot of frustration here and I'm I'm willing to to answer that, but we need to move beyond this. Um, I hope we do because uh it's just been too too much uh nonsense I think. And with respect to slides, I mean here here's a exhibit in the soils report that represents uh that references uh a more recent map by the USGC 1995 that you know that interpreted there are three landslide deposits located on both sides of the ridge line to show that no slide deposits within the proposed development area. So

you please address us. There's a couple and not the public. There's a couple of very small slides, but they're very superficial. Okay, this is a very good site geologically. That's my point. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Uh we will bring it to the commission for discussion. C can I ask a Yeah, I want to ask staff a question. I I just have been fumbling. I couldn't determine the date of the hydrarology report. Uh can you tell us what that might be? Pulling pulling it up right now. Commissioner,

I also have a question for staff, so I'll I'll wait maybe for that one or November 2025. both both reports November 2025.

Okay. And then um Monica and you had a summary slide that you presented during your staff report that kind of showed the history that's occurred. And one thing that I just would like to ask clarification on is towards on the right column of it. So most recently I do remember seeing you know parentheses um it either said like current owner [clears throat] in my mind that read as this is a new current owner and this owner didn't previously own the parcel nor submit any of the previous applications. Can you please just clarify the history um on the site? A lot of the public comments that we're hearing are going back to items from, you know, 2014, 2018. And I do agree that like I mean I remember seeing this um as a planning commissioner, but just to be really clear that what we're seeing tonight is a brand new application that we're considering. Um, but if you could just kind of walk through the history a little more, that'd be helpful.

Yes, chair. Um, yes. The the reason why I had it written as current owner is because, um, when I look at the as I as I researched these different applications, um, they have different owners listed. And then so, um, when I looked at our GIS map, it showed who the current owner was, which was Collins. And so that's and so that's why I I thought it was a a different owner than the applications that I had previously saw because they had different names on the different applications.

Okay. So that's helpful. But then to clarify um how or how long back in the history that you shared was Collins the owner? I mean, um, the application that I receive, um, how long back in the history? Um, I know it feels Yes, I know that he was mentioned um in the history, but I was just going off of what the applicant I mean the application. So, it's the application

and that's how I cited these application types. You go by application number and then the last name of the owner. And so that's why it's listed that way. Okay.

Chair, I believe uh Gary Collins and his brother uh were the proprietors, the the owners of Melor Development, which go back to I think 2011 on these two properties. So, I think that they purchased them and began the the application development process and have owned both or at least the east one uh since that time. That's my understanding. I welcome any corrections. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for [sighs and gasps] staff?

Yeah. Um the the resolution um says that the uh January 25th, the Hillside Homes Group on behalf of the owners submitted revised architectural plans um for this for this project. But when I was looking through the materials, I thought that the they were dated October 24th. And so I'm wondering if um if that is a if there's a conflict there or is there any substantial differences in what was recently submitted?

Uh which page of the the resolution? first page of the resolution. It's Oh, it's just um um as these recital go um we when a application is submitted, we conduct a completeness review and then we send the letter and then they submit revised drawings and then we re-review it again and then we send another letter then they submit revised drawings. So so that sort of recital just sort of illustrate the um that right. So, so there's nothing that that if we look at the plans that that were in the packet, those are really we can still rely on those. Then

they're just um addressing incomplete items that are on the submittal checklist.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone would like to start with any thoughts?

Well, I'm struggling a little. I mean, this is a phase one review. So, we're doing sighting and massing. And so, I'm struggling a little to see if there are prior applications that we should be comparing it to because I kind of took this as a different group and kind of a denovo project, but it sounds like maybe that's not the case. And so, um, in the past we've had, you know, packages that would show like, um, uh, a section cut and it would show a house downgrade and it would show the old house and the I don't know what's that what's that called? Declination. What's that when you like angle of repose? Some, one of those terms. And then you'd see the new uh, the new project. And you know, I think there was pointed out you could take a two-story house with a roof or you could take a one-story with a and bury it into a and it could be a lot lower, but but it's really hard to tell that through words. That's why you see pictures that show you. And it makes it easier, I think, for me to see if this, you know, um there's a reason we don't have square footage mandates in these in the code. It's because you could have a 2,000 foot house that looks bigger than a 6,000 square foot house. So, I'm not really keen on looking at the square footage relative to the last square footage and making a decision. You know, we're looking at sighting and mass. And so, I'm finding that I don't feel like I have enough information right now. And that's what I want to share with you guys. So, if there's more and I'm missing it and you know, but it seems like it's hard to tell.

Yeah, I don't disagree. That's why I was asking to clarify the ownership and um Yes. Don't I don't disagree.

Yeah, I I have the the same same concerns, you know, basic questions. How big are the retaining walls? problem there. I'm not It's not a cold hard I don't appreciate a sec. I don't like giving people a second bite at the apple, but I am disappointed that a lot of the same concerns we've had last time are still here and they didn't make a a better attempt to uh address it. You know, I know that, you know, hey, will they have would they have retaining walls in a in a sighting and massing phase one?

Well, when you have say potentially 30 ft of retaining wall, you better have it up against the road. Uh, and remember this is, you know, I guess what I'm asking, can this be deliberative here? You know, it's not fully engineered. I understand that's we're looking at sighting and massing goes here and it should be this big. We're not we're not it's not being engineered right now. So I understand what you're saying but there is that you know uh phase two portion where the engineering should come in at full boore. That's right. But if you remember it used to be phase two would come back to us. Right

now phase two just goes to design review. So we have to weigh in now because we may not get it. It still will be reviewed by city engineer public work. I mean it's reviewed by we're not we're not technical experts reviewing. I mean I know you have technical expertise and everyone has some skills but we're not our our charge is not to be the technical reviewers of these. No, I'm I'm not saying we we are or should be, but when you review when reviewing the items and you have questions and the questions relate to not did they do it right or wrong, is this complete?

Right? Would I like more information? Would I like this? You know, it shouldn't be unreasonable for ass to say that, hey, I can't tell you. If I had to vote, I'd probably say no, but I'm not I I'd prefer just to get more information. You know, you the houses, you know, it's kind of scary when you have to deal with potential flooding.

Well, I mean, I wonder to your point if we should clarify with staff. I mean this is a complete application I believe. So if it's a complete application and we don't have enough information where's the where where's the myths if it's complete and we don't have enough are is are we are these being uh filtered correctly and how we should review them? For example I would say that you know everybody's arguing about the the drainage runoff that should the hydraology report should be as part of our packet. We've had geotechnical reports in our packets before.

I mean, the hydraulic report, it says in here that the hydra that the city engineer said that the hydraology report needs to be updated to match the design, but it hasn't been designed yet. I mean, it's been preliminarily designed, but it hasn't been designed, but the city engineer is saying that. So, I would assume that that would have to be reviewed by the city engineer when it is final. Now, I'm willing to see if staff will confirm all this, but

well, I also think we can um make a request that it do be that it is peer reviewed and I do agree that once it's at the appropriate stage. I interpret it as I read it as that they are going to need to update the report. I I can sympathize with the applicant that they're waiting to hear the comments, you know, from tonight, so they're only doing it once. I I can understand that. Um I do agree that when a retaining wall is on the front of the property, that does feel like massing to me when it's a giant retaining wall. Even though to your point, Commissioner Leange, we're looking at the massing and the location of the structure. Typically, a lot of times we see the retaining walls in the backyard, right? Not the first thing you see off of the main road. Um, so I I do

well that's why I would think that that side cut I think we should have that in here. You know, this is proposed that there's a nice graphic, but it really gives you no ability to see what's this like from the street, how mass how big is this? What what and when Yeah, we're looking at massing. Yeah. Right. And when we look at those, which we do get those in packages, we've seen those before. It really helps you visually understand. Oh wow, that doesn't look right. I can't tell that. Right. Okay.

I do feel some of the comments or some of the things that we um at least that I mentioned in the previous application would also be applicable here in the future. Having um a real representation of what you're proposing uh relative to the street, relative to the neighbors is helpful. I

mean, can we ask staff that again? I mean, how much in a phase one should we be asking for things to to these points that you know, it's one thing if you're on a flat level lot and it's a elevation we can look at and you see it's a one story, it's a twotory. I mean, we've even had ones where we get the neighboring photographs to kind of get a sense. But on this one, let me just stop. How how how reasonable is it to get additional information at this level in a phase one? It is very reasonable. Um the the commission needs to be comfortable with the sighting on the site and the massing. And to that end, it is incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate those aspects to the commission clearly. And this is not a flat site. It's very easy on a flat site to illustrate it, but you've articulated one of several ways to convey the sighting and the massing on a sloping site. Section drawings,

um, three-dimensional serial box renderings. It they're simple. They're gray boxes. It shows massing. It shows the relative heights of things. It it's it is routine uh for such. So it is not unreasonable to ask for those.

Let me can I just precursor question is that is that reasonable to put that as as a qualification for being complete in a package I mean or is that is there judgment in that? So we don't necessarily want to do that. Well, there's some degree of evaluation um and a judgment around it, but that no, I think that is reasonable to put as a um submittal requirement. I you know, arguably I think that is in the submittal requirements. Um you know, 3D renderings may not be in there or um digital massing models like a KMZ file that you could display in Google Earth. um we are going to be adding that as a submitt requirement because it's very straightforward to do in today's day and age. Um it's like submitting a PDF now. It's it's just it's routine. So, what I would like to maybe suggest and keep in mind when we're providing our comments is um if we if someone up here does feel that maybe the the information that they have to review tonight to feels incomplete, if we could just be clear on what we are requesting um to provide us more information that would then allow us to move forward with the application. I'd also just like to summarize the topics of the public comments we heard tonight. Um, multiple around the retaining wall, understanding a feel for the size and the massing of the wall. Um staff, I do know there was a public comment requesting story polls to depict a retaining wall. Is that a reasonable request? Um in staff's

opinion, it is provided that the feature is above existing grade. If the feature would be below existing grade, it's very difficult. That's fair. So the only way to do that would be to use existing grade and go up and then have a very clear uh qualifier on the exhibit that says note that element which is illustrated at this height would be globally reduced with the the grade being dropped.

Okay, that's helpful. Um so we heard retaining wall comments. We've heard um concern regarding hydrarology and that the hydraology report be peer reviewed after it's updated. Same with the uh geotech report. We did hear a public comment concern for fire truck turnaround and that having it on site is creating um kind of a bigger pad area there. of parking also mentioned the parking pad. Um and then it was either renderings or story poles for the retaining walls and then commissioners have shared um a request for visually depicting the massing um in relation to the surrounding area as well as from the public road. I know that was just a recap, but um what else would anyone like to talk about? Commissioner Deorgio.

Sure. Um I'm going to be a little bit a different opinion than perhaps some of the other commissioners and I um I feel that that the design and the the the sighting or the massing of the house as it's presented is is acceptable to me. Um, I do have a concern about um how close it is towards the um the 3972 property to the east of it. Um, and but it's within it's within specs. I mean, it's it it m it's it matches the setbacks. I'm just concerned about the angle. But if they feel that they can design it, that's up to the that's up to the phase two. That's a phase two question. So, um, my only criticism on the, well, not my only one what my one of the criticisms I have is the figure two in the staff report to me is a little bit um, misleading because what it gives an impression of is you've got a really big backyard that's just um, you know, level, but in fact, the very edge of that house is at the very beginning of the slope that that goes up. So, um I'm echoing what others have said that it'd be nice to have a better representations of of the massing uh you know, if if that was possible. But I think that if you look at the different components of the resolution, I I I think it's workable as long as we have a really adequate phase two. Um and that's, you know, that's kind of where I'm at. Commissioner Mason,

part of the nervousness is well, first of all, the question is, can we request phase two come back through us or does it have to go just to the design? You you can stipulate in the phase one approval that the phase two is acted on by the planning commission.

Thank you. And I will will also note since I have the mic that the phase 2 application is very much driven by the phase one sighting and massing. And so getting that that is why it is a two-step to get the early question or questions of where on the site and kind of how is it masked established early without going to great lengths of time and investment to flesh out the entirety of the application to answer those early questions get buy in and approval and then be able to move on to the to the more detail.

Okay. So in my other life I do a lot of this the peer review and my general experience and in most of your other professions you'll find it when dealing and I know human I know personally and professionally um what I found is generally when you're dealing with other professionals it's not something that I would say something is wrong but you get a lot of have you considered this or what about that and that's why I think it's important to have if a the drain report is preliminary that's fine if the geotechnical report is plinary that's fine you state where you are in the process and that gives everybody including the number the the neighbors who from the sunset have legitimate concerns prior to all this and they're afraid it's going to make it worse a chance to come back and say hey in your final report. Can you address A, B, C, and D? That would make me feel a lot more comfortable. And that's in some ways independent of of the peer review. Um, so right now, you know, my general feeling is, hey, you know, there's a uh how are you going how are they going to build a 30-foot retaining wall? I mean, are they going to short or are they going to drill quant 30inch deep quesons down 60 feet? You know, you my guess is all the offall doesn't uh include all the spoils. Are you going to be blocking uh the road uh Happy Valley Road? There's just a lot of questions and at this point I'm not prepared to vote for it uh until I get a chance to uh uh get these questions because I can't pretend they're not legitimate

questions. Why don't we say what questions we want answered and then we'll we'll we can I think we're all kind of leaning that way. Okay. I think the hydraul I think I would like to get a better set of drawings presentations showing uh the retaining wall heights. Uh I think that there we should have something the hydraology I think that needs to be buttoned up and with that I'd say just throw in the geotechnical as well. Um the pad [snorts] if the house is what it is. Yeah, I'm more or less inclined with it.

I make a suggestion if we're doing a phase one so that people can get there and get a little direction before they fully engineer it. So maybe there's a threshold. I'm just trying to spitball ideas because if we're going to have them do a phase two for phase one, then we've kind of then we've missed the point.

Yeah. I' I'd like to focus this on what do we need in order to um vote on what's in front of us tonight. What's in front of us? What is in front of us tonight is the phase one. So massing and sighting. I don't um I don't want to discard any of the other public comments or commissioner comments. I'm open to the phase two coming back to us and if we can maybe express now those things that we do want to see for the phase two I definitely feel that we should um so I want to just ask you commissioner Mason for I do understand the height of the um

you're missing my major point is that once we pass phase one it locks in a 6,000 square foot. So that's what I was going to ask on here. Now there could be some fatal problems. Hey, we don't like a 30 foot retain wall. No, we can't overcome the drainage. Well, too bad. We've already approved.

No, they can't move forward though without getting through the phase two. I mean, we're not going to lock them into a deal just because phase one goes forward if it can't get through phase two. But phase, correct me if I'm wrong, staff, doesn't phase approvals phase one, doesn't that give them guarantee them a say a 6,000 square foot house on a pad at this location? No, I think you can stipulate the the the maximum and provided that the the phase two meets the findings of the of the phase 2 and direction, you know, I think prior phase one approvals have said, okay, this is the the you know, rough location and rough size, but the phase two will will reduce the square footage by 20% And that direction was made part of the conditions of approval. I don't believe it was followed, but I I and I think that was part of the the denial of the phase two. But you you can stipulate approve a phase one with stipulations or conditions and it's not a a full-fledged entitlement because they have not gone through the second phase which would be an entitlement. Okay, thank you.

So maybe let's first start with sighting and then we'll go to massing. How does everyone feel about the siding? Um, personally I feel there's very limited locations. I think it is better to put it in a flatter area versus cutting out the hillside. How do we feel about siding? I'm fine with it. Yeah, I I think we have to give people their reasonable expectation to reasonable expectation to develop their properties. And you're right, this is the flattest part

again, but sighting and massing have to go together. In other words, if the house was say a little bit smaller and shoved back, then that hammerhead and the big retaining wall up against the road wouldn't be as ownorous because it would be pushed back. In other words, true. You've got a flat site and looks like they've covered every square inch of it with driveway in the house and some of those things might be a little bit less ownorous if the house wasn't as big and then hammerhead was reduced.

But that's we're talking about sighting where Well, I know. But you can't look at sighting without looking at massing. Yeah, that's that's that's where I think we're trying to just break it apart so we can kind of get through it though a little. I think that's the only place to put it. Yes, but do I think that it's I but I think it's too much for that site.

Well, that's okay. That's next. Massie. That's massive. Okay. But I I I understand both points. Chicken. Which way does it go first? Right. Chicken or the egg. But um I do understand your point, right, of if something's half the size, there's more options, for example, for parking, driveway, retaining walls, that sort of thing. Um, Commissioner Deorgio, did you have any

I I'm I'm generally okay with the sighting. I wish it was um perhaps uh when you look on when you go up when I went up on the site, my impression was they're going to have to do a lot of moving of dirt around to get to get the the driveway and everything placed properly. Um and there's not a whole lot of I think room for moving it back and forth if given the size of the house that's proposed. So, um I think that it would it'll work. Um but it's good again phase two. We'll see what the the walls are like. But I I'm okay with the sighting as is. So your lights on. Do you have anything?

No.

Okay. So, I'm flipping to the resolution, and the resolution includes findings that the planning commission is asked to make tonight. So, this is attachment one. Um development is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the general plan. Development will preserve open space and physical features. Structure in the hillside overlay district will to the extent feasible be located away from prominent locations such as ridge lines, hilltops, nles and open slopes. Development including the design and the location and massing of all structures and improvements will to the extent feasible minimize the loss of privacy to surrounding residents not have a significant visual impact when view from lowered lower elevations. I personally that's item D2 finding D2. I think that's hard to make with um the information that we have in front of us. I'm just reading through them. So, if anyone has anything, please just

uh chime in if there's one you're not able to make. Uh so, now this is Yeah, go ahead. Can I I I I'm of the opinion I can't make a decision tonight. So, I thought we were leaning more towards what would we ask them to come back with for a revised phase one approval. So, if we were I thought that's where you were going. Yeah, I'm trying to just help us come up with um anything to make a a decision. And so you're saying that rather than voting yes or no, you'd prefer to request additional information. Correct. Okay. I'd want like a a section view.

Um I'd also like a proximity to the other houses. And I I mean since since there's been discussions about size, I mean I'm looking at one of these are aerials and seeing really big houses near it. So I'm you know I don't know all the house size, but may maybe it'd be good to have an idea. We've had we've seen that. Yeah,

definely had that show the relative neighbors and how big their houses are and and we've also realized that over time they tend to creep. So, I'm okay if it gets a little bigger, but if it's, you know, anyways. So, that um we had also talked about story polls. I mean, oh, and I guess I I was thinking the other one to your point, could we ask them to do this? How big do you think a retaining wall you're going to need to do? Maybe they can't tell us that, but if they can, I think they should be hearing now that we wanna we want to really understand that because that's going to cause your, you know, that's going to cause a lot of consternation that we need to evaluate. So, we need to see something.

I know in other projects we've had renderings that said this is the view from the street. Even on the other side of the street, right, if you're saying, hey, it's a 30 feet worth of retaining wall and it takes off from there, you're like this. Well, I do think with what they've shown now, we it's fair of us in a section view to get that to get what the view what what would you see? You know, would you be looking straight up to a wall and not see the house because it's so broad in front of you? Would you be seeing the house? You know, you have a view like that that we should be able to see that from the section view. I mean, that's one of the requirements is visual impact down below. So, that might answer some of those questions at least.

And that's why I'm saying I don't have enough. No, I I Yeah, that's fair. I I don't

So, in addition to the things you just listed, the massing box, um I also heard earlier like just a visual box representation. Um so, we definitely have two commissioners who do feel that they don't have enough information. I'm on the fence about having enough information. I do really feel strongly the item um D2 for the finding. I can't make that without understanding what the project looks like from the street, which I don't think we need to go as far as going from the neighbor's house at 4001. I don't think that's appropriate. But I do think from the street view, actually understanding what does this project look like? If you're only seeing retaining wall, show us a white box, you know, or if you're seeing the home peeking up beh above it, show that. Um, so in that I can't make the finding. So I would not be able to vote in support of this. Therefore, I am open to requesting additional information rather than um suggesting denial. Um I also know we're four people tonight, right? So, I think we should make the best use of staff's time of our time and the applicant's time, right? This this has come before the city a lot. So, I think we owe it to um the community to help create the best projects. So, let's be mindful in the information we're asking to come back. I would like to see also if it does come back that the phase two come to um the planning commission like if we don't end up voting on it tonight if we add that to our resol or excuse me

to our motion next time. Commissioner Deorgio um I I I don't want to necessarily cut the design reviewing commission out of it. It might be approp staff can answer whether a phase two could be a joint um meeting. Classically, it would go to the DRC first. They would make a recommendation to the planning commission. Yeah. So, they would still get to see it. That's what Yeah. Okay. Perfect.

Um I I'm I'm great. I'm okay with continuing it for more information. And if we do that, I would like to see um the proposed one what some of the exhibits didn't really show the uh the property with lot line changes was that was mentioned earlier by Anna and I've also notic noticed that um it'd be nice to see what the proposed layout is with change in the lot lines.

Thank you. And then Commissioner Mason, can you just um remind me because I was writing down what Commissioner Leange requested, Commissioner Giorgio's comment. Can you please remind me or repeat what you said about the hydraology and that what you would like for the phase one? First of all, before that, I from the comments, it appears that the owners and the neighbors really haven't spoken that much. I would hope that before they come back,

there's conversations. Even if they disagree, at least they have a conversation said this is our view, this is their view. So at least you can define the problems. The the concern is subterranean drainage that comes down, hits the house, and is redirected around that. You know, the status quo really isn't working anyway. So I'm not sure they make it simple stuff, though. I mean, yeah. So what I would like to see is I would like to see the hydraology report as part of the submittal package along with the geotechnical report. Um sub the one that's current that was already prepared not the not requesting and updated. Yeah. Even if it's just listed as preliminary.

Yeah. That's okay. And that that that's not an it's already been done. Yeah. Right. It's adding it at least that way everybody has it and they could look at it and say, "Gee, can you address A, B, C, and D, you know, and we all get this in our own chosen professions." Yeah. Yeah. What about this? And that's what I'm trying to get to. Okay. I think that's a fair request. Is there anything additional uh that would help make the findings for phase one? I would uh also I'd like to find out more. Uh 30 foot wall is a big big big big retaining wall. I'd like to find

Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me. No, just please please Thank you. Thank you. Absolutely not. Please stop speaking. Thank you. Part of the confusion is there isn't a dimension or any information about the walls up on the street side of the driveway. Okay. Yeah. So, to your point, since there is no information, people might think it's 60 feet. People might think it's 30 feet and the applicant might be concerned about that because Yeah, you're right. It might only be six, but if it's not depicted anywhere, a commission can't make Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. We don't people come back and say you approve this great wall of Lafayette. I think uh if you are looking at a lot of the walls and you know they talk about on it's going to be on drilled quesons I agree that's the best way to go but little question whether the uh import export includes the spoilage from the drilling of all those peers. um you know basis I don't think I'm asking for anything unreasonable. I'm just asking for more information and make sure it's available for everybody because it might answer some of the questions for some of the neighbors or

so what is just so I'm clear what what right now do you want us to write down that we're going to hydrarology and geotech preliminary reports. Okay. and uh the elevations uh to accurately depict the retaining wall heights on the PL heights and horizontal steps between the walls so that we if it's terrorist that's one thing if it's one great wall it's another thing so we get a visual and we should see that in the section view too not to say I I agree and so basically something depicts what it would look this the house and walls look like from the far Yeah, that's fair. And it says from from the public uh right away.

Yeah, from the road. The road or something. I think we should also include the the 2018 one, the one that you guys I think that was right before I started because I don't remember that. Um because that one was denied and it seems like it's the same owner and I'm just a little nervous. I want to see what what did our previous selves say didn't work and how does that look compared to now? It might be really obvious that these are different. Yeah. So, are you asking for that to be just so it's really clear? Are you asking for it to be shown visually or in a paragraph summary? I would love to see that section view show side by side new one and the old one because that's pretty easy. That's not a lot of work.

I I'm not sure I agree with that. I I don't know that I think it complicates everything. I mean with but I mean can you look at this write up and can you make sense of what that means? It says it was denied because I can't without I was I was going into this as you mentioned earlier treating this as a kind of a denovo um process since the other one had been denied and that's why I asked the staff clarifying questions about that. I think I don't know that how much looking at old plans will add add to our our

I don't want to look at plans. I want to look at a simple section view that should show us. You know what I'm talking about, right? So then you'll see a mountain, you'll see a road, you'll see a house, and then maybe we'll see a different one. And then we'll see did this really and it should tell us if this has been designed in listening to the architect for the applicant explain how this is put into the hillside. I want to see that because that's the right design and that's what he told us he was doing. I want to see it relative. I see. And I can't see that right there. I see. And just so I understand so you can't see it with the current plan set but seeing um how is seeing it against the an old application? I don't really

I just want to see a section where somebody adds where that would maybe that's asking too much. I'm not sure. Well, I I

So I'll I'll clarify. We heard you ask for clarity in this plan set alone relative to what's existing grade and what will be the finished condition and the height of those. It is standard practice to to show that information on the plans so that anyone can view it and understand it in plan view looking down on it. It's also standard practice to show it in section view cutting through the site. And so that alone is what you asked for earlier. I also think it'd be great to be able to look at what was what it was before that was disapproved and what it is now. And if it's significantly better, that's informative. If it's the same or worse, then that's informative. So, but that that is far secondary and should be a simple cut and paste snips to align those two drawings. But but the the basics of clear drawings for in plan view for the grading plan and sections we'll have them for you.

Feel good with that. Perfect. And Commissioner Mason, one thing in the hydrarology report, I'd like to get a little bit, you know, this has been back and forth the in the water has always been a little bit about the history of the reports. What suggestions have been made because you and I were there when the first time came through and I remember pretty much the same people came up and complained about the water running into their property and I don't I remember it being a concern. I don't remember how it was proposed to be addressed at that time. I don't remember some of the drain line 21 drain lines and some of those suggestions. So yeah, summary of the history

history how to address because the problems have always been there. Yeah, just a summary of the history of the different proposals on how to address those problems and why these new particular suggestions would will work relative to and it might be the same and it might be different. Perfect. Um, do you feel good, Commissioner Deorgio? Yes.

Okay. Commissioner Mason, you feel good? Mr. Leon, so I did capture notes. I've heard a lot of typing. Is staff clear on the additional items or would it be helpful if I read through my notes? The only thing staff would like clarity on is um the geotechnical report and the drainage report. What the commissioner Mason requests regarding those two items? Um, exactly. Will that they be included? There there is a geotechnical report and a drainage and two drainage reports. Two d that have been included or they I I would like to get them included in the packets.

Yep. We'll we'll be sure to include them in the next package. And I thought from the applicant that they'd already had a geotechnical review. Okay. Okay. And I'd like that included in Yeah. In the next package. Perfect. Okay. Um so then staff is comfortable with the comments we've made. Yes. Yes. Chair. Thank you. So then um how do we move forward? What do we we don't vote?

Uh you would uh entertain a motion to continue the matter to a date certain in the future. We're recommending April 20 uh to allow the applicant sufficient time to give us materials. um we can establish that deadline with them offline. Um so the deadline to submit materials, we get the chance to review them, have our colleagues and engineering etc. re review them, prepare the staff report, bring it back. We need to publish it in advance and give you time to review the materials that you've requested. So uh April 20 is our our recommended continuing date.

Okay. And is it appropriate or have you checked with the applicant team that they can um meet the requested items by April 20th and working backwards with your dates or We've not so checked. However, that that's a pretty generous amount of time. So, if need be, we could continue that into a future date. I just don't want to do it too early and, you know, Exactly. put ourselves in a pickle. Yeah. Okay. Um, anyone interested in making

I will I move that we continue this item to a date certain of April 20th with all of the things we discussed tonight that hopefully staff is and if not the chair has them articulated. Is that enough? Do you guys feel like you have the list? Yes, commissioner. Okay. So, your motion is that we continue this till April 20th. Um, it is requested. Yeah. With the requested additional information that's been requested tonight. I'll second that.

Uh, just one comment. I know that there were some questions about some people thought they may or may not have received notice some of the neighbors. I would like you to check with staff and make sure you have your name on the list so that they will know to contact you. And for the record, since the matter is continued and not a new hearing, we we will not be providing second and additional notice. So, we would ask you to let your neighbors know. And if any of them have any questions, feel free to contact us. April 20th. April 20th. Okay. So, we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor?

I I All opposed. So, four passes. Four eyes. Thank you. Um, go back to the agenda. Okay, other business. Item seven, arc volunteer. Another Friday the 13th, March 13th. Anybody? I thought I heard the vice chair. Oh, yeah. He said

I thought he said he could. What's all of them? Um, I can What? What day are we on? No, I can probably do it. If he can't Let's Let's say we nominated him. You've done it a lot. It's actually

Okay. Okay. Um, sign them up. Uh, commissioners reports. Excuse me. Our hearing still or meeting still continuing. So feel free if you would like to talk either the applicant team from the last item or public comments, but please do it out in the hallway. Thank you. Thank you. Uh [clears throat] commissioner's report, um planning director's report.

I'll be brief. Uh the city council has requested a presentation from me and my my team um on development projects basically h a housing update of an influx of uh items and and kind of where things stand. You know, there's some projects that have been approved. Where what's going on with that? When do we expect X Y or Z to be complete and occupied? Um, and then stuff nobody has seen yet because we're just receiving the applications and and scheduling them. So, you actually heard about one of the items earlier tonight. You discussed uh the the project at Second Street. So, that will happen um just after 7 p.m. It'll it'll happen um after a couple presentations at the council on Monday. So you're welcome to come into the room and and hear that or you can watch real time or on the YouTube after uh particularly if you ping me afterwards the the following day I can send you out a link to that specific item. Uh it'll be about 20 slides should be about 40 minutes and uh there's a lot.

Would you um you said if we message you you could send it out. Would you just be able to send it out? I'm gonna send myself a calendar event right now. Yes. I didn't mean to put that on you. I should I should do that. I'm happy to. Thank you. That's all I have. Um Okay. Well, thank you everybody and I do appreciate the thoughtfulness um around both items. So, yeah, good job. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.