Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening. Welcome to the April 20th Planning Commission meeting. Um, as a court courtesy, you are able to join virtually. Um, the the instructions for joining are on the first page of the agenda, but if you're hearing this, you are already joined virtually, but in the future, they're on page one of the agenda. Um, we'll start tonight with a roll call. Commissioner Leavange, present. Commissioner Deorggio, present. Commissioner Mason, present. And I'm here. Commissioner Radnich. Uh, can I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda?

Second. All in favor? I. Uh, public comments. Item four on tonight's agenda. So this is an opportunity if you would like to provide comment for an item not on the agenda. If you are waiting to speak for an agenda item that'll come later per each item. So any comments? So I see none in the room. How about virtually? And I fear that I h have been dropped off of the meeting. And so we'll I'll ask the uh AVTEC in the in the AV room if there are any hands raised for public comments and I'll rejoin the meeting.

Thank you. Okay. No hands raised. So no public comments virtually. We'll move to item five, consent calendar. It's for two sets of meeting notes, March 2nd and March 16th. Can I get a motion? I move that we adopt the consent calendar. Second. All in favor? I.

Okay. Thank you. Item six, presentation by staff for the capital improvement program update and proposed projects. So, good evening, planning commission. Mike Moran here representing engineering and public works, and this is my annual opportunity to uh to share with you the capital improvement program that's been happening and that's proposed for the future. the proposed projects I'm presenting tonight um have been vetted through our capital projects assessment committee they're to you tonight to see that they comply with or are in conformance with the general plan and uh if that all works out then they will go to the council in May to request funding which would be adopted in June with the the budget um so that's kind of the annual cycle so I have several projects I have some slides to share of and I will go through them fairly quickly. Of course, you're uh welcome to ask questions as we go or at the end, but most of them just follow the staff report that I've given you. So, there's kind of a representation of what we've done. Um, so I'll start with what we've completed. We did a large paving project last year, St. Mary's Road and and Mount Diablo Boulevard. So, here's a photo at St. Mary's out near the community center. Uh, another location back at the

beginning of that at at Glennside Drive. So we paved between Glennside and Roar last year. Um we also were out on Mount Dabble Boulevard. So this is sort of near the reservoir on the west end of town. And another shot there at the freeway onramps and off-ramps at Okalani is at the very west end of town. So that was our major paving project last year. We also did a pathway project on Pleasant Hill Road near Spring Hill School. This was a really nice opportunity. We got some grant funding. We um we partnered with East Bay Regional Park District. As you may know, they have a parking lot and access to their trails right adjacent to Spring Hill School. So, this works as sort of an informal drop off pickup area, and this gives them a protected pathway to school. It also eliminates uh an issue we've had with people parking in the shoulder along Pleasant Hill Road for decades. Um, but it's been a little chaotic and there's always been some concern with some some safety issues there. So, we were able to complete that. There's another shot of the pathway there. Um, wasn't sure when we were going to do this, but last year we did have a project at the police station. It was up on the roof. We needed to do uh the new roof and HVAC repairs. We did know years ago that that was failing and leaking and we were patching it and we got to a point where we needed to get that fixed. So we worked that into last year's program. So those are the capital projects we completed. We also have uh quite a few ongoing projects. We are working on a bridge maintenance design. We've got uh four or five different bridges we're working on. Um here's one of Maraga Boulevard that's near Lee Creekide uh at Third Street, but we've also got some other bridges listed there. It varies from scouring at the foundation to um resurfacing the deck to repairing sidewalk and railing, including on

Elcortella Boulevard, which is our famous or infamous bridge that everybody sees on Highway 24 because that's the bridge everybody uh likes to share information from. So, um anyway, those are all part of a bridge program. We're in design and they're doing studies on those. Uh, I did learn that um some of the repairs we're going to need to do are fairly expensive and we don't have funding set aside for that. So, I have applied for the highway bridge program. It's a long process, but if accepted, we will get some federal funding to help us with that maintenance. So, another project that we've been working on really for a couple years because this is in conjunction with the county with uh La Miranda, Lafayette, Maraga, and Arinda and Contraosta Transportation Authority is a smart signals project. This is an opportunity to use some grant funding to upgrade our traffic signals throughout all of Lafayette. Um, we'll have some interconnection. We will have some adaptive capabilities with the smart signals. It's not going to eliminate traffic at peak times. Um, but it will flow better at non- peak times and and you might find some improvement at peak times, but it doesn't fix traffic. Um, particularly, for example, this location, Moraga and Mount Diablo Boulevard, um, when school lets out. Um, another another tough location and intersection is Deer Hill Road at Pleasant Hill Road at school times or peak commute times. So, um, it's going to help. But another advantage of the smart signal project is we will have backup batteries at most of our signals, and that's going to be very helpful, particularly if there's power safety shut offs and so forth. So, that is um should be out to bid this June. It's probably an 18-month project in part because of how long these components take to order. Um, but we should be starting that this summer.

Um, I've been working on a St. Mary's Road repair for three years. This happened December 31st of 22. And um, because this is funded by the Federal Highway Administration, the environmental goes through CALR to do the NEPA. I am still working on that approval process. Um, we had a similar project that didn't go through this NEPA process. And

how would you define NEPA? Oh, sorry. Uh, National Environmental Protection. It's it's California squa, the California. So, this is the environmental and obviously it's at a creek. Um, so there's some sensitive areas there, but there's also archaeological and historical and all those things that they're requiring that we clear, which is uh been a long process. I did get an extension for this project and had to say, "Hey, you haven't cleared my environmental. What What do you want me to do?" So, we're trying. Um, I did put about a 100 tons of rip wrap in this two weeks after this slid. Um, and that's the only reason I've been able to sleep at night since that time. Um, because otherwise we were going to lose St. Mary's Road. Um, you may or may not know, but we bought the Campana building a couple few years ago. In part, that was to help with the Plaza Overlay parking district. Um, we were hoping to also get another building so that we could change the configuration of circulation through that building. Um, that didn't happen. Um, a lot of back and forth and some planning and what we've decided to do is put it back on the market. Um, but have a condition of approval, well, a couple conditions of approval from the from the buyer. Um, and that is one, there would be a a creek access easement that would run through this property to the creek behind it. um which is basically the chneled culvert from the flood control district um and open concrete channel from the flood control district but it would access the creek and then also uh the property the the purchaser is uh interested in maybe some reciprocal parking which was the intent of buying this between the park theater and this building should we be able to get that creek access and and either a bridge or another easement through another property that would be between the

theater and the campana. So, that is on the market. There's uh proposed agreements going back and forth and I don't know know exactly where that's at, but that's the intent is to sell it but still try and get some of the initial intent out of it by some parking cooperation. Yes. Um so right now that's in negotiation. Yes. Is there I know in um like the park theater there was someone off planning commission who was asked to be on. Do we on just regular acquisitions invite anyone from planning commission or is it just city like two is it the who's on it from the city?

So I mean the real estate components of this are usually closed session with the city council and and city attorney. So it's okay. So that so maybe the park theater was a special one where they wanted to invite I I just was curious if they they don't normally ask someone from the planning commission. I don't think I understand has real estate experience. Yeah. I'm assuming that's going to be Yes. I know the city does. Okay. Yeah. I'll stop it. It's just all about trying to get the connectivity and use understand what we're trying to do. I just want to make sure

as far as the legal um when I was going to either build something there or demol demolish something there, that's my job. But as far as the sales and so forth, um I weigh in to help them get easements and things like that. Um but I haven't been privy to the conversations. And then the property in between's the one that we would like to in the future get a cross access hopefully between here and the park theater. either that or if we're on the south side of that creek channel, a bridge over it to go around them

to Yes. Yes. Because this property actually has a and I don't have it. Sorry. But but it actually goes back and and kind of pies back on that south side of the creek. So it goes farther back than say the white car there that you can see parked at the back. Um and that's where the creek is. So it goes farther back and you could get a bridge over from that too. So you'd have a walking path that kind of crosses over the creek and then back through these two properties. Okay. Thank you, Mike. That would be a hope. So it's one of two options. Okay. Thank you.

Sure. Uh we have been working on a BART bike station and pathway for many years because this has been joint with BART and it has uh also included a change of funding during CO. Happy to say that we have finally broken ground. You can see some demolition there um where the bike station pad would be. And this is going to connect um town center downtown with with the BART on the south side. It also has lighting and an art component if you were um aware of the floating dandelion art that was presented several years ago to city council. And um anyway, looking forward to actually getting this project done. I will say it's going slower than staff would like and it's taking a lot of handholding and there are um multiple jurisdictions. East Bay Mud Aqueduct, Calrans, BART and the city are all have a stake in this project. So um right now we have uh 26 paving project out to bid. It includes 22 residential streets. We have not been focusing on residential streets for repaving in the last several years. We've the the residential street work we've done maintenance-wise has been more slurry seals. Um we have decided to go back to overlays and inlays and actually get full paving on these streets. We think it will be the best bang for the buck given the the cost the cost escalation we've seen in the slurry seals and just the uh the longer life you get with the paving. So that project is out to bid. We open Thursday. Um, we are a little concerned about pricing. We don't, you may know that asphalt and transportation are both dependent on oil prices and the cost of things. So, we don't know what we're going to get. Um, we're crossing our fingers for a low price um, at least

somewhere near the engineers estimate. So, we'll find out uh, later this week. We are adding two more rapid flashing beacon crossings. This one I show at the roundabout because there's already one there. There's there's there's two there actually. So this is Pleasant Hill Road and then the leg um going towards Really Station Road on the west and if you were to go towards the east towards Rossmore, we are planning to add one there as well. Um I've actually ordered those components and that one should go in in pretty short order. The other location we plan to put one is Mount Table Boulevard at Hampton. Um we're having to do more of a formal design for that one. It's going to have a center refuge. It's kind of there at between Hampton and across the street is like the Shell station, but it it serves some of the some of the hair salons, 7-Eleven, um Hank and Frank's bicycles over there. But there's actually and there's apartments across the street from those things like the 7-Eleven. It actually gets quite a bit of pedestrian traffic crossing Mount Boulevard. It's it's very wide at that location. We've had requests to improve safety crossing there for quite a while. Hampton is located just about midway between Brown and Carol Lane. It's about 1100 ft from either direction and those are your closest signals that would be protected for crossing. So we're hoping to improve safety there um with a flashing beacon crossing. Um you may not know, but in this uh facility uh the Seabore Garden, we were having some issues with the well with what was built originally. We had some water infiltration under the floor. We weren't using this um for open to the public because honestly it was it had sloped floors and things like that. There were issues with ADA. Um I don't know all the background on why it was designed the way it was, but I know it wasn't working. We removed out what was in the center there. What you see there

is just a new uh a new concrete slab to control the drainage away from the building and and put it into a drainage system. Um, there's more stories about this, but basically we're going to put back like a paved tile and and hopefully some sort of art project, working with the public art committee on what could go there. At this point, it looks like we're going to be phasing that. I'm just going to put a deck in that and then an art would be added to that to to seam into the pave tile deck. Um, we have a downtown striping project. actually I would have said going on right now except it's raining again. We we actually had planned to do this during the uh the spring break of the schools and it rained that week too um which was unfortunate. So um the contractor is planning to work at least one night doing some of the uh the striping but this is an ongoing project downtown um covering Mount Dea Boulevard, Maraga Road and and like Oak Hill and first and parts of Deer Hill. So, um, just a a maintenance project, but that's one that we threw in that's that's, uh, out there right now on the street, and hopefully that will be done within the next few weeks. Uh, School Street Topper Lane. Um, you may remember this, we got some some grant funding to add a formal walkway on the north side of School Street there. And then it it takes a bend onto Topper Lane and actually includes one block of St. Mary's Road between Topper and Bird Haven. Um, we thought we would be building this this summer. We are not. And it's for the same reason I don't have my slide repair done on St. Mary's Road. Um, CALR came in and said, "No, we need a more extensive NEPA or environmental process." Um we've we've basically met the steps that they've asked us for, but the process took a couple months longer and we would have needed to have this to um basically their headquarters so that they could

process the final paperwork and get us a notice to proceed and that wasn't going to happen. So we're looking at doing this summer of 2027. Um, we have a proposed aqueduct pathway project. Sort of the dashed line in the middle there. And you can see kind of the the orange off to the left is solid because that portion has been completed. But this would also connect to that same south part of BART. And ideally, we would have a continuous pathway all the way to Pleasant Hill Road and beyond um at some point in the future. We have funding to get um from where we left off at that solid path which those were done by developers by the way. So the the last portion ended at Lenar there right at Dolores. We have um some funding in a stip a state grant to get us from Dellores to the BART station. It will require a bridge over Happy Valley Road. We're having to work with Calr. We're having to work with um East Bay Mud Aqueduct and we also have some potential for that section and we have some potential funding for Brown Avenue to Pleasant Hill Road. So sort of the bookends of this if you will um through DS's ask um in his package this year. So it'll probably be nearly another year before we find out about that funding. Um the first section between Dellores and BART, we would not receive that funding for construction until 2029. So this is a few years off. We've got quite a bit of planning to do and we got quite a bit of work to do with Calrans and East Bay MUD. Um we're also hoping to connect with a fly over at Oakhill Road to get over from Safeway. It's looking more and more like we may need to have an atgrade crossing at First Street. Um and we would send you up to Deer Hill at the signal. Um it's a little unfortunate, but it's just

the topography is very tough on this, but ultimately um this could be a really great regional project that really ultimately connects to Canal Trail, Iron Horse Trail, and Walnut Creek. You know, you could go from Lafayette Reservoir to Dublin almost entirely on a connected pathway. Um, we uh have had discussions with Contra Costa County and Walnut Creek as well on their side of Pleasant Hill Road. So, we're looking forward to that. We're working we're asking for grant funding for these things. Um, and we have a couple of pieces in play. Um, here's what they look like already. Um, so looking for just a class one pathway. These two sections that again that was the solid orange on the map are maintained by the homeowners association. So another perk in in those two sections and there it is again going towards Dellores. So we did get some earmark funding for a West Reach Creeks project. It's it's not a lot. We're going to do what we can. We have started design and we have an RFP going out for the environmental work on this. This we anticipate building maybe in 2028. Um this is the west reach which is basically the section of creek across the street from the vets building um between RHA and our city offices. So finally here's here's the table that you know is important particularly for the city council because this is what I'll ultimately ask them to adopt is is the top part of this the new 27 projects there. So, we've got a 27 pavement maintenance project and the streets are listed in the in the addendum to this. Um, it's 11 projects, I believe, or 11 streets, excuse me, going forward next year. Um, Hastings Court stabilization is a uh a residential street that's been

uh settling for years. Um, it's got some creep downhill that we need to stabilize. Stanley Boulevard and Quant Road. Um there's existing traffic calming. That's all the center if you're on Stanley Boulevard going towards Walnut Creek. Um all the center traffic calming there, the medians, the bulbouts. U we put that in several years ago. We need to resurface the street. We're not sure exactly if we would remove and replace in kind, if we would repair that, if we would remove and put other traffic calming back. There's going to have to be some process around that. We we have some lessons learned from what we installed and I don't know that we'll do it exactly the same going back to be honest. So, but that's up there. Um on Quant, we uh we added a pathway last year because this is kind of a back route for elementary school kids um towards Spring Hill School and we added a a wider pathway and then it ended at a narrower sidewalk. We want to widen that sidewalk and there's a little gap in between the sidewalk and that path that we'd like to complete. So that's what the Stanley and Quant Road are. I have a cemetery storm drain. Unbeknownst to us, we have an easement through the CE the Lafayette cemetery. We have a storm drain that's failing and we need to remove and replace a section. So we have that project up there. We'll work on that this year. And then the aqueduct pathway design. Um, in addition to getting some funding for some construction, we also have a grant to help us complete a design for the entire section from Dolores to Deer Hill or to Pleasant Hill Road, excuse me. Um, so that's the last of those um proposed for next year. Those are the new projects. I've got the carryover projects listed there and those were also noted in my slides. Some other projects that uh could show up in the five-year plan is a

community center parking lot needs some resurfacing. It would also be an opportunity site for us to add some bio retention and get some credit with our storm our clean water program at that location. Um the St. Mary's Road drop off is it's that St. Mary's Road at the back of Stanley Middle School. It's informally used now. We would hope to formalize that, make it a little easier um for use. A lot of people coming from Burton Valley drop their kids off, then they just do a U-turn right there on St. Mary's Road. There has been some safety issues with that. And we're and we also, if we could formalize this, perhaps could reduce the amount of traffic in front of School Street as well and and maybe give um a second opportunity for people to be dropped off and picked up. Um traffic signal deer Deer Hill at Oakhill Road. So, this is near BART. Um, it's it's a hallway all stop at this time. People have requested for years that we signalize it. It's very expensive to put a signal in. It's over a million dollars. Um, but it probably is due. Um, so that's something we've put on this 5-year plan. Um, I just noted storm drains citywide. We are always looking as part of the paving projects to change out any failed or aging storm drain systems that for the most part means corrugated metal pipes um that you know have rusted out and and are not as effective as they should be. So we look to remove and replace those as we move forward with just our capital program. Um and then I've got another park trails and recreation project to be determined. they do have um a project that needs to be done at Buckeye Fields. Uh they're stabilized their their concrete deck. They are also always looking for other things. They're always looking for new opportunities. So, it's almost as a placeholder, but there there would

likely be one to two parks, trails, and wreck projects over the next five years. Um, other things that are kind of more maintenance, but also larger projects are like a pole painting project. Like our our signals are painted black, the uh decorative street lights are black. Um, we haven't had a a repainting project in a while. Um, I think you'll see that in the next 5 years as well. So, things like that. But, um, that's the last of my presentation and I'm happy to take any questions. And again, I'm looking primarily for the 2027 projects, which is this table, um, to be found in conformance with the general plan.

Thank you. Um, I have one question, then I'll open it to the other commissioners. On this slide, I thought I heard you say for the 2027 pavement project that it was 11 streets, but on your slide, I thought I saw 22. So 22 is the 26 project that we'll pave this summer. Got it. And 11 is is next year. Next. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Commissioner Mason. Yes. Uh is there anything on uh access or parking for the Batwing property?

I would say that's probably one of those TBD under parks, trails, and wreck. I there are discussions about it. Um, but there's nothing there's nothing funded or brought forth by PTR at this time. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Deorgio. Hi, Mike. Um, hi Carl. Regarding uh the pavement condition index. Yes. Um, what I I know that you report that to the city council, but where is the is there a goal for that and where is that goal maintained? Is that general plan or is that somewhere else?

No, I think the general plan might, you know, we just say good. Um, which numbers wise we're trying to stay at 75. We were down at 73, we've been at 78. Um, in December we were at 76 and now if you if you look at the I think I included the the rating in the back of this report, it says 75. As soon as we pave in 26, especially 22 residential streets, that's going to kick it up a little bit again. But the intent, it's going to vary a little bit from year to year, but the intent is to keep it in the the mid to high 70s. Commissioner Leanch,

um, couple ones. uh off of Moraga Boulevard where the bridge is right next to what you're talking about. There's that old path that connected to Mount Diablo. What's what's the story with that? So, East Bay Regional Park District does have that scheduled. Okay.

But I think they're still a couple years out, but it is on their plan. I mean, we've been asking um you know, it took them a while to do. They had a stabilization. They had a slide there obviously and they closed that down. So they did what they've done there with sort of the rip wrap you see in the creek adjacent to the park is an interim measure. It's not their permanent restoration. So I think it's a chicken or egg thing. They they have to kind of finish one before they open up to the other. Um, so I can also tell you that our our creeks committee is trying to piggyback on their project and allow us to like add a irrigation line under the new bridge that they plan to put in as part of that project and do some some planting of some native and and keep that bank especially because it's accessible via pedestrians. Really nice kind of as a model project as you will for creeks.

Yeah. Okay. Um, do you get a lot of questions from like people in the community about their streets getting paved. Is that something that you I'm just curious because I would say I used to get a lot more and to be very honest most I mean we we get the this is sinking or you need to patch this or or it's breaking apart right here. Um but not boy when are you going to get to my street because overall most streets are in better condition. Um but 25 years ago we got calls all the time. Right. I I was uh wondering if how you weighted them, but I I'm but it sounds like you're not getting harassed, but you're you're just waiting them by your own.

Yeah. So So we don't necessarily wait them by just, you know, the squeaky wheel. Um we have a pavement management system. Um it's a it's a software. It's used Bay Areawide, not just countywide. It's it's kind of um managed through MTC, Metropolitan Transportation Commission. It's called Street Saver. and it ranks them and you run different scenarios and you know if you have $2 million to put into paving restoration, it'll tell you one scenario and if you have $3 million, it'll tell you another. And all it's trying to do is get you the best bang for the buck and keep your pavement condition index as high as possible. So, we have a little more money right now between three and a half and $4 million a year. We shouldn't have we should be able to maintain 75 or higher. And somewhere for that program, you have to rate the existing, right? So they're all rated.

They're all rated and they're all rated by consultants consistently that are hired not through the city. We get a grant and they they look at the they physically look at the streets about every 3 years, okay? And go out and actually rank it, right? And they say, "Yeah, it's depressed there or it's weathered there or it's broken there or it's settled there." And they rank the streets, all of them. Um it it's a tedious process. And then in between that time, it's an extrapolation that the software does.

Okay. The only thing I would in a perfect world for this report, I would love to have the map of the streets versus the I mean, it's fine to write it out, but I find I don't know every street, so I'm looking it up. So, just but I know that's just extra overhead. And if people aren't bugging you about it, but in the future, I'd say that would be great. That's a fair comment. and and actually we still plan to do that and we'll actually have it on our website. Um and I'm sorry I wasn't prepared for this meeting. It wasn't for my CPAC either. I will endeavor actually to get it done before the council meeting

grouped with the same streets. Um but it's a very good comment. Um people like to see it. It'll be colorcoded kind of yearbyear, right? And I and other projects were too just because it's, you know, it's our city, right? It's the whole integrated where all the money's going. Yeah. Um, but that's a big arrest. So, okay, let's stick with just No, it's a it's a good comment and we'll we'll try and uh get a visual out there that helps. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. This is great. Really appreciate it.

Yeah, thank you. Um, were there any other questions? Okay, then I think we'll open it for public comment. Is there anyone in the room that would like to provide comment on the presentation? Okay, I don't see any in the room. What about online? If anyone attending the meeting online would like to comment on this item, please use the raise hand function now. Seeing none. Okay. And then I see one hand half going up. If you would like to speak, you can fill out a comment card and then come up to the podium. And again, this is on the the CIP.

Yeah, only for the CIP item. So, okay, seeing none. So, we'll close public comment. Um, is there any other comments for staff or would there is there a motion? So, just a reminder, we're making uh potentially a recommendation uh to find the CIP to be in conformance with the general plan. I'll make a move. I I move that we find the proposed fiscal year 2027 capital improvement program described in a staff report 6A to be in conformance with Lafayette's general plan. Second. All in favor? I. Okay, those four eyes. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks.

Yeah, appreciate the presentation. Thank you. Okay, item seven was continued public hearings and we actually have none. Item eight is new public hearings. Uh the first one is O'Brien Land Co. Um parcel map merge of 10 existing parcels into one for previously approved entitlement. So I will look to staff to provide a presentation. Thank you chair, members of the commission, members of the public. Uh the matter before you is limited in scope. It is the related to the terraces of Lafayette project which has been previously applied for gone through many public hearings and approved by the council. Uh following the approval, they have been fulfilling conditions of approval and mitigation measures. They pulled a permit to do work on site and that was completed and finalized. Um and they continue to get closer. There there are plans um I believe either ready to issue at the Contraosta County Building Department or or uh near that stage. And so, uh, as part of the, uh, project moving forward, um, the the applicant, uh, identified that what we understood as one parcel, uh, actually is constituted by 10 individual fee simple parcels. So, the project is at the southwest corner of Pleasant Hill Road

and Deer Hill Road. It's slightly larger than 22 acres. And so what has been represented uh for 20 plus years as a single parcel uh with one assessor's parcel number um actually is constituted of smaller parcels which have been assembled and it is has been the practice of the commission to um approve developers projects and allow the consolidation of parcels. most recently 101 Oakhill Road uh assembled, I believe, four parcels. Similarly, um the northwest corner of Second and Mount Diablo, the Gera project, I believe that was three or four parcels. So, it is common place to have uh multiple parcels consolidated as part of a project and they uh the O'Brien Land Company is has applied to do that here. And so um we are able to make the findings to approve the parcel map. And for clarity um the par the this could not be done at a staff level through a lot line revision because it involves more than four parcels. So the the proper instrument and mechanism would be a parcel map which um would allow for the singular parcel to result as a part of the um lot merger lot consolidation. And so that is on screen. It's part of your packet. You this was previously scheduled for two weeks ago. Uh we didn't have a quorum at the time. same staff report was reissued uh for this

evening. Um and additional public so the public comments that came in previously were reproduced and additional public comments have come in as late as today and those have been compiled placed on the city's website forwarded to the commission for review. uh I believe they constitute about 16 pages. And so um there there are comments related to the uh prior to the project itself which has been previously been applied for the project being the 315 apartments in 14 buildings. Um that is not an issue this evening notwithstanding any of the public comments which uh contend it is. It is not. Uh the issue before the commission this evening is the subject of u merging the the parcels into a single parcel. And I'm happy to take any questions from the commission.

Thank you. I appreciate the um the summary of the noticing and the public comments received. So, as a commissioner, we did receive the public comments that were posted after publication of the staff report. We received those today. Um, are there any clarifying questions for staff? Commissioner Deorgio,

um, can you explain the mechanism how the GIS maps are updated because, uh, when I looked it up, just looking into everything, it it still shows P1, um, not APO. Um, and I think that was a result of my, if my recollection is that was a result of the alternatives and something like that. But I'm just curious for, you know, if if you happen to know why it wouldn't be updated.

And I um I will look this evening to make sure that the city's current website, both the static PDF and the dynamic um GIS reflect the current zoning, which is R65. um that was put in place after the project submitted and applied for. And so the the the application came in when the project was zoned APO, administrative professional office, and was entitled to those that zoning regulations throughout the consideration and until it was uh acted on. Um during that time frame, the city reszoned it to R65. So R indicating residential, 65 indicating a minimum lot size of 65,000 square ft. to your question. Um, we as as the reasonzoning occurs, then there are follow-on actions that require us to publish the those um and promulgate those in the GIS system and the PDF map online. And if that I believe that has happened accurately. What I've experienced on occasion is if I'm using a search engine is the results come up and it is a cached uh exhibit that was previously published but is no longer the latest greatest version. So um I'm going to attend to that to make sure that what is currently on our website is accurate. And uh I I don't if if I'm able to report any error to a search engine, we can attempt to do so.

Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Uh the next the applicant has up to 10 minutes too. So that's perfect. Same page. Uh if the applicants team is here and would like to present anything, you have 10 minutes. Up to you. Uh good evening, chair, members of the commission. Um I'm Brian Winter, land use council for O'Brien Land Company. We're here to answer questions tonight. We appreciate the work that staff has put into this project and we're happy to answer any questions you might have at this point.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicants team? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Wait, I do. Sorry. Oh, wait, wait, just kidding. There's one, Commissioner Leange. I I I I will say I because of work, I haven't reviewed all the letters that came in from one o'clock because I was working right up till I came here. So, I'm trying to get through them. Um, but um, wait, sorry, can I pause you for one sec? Um then maybe after your question maybe we could just ask staff to please recap at a high level the comments that did come in this afternoon the topics just I can go

queuing staff up but first your question for

but I but I have read the staff report so um uh I would just like to hear from your point of view how this was missed. I I don't see this as a fatal flaw, but I'm also a little surprised. I'm in the industry. I deal with real estate a lot. Um the knowledge of parcels doesn't typically get like completely missed. But again, I don't I personally don't see uh a correlation between that and whether this project is something that should go forward or not. But it still just bothers me a little. So, I would like to hear from the applicant's point of view, how did this how did this get missed?

Well, sure. The context is actually simple and it and it wasn't missed. Um, the project team knew from moment one and and a preliminary title report was submitted to the city in 2011 with the original application. Um the PTR would indicate that the 10 right distinguishing between an an assessor parcel and and legal parcels that's often missed. Sometimes they coincide in this case there's one APN 10 illegal parcels. Uh that was reflected in the prelim preliminary title report in 2011. um it was premature for the applicant to seek to merge the parcels when the underlying application was submitted and filed and ultimately approved in 2020. And the reason for that is because there was a different landowner, landowner, developer, uh, two different people working sort of in concert at the time all of this was processed and the the underlying landowner did not want changes, legal changes made to the property during the pendency of the project prior to the point in time at which O'Brien Land Company acquired the property, which was in 2024, four years after the project was approved. So the the the property owner had no ability to uh seek that and it was premature to do so at that point in time. Sorry, the developer could not do so.

Okay. I I I guess I'm a little unsure why I didn't read that in the staff report. Am I is that am I missing that? I I don't remember. I mean, I completely understand what you just said. That makes sense to me. I just didn't read that. So, I'm a little like but

I'm not sure it's there. But I I would go back also to that. I mean, this was a the mer the parcel merger was something that could have with the with the cooperation and approval of the land owner could have been and and would have been a part of the application at the time the the cup was approved or the use permit was approved in 2020, but we couldn't do it at that point in time. But as the pro as the use permit was protected by the housing accountab account accountability act at that point in time this is protected by by by the housing account accountability account accountability act today. And um and it's it's a it's it's a it's a an issue of timing and when O'Brien Land Company acquired the property versus when uh the prior property owner owned the property and the approvals that they were willing to support.

Okay. Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. Sure. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. I think that's it for now. Thank you.

Thank you. and staff. Uh before we open it up for public comment, would you be able to summarize the public comments that were received today after hours or excuse me uh today after publication of the staff report? I I always hesitate to do that, but I think it is fair to say that the public comment that has been received and and particularly today after the staff report was published uh are along the same themes that have were in the public comments for the prior meeting and that were published with the staff report for this meeting calling into question the original project entitlements. uh if we had known this early on and it had been represented that would have changed everything. It would not have it it is uh again it it could have been folded in and I just mentioned two projects that did that um and the planning commission approved. So it w it would not have changed uh the the processing of it whatsoever in my mind. Um it just would have been another permit uh or approval sought as part of the overall project. And so to in my view, this is cleanup. Um that was um an oversight and and to the commission's question about how was this missed. Um the 10 parcels were mentioned individually in the title report and it is very common to have one legal lot of record constituted by multiple parcels. And so there are at least three entities that use the word parcel. Uh planners, the tax assessor

and title officers. And the distinction between what is meant there is nuanced. And so you heard council for the proponent um mention legal lot of record versus tax parcel. So you can have multiple legal lots of record consolidated under a single tax parcel and vice versa. Um so you know you can have one legal out of record with two different uh tax record parcels on it because two different areas have different um land use regulations on them let's say. So they they are not a onetoone relationship universally, but 90 plus 95% of the time that's the case. And so the exhibits, the materials that were submitted to the city in 2011 all illustrated that this was a single legal out of record with the exhibits showing a property line um which is a standard graphic and it was identified on the exhibits. This is what the property line is bounding the full 22.27 acres. The intermediate lots or parcels were dashed lines and not indicated as separate legal lots of record which would have called into question at the time the permissibility of having buildings crossing property lines etc. So all indications at the time for the city staff was that the parcels described in the title report were area of land and and that is how title officers and and the folks who are legally you know this is their baywick.

This is what they do is keep title to um land. They will describe a single legal out of record as areas of land if it has not been um produced if you will or the genesis of it was not a single you know like lot 13 of a subdivision. If a lot line revision has occurred or even a parcel has an easement over another uh piece of real property, those are described as separate parcels in a title officer parlance and I have examples of that if you would like to see that. Um so the read of the title report in 2011 was exactly that that this single legal out of record was the compiled by prior parcels. Um and again it it doesn't change it would not have changed the consideration of the of the project um and that this is cleanup work and so the it was I a the review was based on the materials that were submitted to us and those materials were consistent with the it being a single legal lot of record both in the terminology and verbiage used in the uh title report, parcel one, parcel two, dot dot dot up through parcel 10, and the survey that was submitted by the project applicant showing a singular property boundary at the outside and no internal property lines. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that, Commissioner Leange. No, I'm I'm trying to while we're talking also go through it so I can get the genesis of it, but I it it what I'm reading so far seems to talk about, you know, because of this stopped the whole project, which is a little disconnected. So, I'm just going to verify if there's something else that in my opinion, I should say. So, I think you can keep going on.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? So I I I will put up on screen. Oh, there we have have it up. Uh so this is the survey from the original uh submission in 2011. So 16 15 years ago now. Um wherein the legend shows subject property line. It's a long line with a double dash in it. This is industry standard for illustrating parcel lines. Um and that there you will see that the parcel line goes around the outside and if we continue all the way around it it encompasses the full 22 acres. What is in gray kind of a residual if you will or the the provenence of the overall 22 acre parcel um referenced here with these documents is illustrated with a single dash line which is essentially a ghost line or a remnant line which indicates um lines that used to exist and is either an easement line here or um a sanitary sewer line in the Well, that one hasn't SS. So that's so it would be an easement line if you will um or just a ghost line in um surveying and and cgraphy in parcel. Uh so like if a lot liner vision happens the new line will be represented as a solid line and the old line which used to exist is the dashed line. So that that is the graphical representation and I'm happy to go to the title report which similarly um describes the 22 acres as being coming

historically from and being compiled from the uh the 10 uh parcels and I'm happy to bring up an example of a title report which uses the terminology in parliament which I spoke to which is an area parcel one is came from this and another area of the single parcel um is parcel two which came from this area. I'll I'll leave it to you whether you'd like to see that or not. Okay. Thank you. Uh would any of the commissioners like to see that uh pulled up? I don't need to.

Okay, I think we're good. Um, so at this point we will open it up for public comment. As a reminder tonight, we do welcome all comments on a project. I will say though, our charge tonight is to either approve or deny the parcel map. We're not looking at the merits of the project, the zoning of the project, any previous approvals of the project, but we do welcome whatever comments anyone may have on the project. So, we'll first go to anybody in the room. If you have not yet filled out a speaker slip and you would like to speak on this item, you can turn in a blue slip to staff and I will look to staff to invite the first speaker.

Very good. The one speaker slip we have in the room is from Libby Henry who has indicated uh that they're going to seed their time to Colin Elliot. So presuming that Colin Elliot is a online speaker we will happily do that and

thank you. Moving to online attendees who would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. Seeing a few hands raised, but um unfortunately I'm not able to see all of them at one time. Uh, I'm going to try to um allow Robert Greg.

Yep, we'll do. Thank you. Um, and the technician did just open the window. I don't know

that that is what I have done but it's not on screen. So um Okay. So it sounds like then there's no just to confirm no other speakers in the room for this item. Okay. And then maybe I'll ask the technician to take us through the the online folks. Perfect. And then when we get to Mr. Elliott, we'll give him extra time. If I'm hitting um

Okay, you're um There we go. Okay. Yeah, we do. We do.

All right. Um thank you. I am able now to take care of this. So um Michael Griffiths will be the first speaker and you are unmuted and invited to talk Mr. Griffiths. All right, we'll come back to Mr. Griffiths. Uh, the next is Mr. Elliot or just callin on screen.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Welcome.

Ah, welcome. Um, thank you. I, um, I didn't submit anything in writing. Um, I apologize for that. I came to this a little late, but uh, I have two comments. The first is generally um, talking or one of something that Greg Wolf has said a couple of times about a and I think you've had a lot of comments about prior approvals. Um I my aspect on that for you maybe to think about is I think you're really considering this approval under the under the map act correct and which has its own set of requirements. So what staff is doing is in looking back and saying all these things were approved but some of the some of these things are now very old and I guess the question is is it legitimate to rely on a very old fire evacuation study etc under the map act itself um which is what which I think is what controls here. So my that would be my first point um for you to consider. The second is actually more fundamental than that and that this was this project was approved um actually because of the housing accountability act as basically just a land use permit. Um and the there was no development agreement. Um and therefore the land use permit itself is pretty standard. Lafayette's condition and one of them is the term of approval. Um you get 12 months um that can be extended by another 12 months. So my fundamental question is I think the final legal appeal on this was March 2023. I think council can comment

on time limits probably run from when last appeals expire or get turned down. But so we're now three years beyond when the original land use permit was granted and you would need to to keep that alive. You would have to have a mass grading permit or a building permit issued. The project has neither. It's had minor tree permits, uh, demolition. Those were all things that were separately granted. But regarding the land use permit itself, I' I'd like to hear from somebody and maybe you have to kind of put this meeting or any resolution on this on hold to get an answer from a written answer from councils. Um is how is this project actually still alive? Um we're 3 years beyond the last appeal date. Um, and I think that if it's not, then obviously you can't actually make any findings on on this subdivision situation because you're relying on that um which may in fact well have expired by now. So those are my uh two issues. Um are you considering this under the map act? Does it is it actually fair? um and do you have to update some of these studies separately? And then the second in fact is this in fact still valid or has the permit for the terrace is actually expired. And uh with that I think that's my point. Thank you.

Thank you for pro thank you for providing your comment. Um I will ask the applicant is going to have a few minutes to provide rebuttal after all public comment. So, I assume you're kind of keeping track of some of these and can speak to them. Great. Thank you. Um, next speaker, please. We will we'll return It's weird now. This

we will return to Mr. Griffiths uh and see if he's able to offer his comments. Mr. Griffiths, your hand is up. You are unmuted and you're invited to offer your comments. We are not hearing you. So we'll return to you after Robert Lavoy. Mr. Lavoy, you are up.

Good evening. Can you guys hear me? We can. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate you guys taking the comments. Um, so following up on uh Colin's concerns, if any of those um issues uh are legitimate, then some of my comments follow Elliot Hudson's emails with concerns about some of the uh things that may not be uh updated. Um the uh traffic and evacuation concerns. Um, and we already have people complaining about traffic backing up onto the freeway, Highway 24 into traffic uh lanes trying to exit to Pleasant Hill Road. Obviously, adding uh 300 plus homes would impact traffic to some extent. Um and the uh the other thing is uh staff says their findings uh are consistent that the APO zoning when it was originally approved is consistent with the current uh proposed 315 apartments. Um I thought the APO was supposed to be low impact minimal traffic generating office use. Um, and it doesn't seem like 315 apartment units would be the same uh traffic use. So, it seems inconsistent. um the RGEL line or ordinance. I don't know how that was um uh overlooked, but I know that people regularly go through your your commission trying to make their Ridgeline houses invisible and uh obviously 315 homes perched on top of the hill with no trees are going to stick out like a sore thumb. Um and I believe the applicants traffic

back to the traffic thing. I believe the applicants uh own report showed that there would be some significant danger even to the residents um because of the evacuation risks. So I don't think that should be minimized. Um let's see. And the the issue of is this a is is this require a major or or a minor subdivision map. I don't know the what the criteria is that bumps it into excuse me um a major subdivision and maybe someone could comment on that. Is there are there any pre precedents for projects this large? I can't think of one in Lafayette that's that's this big and and then slipping it in under a minor subdivision map change seems inappropriate. Um I think that's all I have right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. And the remaining hand up is Mr. Griffith. We'll return to Mr. Griffith a third time. Uh hopefully you're able to we see that you have unmuted yourself, but we are still not able to hear you. Great. Uh do you mind walking him through how to change maybe sometimes his microphone might be the wrong selection and settings? Yep.

Thank you. Uh so Mr. Mr. Griffith in the lower le are you speaking with him? Okay. Uh if you can hear me, Mr. Griffith, bottom left of the screen is the audio. If you There's a up carrot. Uh that if you

Okay, excuse me. Staff is handling it. Thank you. So you should be able to choose your microphone and uh choose the one which works best or you can toggle it. So I mean it I can put my screen up if he wants to see it. It's down in the bottom left. It's audio. And if you click the up carrot, you can select a microphone and choose it. So you are unmuted because I have the option to mute you. And it shows that an active mic uh not with a slash through it in red. So, we'll give you another couple seconds to try to take care of the uh audio issue and then I think we'll I'll turn it back to the chair. Mr. Griffith is the last raised hand.

Okay, we'll give him just a minute here or if anyone can figure out how to reach him. No, we have unmuted you.

He's asking for directions. Um, okay. Maybe if there's anyone in the room that can summarize Mr. Griffith's comments, that would be great. Um, it is an option to call in as a courtesy. Um, but we have tried to walk the speaker, the commenter through the steps.

You're saying he's on his phone? Yeah. He said, "Can you have somebody call him with with directions? He can hear you right now. Got it.

So, at this point, Mr. Griffiths, um, sounds like you're not able to hear us. Can't hear us. Oh, he can. Hearing you through the phone.

Okay. uh if anyone in the room recalls how to unmute yourself on a Zoom if you've called in. I want to say it's star six, but it's been a very long time since I committed at the memory. uh or let me pull out my phone and Google it.

It it appears that he's on his computer. So, um there's no indication that apologies that I don't have this committed to memory.

Yeah. So, if you are on your phone, Mr. Griffiths, press star six and you should be unmuted. My screen is showing as you saw that he is unmuted. Okay. Well, um it seems like the speaker is unable to provide his comment. Staff has provided options and direction on joining. It is also on the first page of the agenda. So, um, at this point, I'll just look to staff. Are there any other hands raised? Any other speakers, um, online?

No. Okay. And there's no others in the room. So, we'll bring it back to the applicant. Uh, if you would like to respond to any of the public comments received tonight. Thank you.

Good, good evening again, Brian Winter. on behalf of the applicant. Um I think there's not much for us to say but um a little bit again the project application was filed and deemed complete in 2011. At that point in time the applicable general plan lage designation and zoning um carried forward. The project essentially vests uh with respect to those. Uh the project was approved in 2020. uh the project applicant could not seek to merge the parcels that as at that point in time because the applicant did not own the parcels. Uh the the vesting that carried forward under the HAA uh required and and the city regulations required that the project not seek a a mass grading permit but or but that it seek a a grading permit and it that it commence grading which has been done. Um so there's there's no question uh that all of that has happened that the project uh underlying approvals remain in effect today. The only the only the only issue on the table is the merger of the parcels uh which could have been done uh back in back back originally and would have been protected by the AJ in the same way that it is protected today. Um I'm happy to answer any other questions, but I hope hope that's clear.

Thank you. Any questions? Uh, just I'm just writing this down. So, the grading permit was received and perfected. So, grading started, correct? Uh, Greg might know the date. It might have been 2022 or 2023, but it was received and perfected within the relevant period of time.

And and just just for everyone's that basically perfects a permit. I I want you know I know you understand and I kind of understand but for everyone else and this goes to the question about like is this still alive? Well, once once you start a project, that time frame changes. You still have other time frames. Perhaps you can't just be indefinite. But if if my understanding and I'll look to staff to just and I'm just doing this for clarity for people because I I hate to be up here and hear all these questions that seem like we're not answering them, but sometimes they're in they're not gerine to the the subject at hand, which the chair has already said. We're we're looking at um a very specific thing. But to this nuance point, my understanding is that the grading permit has been issued and they've graded then they have started the project. So I don't know what other time frame they're under. Can we look to staff to see if there's another time frame just to kind of put to rest this is this too old? Because I don't want I don't think this should linger out there. This is a big project.

Yeah. So, why don't we ask any other questions to the applicant and then we can ask staff to clarify. And just what was it uh when you guys uh uh O'Brien uh acquired in 2024? Uh yeah, took took ownership of the property in 2024, correct? Okay. I have no more. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, we'll close public comment. We'll bring it to the commission, but if staff is ready to provide a response to Commissioner Leon's question, that'd be great.

And the city attorney for the project is on the the call and I'll invite him to follow my comments. But, uh, staff agrees with the comment from, uh, Mr. winter that the the permit was sought, issued, they did the work within it. They've got additional permits for the the bulk of the project uh submitted for many many months uh at the at the county and have been going through plan check and revisions and addressing their comments. Um and as I said at the outset, I believe that those are either ready to be issued um or just about and one of the issues preceded that they need to resolve before that permit can be issued is the the lot merger in my understanding and I'll invite the applicant team to correct me if I'm wrong. And so just like the conditions of approval need to be addressed before the permit is the the permits uh related to the mass grading and construction. Um those have they have been fulfilling those mitigation measures. Um and this is one aspect of the the work necessary to put in place before that permit can be issued. Um and again the these are the follow-on permits not the initial permit for a grading permit which was already issued and uh work began and was completed. So uh with that Mr. Hodel uh Rob Hodel is on the line and we can bring him up on screen and he can uh address the commission's question.

Yes. Good evening, commissioners. Um Rob Hodel with Cobblin's patch duffy and bass and I've been the uh the outside attorney that's been advising city on this project you know with through the the earlier approval process as well as um and yes it's they've the applicant has pulled sufficient permits to keep the use permit that was approved back in 2020 and then upheld in the courts through 2022 um alive and um you know there's there's there's no question that the use permits remain valid at this time.

Thank you. Um while you're there, I'll just ask for the commissioners, are there any other questions you'd like to ask? No. Okay. Thank you. Absolutely. My pleasure. Okay. So public comment is closed. It's at the commission. Again, we're looking at uh the parcel map tonight. I will open it up for comments, thoughts. I can go. You want? Sure.

Uh I have reviewed all the um uh all sorry didn't think what I was going to say here. all of the conditions that that we need to individually be able to support to make uh to make to move forward and vote. So, I'm I'm ready to and and I'm not explaining myself very well, but um conditions of um Why don't you let someone else go and I'll think of what the hell I'm saying. Sure. Um, I think typically we're making findings, right? So, you're looking at it.

I reviewed all the findings I'm looking at right now because I highlighted every single one as I went through and checked off whether I had issues. Um, the only one, let's see, deemed complete 2011. So, all of mine with what we've answered tonight, I I'm prepared to make findings and move forward. Okay. I I concur. So do I.

Okay. And I will just say I do appreciate staff on this one. I know typically staff doesn't provide as much extra explanation on items, but we do appreciate it and I think the um community appreciates it as well. So, thank you. Um I too can um support this project based on the criteria that we have to look at. And just so people do know, it is spelled out in the resolution for the minor subdivision um the government code the findings that we would need to make to approve um this such project. So that is included as an attachment to the staff report and what I'm hearing is everyone can make those. So I'll enter Oh, excuse me. Go ahead. I'll just clarify for the benefit of the of the public, the the resolution in its draft form presented to the to the commission and published with the packet is in PDF pages 4 through 7 of the packet.

Thank you for clarifying. Um, I'll look for a motion if anyone wants to make a motion. Sure. I move that we approve resolution 2026-02 approving the parcel map in minor subdivision. Second. All in favor? I I There's no opposed. And does this have a 14-day appeal or no?

There is a 14-day appeal period. The the um what is generally called the final map. So, there's a preliminary map and then once every The final map goes onto the city council's consent calendar um as a matter of course. Okay. So, it would appear there even without an appeal. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So, go back to the agenda. So give people just a minute here to exit. The next item 8B is request for phase one hillside development permit, design review, lot line revision, grading permit, category 2 tree permit. Um this project will be presented by staff. Yes. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Um, Monagali Consultant Planner. Um, the item you have before you is an item that was actually continued. So, apologies. It should have been on um it was should have been item 7A instead. Um, and this was continued from the March 2nd planning commission meeting. Um so staff will provide a little bit of history because um in the previous meeting some of the commissioners mentioned maybe wanting to understand a little bit more about the previous projects that were proposed. So staff will will provide that. Um so in 2011 uh phase 1 H hillside development permit application was submitted and um in March 17, 2014 PC approved um the phase one and the lot line revision and then um the conditions of approval for included u minimizing the retaining walls um the storm water management to be sat to be satisfied um or is to meet the satisfaction of the city engineer. Um so the 5,600 foot west house um which is on the west lot. Um there was a condition that required the reduction of plate heights and and the roof pitch. And then for the 5,750 foot east house, um there was a condition of approval um you know um indicating that the roof plate heights and roof pitch should also be reduced and um and also a 20% reduction of the building size which is which would equal to a 4,400T home. Sorry, I don't know why the That's

and then so in 2015 um a phase 2 application was submitted for the west slot um which was approved um in 2018. Uh the conditions of approval con uh included that there should be a reduction in the first floor plate height from 9t 6 in to 8 ft. And then um the maximum height of the retaining walls where is highly visible should be no uh taller than 4 feet and um but no construction has occurred to this date on the west lot. And then in uh 2015 a separate application uh was submitted um for the subject site um which is on the east lot. Um the planning commission uh denied the the project and the city council upheld that denial. Um um in the staff report um staff had recommended a reduction in the plate heights from 11'6 in to 10 ft and then um the building size be reduced by 20% which is 4,600 ft and then the maximum uh 4T retaining walls where it's highly visible. And then in 2021, a new application was submitted and the application was never deemed complete and so was subsequently withdrawn. And then um now in 20 I mean and then in 2025 um the current application was was submitted and that's the item that you have before you. And so at the March 2nd, 2026 uh planning commission meeting, um the there the planning commissioners reviewed the phase one hillside development permit application. Um the

commission generally expressed general support for citing the residents on the bench, but raised concerns regarding overall massing, the retaining walls, grading, and potential drainage impacts. The commission determined that additional information was necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed sighting and massing. Um, specifically, the commission requested supplemental materials, including section views illustrating the relationship of the proposed home and retaining walls to the street and neighboring properties, street level visualizations, um, accurate depictions of retaining wall heights, the proposed lot line adjustment to be reflected on the site constraint sheet, and a 3D view. And um and so um staff will briefly run through um the next slides just as a refresher. Um here is the site context. To to the left you have the vicinity map and then to the right you have um the two parcels. Um grading will be occurring across both parcels. Um, and but the proposed building will be on the east lot. And here is the the lot the proposed lot line adjustment. Um the the line in um red that's dashed is is proposed to be removed and um the line that is in green is the proposed new um lot line. the the applicant proposes the construction of a 6,160q ft two-story single family residence. Uh

the maximum height will be 28 ft. Um the the building will be located on a bench in the lower central portion of the site. Um it is positioned outside the class 2 rgeline setback. uh new driveway access from Hillside Valley Road with step with step retaining walls. Um the here is the site plan. Um the front set back is approximately 65 ft 6 in. The left set set back is approximately 20 ft. The right set back is 46 feet from the building and uh 27 ft from the deck and pool. Um the required aggregate sideyard is um 40T minimum and um the applicant is proposing 66 feet and um for parking the applicant proposes six spaces and the requirement is two and here is the context map. Um um the closest house is approximately 242 uh ft away which is um is 3997 Happy Valley. The uh 7.93 acre site is a steep hillside parcel with protected trees and significant slope constraints part particularly toward the upper ridge line area which remains undisturbed. The proposed residence is strategically sighted on the existing lower bench to avoid steep slopes and the class 2 ridge line setback. On the the south elevation presents a predominantly horizontal profile that

steps with the natural slope of the site minimizing vertical exposure. Um the maximum height of the structure again is 28 feet. On the north elevation facing the uphill side of the property, it appears lower in scale due to the building's partial embedment into the hillside. The east elevation demonstrates how the 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 a hor a strong horizontal emphasis through flat roof lines, sun shades, and articulated wall planes. The west elevation illustrates how the resident steps down with the natural slope of the site with the garage level partially embedded into the hillside to reduce over all perceived height. The garage is set uh so this is a section through the garage. The garage is set lower into the hillside which helps reduce the perceived mass from the street. The main living spaces are supported on a crawl space foundation allowing the home to follow the natural grade rather than requiring a large flat pad. This is a section through the family room. The lower the this this section illustrates how the home is designed to follow the natural slope of the site rather than creating a large flat plaid. The the subject is supported on a uh the structure is supported on a crossace foundation which reduces the need for excessive grading and helps to helps the building step into the hillside. The

approach minimizes visual prominence and maintains the natural landform. And here is um a cross-section through the house and um a section through Happy Valley. Uh this section shows how the home steps with the slope with the living spaces elevated above the downhill side and supported by retaining walls and foundation. The person shown for scale helps demonstrate the height of the structure relative to the slope and street. There are two 4- foot retaining walls located along the front of the property and two six-foot retaining walls located behind the proposed structure and um the closest retaining wall is approximately 23 feet from the front property line. This section shows the relationship between the home driveway and slope with the structure stepping into the hillside and the garage partially embedded below the main living space. The driveway follows the new grade and is supported by areas of engineered feel and retaining walls near the property's edge. And um this is a a 3D view. um rendering um that the applicant provided. And um here is a rendering of the south view.

And here is another rendering of the south um from the southeast view. And another rendering from the southwest view. Um so there was uh 19 notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet. Um and this and site postings um like um you know within 10 days before the March 2nd 2026 hearing. Um at the hearing the item was continued to the April 20th meeting and so no additional notice were were provided. However, um staff did um email um um a lot of the neighbors to to remind them that we have a meeting today. And so we received four comment letters um um some from um previous meetings that were noticed um and so we have um comment letters from November 23rd, 2025 and then we received another comment letter in April on April 16th and another one on April 17th and those are all uh published and attached. So based on um sta uh public comment and planning commission feedback um staff added some additional sight specific conditions of approval. Um so the the phase one um is reviewed by PC and phase two will be reviewed by DRC and then it will go back to PC for for final approval. Um as part of the phase 2 application um the the applicant will need to provide right now there is a

preliminary landscape plan but they will need to provide landscape and irrigation plans which would be reviewed by the city's landscape consultant and they would need to provide more responses to agency comments um prior to the phase 2 PC meeting. Um the hydrarology and hydraulics report shall be shall reflect the final design and be peer reviewed and the geotechnical report shall also reflect the final design and be peer-reviewed as well. Here are um the findings required for all of the required entitlements associated with this project. Um therefore based on the record as a whole, staff recommends that the planning commission find the project exempt from SQA and adopt PC resolution 202604 approving the project subject to the conditions.

Thank you. I appreciate the staff report. I know we had previously provided comments of breaking up the attachments and stuff. So, I do appreciate I noticed that. Um, I also like one of our questions or our requests was to better document just for our understanding the project or excuse me the site's history. Um, this is a brand new application. Correct. Yeah. So, um I appreciate that and also to the applicants team that a lot of the information that we did request in this last meeting um was provided. Still have some questions but appreciate that. So, thank you to staff. Are there any clarifying questions for staff? Commissioner Leange Deep Sai.

Oh, it was just coincidence. Um, I just want to make sure. So, we have two parcels and I'm just going to talk about the last three. 004, which is what we're talking about tonight. That's the new one. But in listening to yours, and actually at one of your exhibits, like the second or third one, where it showed Keep going back. It showed two houses on it, and it got me kind of perplexed for a second. Uh, keep going. Uh, okay. Okay, let's do that one. Yeah, that one's it. So, we're looking at the right tonight. Yes.

My question is the left is that currently that my reading is that's currently been through a phase two approval and it's been approved. Yes.

Is that still a valid? At the end of the comment on that section, I think it says no construction has occurred to date and it was approved in it was deemed complete in 2018 and then adopted in by the planning commission in June of 2018 subject to conditions of approval. So I I just curious like as of today could that be built with what was approved back in 2018? And the reason I'm asking is because I thought we were just looking at one house right now, but it sounds like there's one house, but maybe there's another house that's already ready to be approved next to it.

No. Um, so so that um that project that that project was entitled on the left, but um they I do not believe they submitted building permits. And so um and so I actually let me look at the date to see when um exactly it was approved. This year was a the planning commission adopted the resolution on June 18th, 2018. It was deemed complete prior to that April 5th, 2018. So let's see.

So that's you know what, almost eight years is my math right? eight years. I I just I just want clarity on it because um in the end it says no construction has occurred to date. That makes me think that it could.

Yes. It's just that it was entitled and so they could have constructed and then so so no construction occurred. But but since it was approved in 2018, it probably expired because usually um our permits last one year um and then um they have to request an extension for an additional year unless they apply for a building permit. So if they didn't request for an extension or apply for a building permit, then it's probably expired. Um yeah, I was the reason why this was shown is it was just it was actually part of the um um I mean the applicant this is the applicant site plan. So they it's because they were um they're using a similar design in terms of the access. So that whole access in terms of um fire access and turnaround that was all approved. So, they're using that same design except that they're proposing a different home on the on the east slot

and and and they have every right to do something there. I just want to make sure that we weren't unaware that that you know I I think it would be helpful in these to say when no construction has occurred to date if if they couldn't do it now. I think we should share that because it makes it a little more understandable. But I understand now. So thank you. So that's all I had. Commissioner Mason.

Yes. Will the uh geotechnical report and ge and hydraulic reports be part be available for public viewing when they're submitted? And two, can they be made available uh more than just the bare minimum 3 days before the meeting? because I know that there were a lot of concerns about hydraology and runoff and should somebody wish to inspect it, they should have sufficient time to do it and to consult with somebody else. I personally would like to look at the geotechnical report that's within my area of expertise.

Okay. So um yes the the geo techchnical report and hydraulics um the hydrarology and hydraulics reports were all included in in the current package as well as um the previous meetings packages as well. So they're all a part of um the current package and the package um for the uh March 2nd uh meeting. Um so those are all included. Yeah. The question was the specific request is we wanted to make sure it was based on a more complete design. I forgot how you

Yes. Yes. So definitely when um when they if if the if the project moves to phase two and the phase when the project moves to phase two they will be updating the reports based upon um you know any changes to the design that may um occur um as they receive more feedback from planning commission and DRC and then um the reports will be updated and um and peer reviewed and also included in all of the packages, the meeting packages. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Um the applicant team, is the applicants team here tonight who would like to give a up to 10 minutes.

Hello. Um, Edward Patmmont. I'm the architect for the project. Um, so, uh, Monica did a good job going through all the additional requirements. She was very persistent getting some of these, especially the 3D stuff with Google Earth. But I think you can really get a sense from those as to how well for one thing the neighbors the closest one is 240 ft. Uh the one on our side is over 300 ft to our to our east. So, um, she went through the drawings, but 3.1 is a section going that you wanted going down to the street showing two 4 foot high walls. Last time I was here, there was some comment that there was a 16ft high wall at the street if you remember. And uh, no, two 4 foot high walls right at the driveway. There is some fill in the driveway and there's cut at the building. It's a balanced cut and fill. Um the the 3D views uh again show show the building uh the ones from the street show how uh now this is this is with no landscaping and this is at the street level. I mean, at the at the house level, but Monica, if you just turn to the ones here, especially the one to the side, you can see you can I I want to say barely see the house. You will barely see the house when the landscaping takes hold. Uh so, I just want to um summarize that that we I think we satisfied your your uh requirement

there. Now, moving on. I've had two good neighborhood meetings. Um, one on Thursday and one last uh Saturday. Um, Charlie got everybody together. From my records, there was four items that were discussed. One was hydrarology. And to the left of this screen, the other lot, fortunately, it has access to a storm drain that goes to upper Happy Valley. The entire lot to our left, as well as I would say a great deal, I don't want to speak because I'm not an engineer, a great deal of our water will be going to upper Happy Valley. Right now, all of our water goes down and if it doesn't get absorbed into the soil, it goes into a catch basin that goes across the street and dumps into the neighbor's yard. That's not good. I've asked the city engineer if if that can be fixed. He said, I kind of laughed and said, no, that that will not happen. The city will not rectify that. So it's up to us to provide a means with a bior retention facility and other means. Engineers do this all the time u to slow down the water so that the water going across the street or into the street at least will be less than what it is now. It will be an improvement. Um that's hydraulic. Second item we talked about were the existing walnut trees. The only reason I wanted to take the existing walnut trees is because the uh my arborist said they're about approaching their 50-year lifespan. They look a little halfhazard. So, we said, wouldn't it be better to plant some new, but absolutely we'll leave those walnut

trees. I think it's a good idea, especially the adjacent neighbor uh who came and you know that would provide immediate screening. So there's no problem with number two. Secondly, as we're leaving, Darly mentioned um perhaps readjusting the side deck. Yeah. And Monica mentioned there's 28 foot height, it's actually 22 foot, but when you take it down and measure it with the the side yard, which has a little skirt wall, I included that 6 ft. So it's, you know, 28 ft. But we can re we can redo that. I'm willing to do that. Go back into the floor plan and maybe reorient the pool. Um I think that's a good idea, especially because south is is facing downhill. The fourth item we talked about was the overall size and Charlie again pointed out that the previous design was limited to 4600 square ft. I cannot say this in more certain terms. That's a nogo. I cannot build what is demanded on this site. A million dollars of grading. Tremendous costs. Can't do it for 4,500 square feet. If you look at that plan, I need every square inch of that 6,000 square ft. It's just a fact. I'm not going to put $6 million into a home and sell it for $5.5 million. It's just it's just impossible. So, if that's your feeling, if that's what you tell me tonight, then so be it. Okay. Um, we'll we'll deal with that. Um, okay. Massing as you can see from the

previous u application that was a big building had a lot of roof had a lot of stone. Ours is not that. It's a two-story building only because there's a garage below. It's a one-story building with a garage below. That that makes sense, right? You're going uphill. So, people are going to have to walk up one level. But we have one level. If you want me to go to a a second level and reduce the footprint, well, we can talk about that, too. I don't think that's a positive for anybody. So, we've met all the sideyard. We have 20 feet on on the one side, 45 or something on the other. We can easily get to, you know, two and a half times the minimum or 50 feet, 65 ft in the front. I mean, a gazillion feet the back. back. I think it's over 2,000 ft. So, by the objective standards and and not to mention the height, we we've met all the requirements. If if you say that this building is too massive, that's a subjective uh opinion, isn't it? There's there's nothing written in the code that gives you that ability other than your your personal feeling. But there's a there's something out there called SB 330 and that is not I can read that to you if you'd like. Um it's just not something that the state of California allows anymore. So please, you know, there's millions of dollars invested here um uh you know on both lots. Let's move on. Uh, it's just it's just a shame that it keeps getting regurgitated back. I'm

here to solve a problem. I want this to be my last project before I retire. If it doesn't happen, that's fine. But I I cannot deal with just endless stuff. Let's make a decision one way or the other and we'll go from there. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Wait. Uh, wait. So I will say Mr. Patmore thank you for your presentation. Um I know you sound to me you sound frustrated. I know this is a long process. My understanding is that this is a new application. So while yes there have been previous direction that you made reference to. Um this is new you mentioned. So, one, I'd like to thank you. A lot of the requests that we did make in the last meeting, you did do. Um, I'd like to ask a couple questions and then open it up to the commission for other questions. One of the items we had asked, um, the rendering previously that kind of shared the showed the backyard

made the backyard look pretty flat or excuse me, the hillside look pretty flat before it went up steep. Yeah. So along those lines, I drove out to the site on Sunday. I drove by and from what I could see from the street and I realize it's different than what it's going to look like after grading. Yeah. But um Monica, if you don't mind going to the It was the rendering of the southwest view. Yeah. So that one's finded. Um southeast is fine.

On our drawings, it shows that it's 24 feet from the property line to the closest retaining wall to the street. Does this rendering represent that same distance? Because to me, this looks very similar to the previous rendering that made the slope uphill look so slight.

Now remember, okay, the the drawings that that better represent the the actual dimensions are the section and the and the site plan. This is a pictorial that frankly I didn't do it but I I had people you know do it. But I will say this that whatever that dimension is from the retaining wall to the street there's there's the property line and then there's 11 or 12 feet. Oh yes, excuse me. To the to the So So it's it's 30. So is that 30 feet? We were looking at that during our meeting and the neighbors had the same question.

35. Yeah. 35 feet. I don't know. I mean, it I don't use this for that, you know. Okay, that's fair. I'm not going to necessarily use it, but our request specifically was to show accurate rendering, so I'm just asking a question. I tried my best. I really did. Okay, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. No, I appreciate that. this house sits above and and with the grading that we'll do and and the and this is an important point. With the the fill that we'll do and the retaining walls, it really will block a lot of the house.

Yeah. So, perfect. That gets to my next question. When I was out there, so you come up Happy Valley Road, it's on the right. And from what I could tell driving in both directions, you could really only see the story poles from the southeast corner of the property. Okay. So from the roadway because of the walnut trees. Well, no, just because of the hill like you can't really see the the story poles other places. So at le from a vehicle because there's nowhere to pull over and get out and walk. But um do those story polls represent the house or the retaining wall? Both. So when I

closest ones? Yeah. When I first came to you, I just did the house because that's what I was told. Then um one of the commissioners Yeah. last meeting asked about doing some more. So we did we we have four story poles representing left side two middleles and the right side uh with two sets of retaining walls. And so the string line on the top is the top of the one retaining wall and the string line on the next one is the top of the of the other. Both 4 foot tall. Okay. Even though they appear taller in the middle because that's where the fill will go. Yeah. Okay. That that's helpful. That's what I wanted to make sure that that white string was the retaining wall.

Was a retaining wall. Um and then I'm happy to hear that you've had two community meetings um since our last meeting. You talked about four basic topics. Um did so you shared the topics that you presented. Did the community come? Did any of the neighbors um come? How do you how did that meeting go?

I think it went really well. I mean obviously they're they're here to tell you their side. These were my notes. I took four four points major points. There was other things talked about obviously but those are the things and three of the four I I I have a lot of flexibility with. Fourth I I told you I don't but they can tell you their side. Um yeah. Well I'm glad to hear that there were two meetings. Thank you. And then my last question is knowing that the parcel west is not part of this project except for there will be the grading for the driveway to access this.

Will any other grading take place on that western parcel during this construction or grading of this or only strictly for the driveway? Only strictly for the driveway. Okay. which because there's a little cut, we'll have to go back, I don't know, 20, 30 feet because we wouldn't probably want a wall of dirt, you know, probably some transition area, but by and large, no other grading. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Uh, thank you. So, I'll open up to the Wait, one sec. One sec. One sec. Other commissioners, Commissioner Mason,

question. Uh, will you need I saw on this one that there's a hammerhead. Will that go in with this phase? Will you need retaining walls with it. Correct. You just uh rated uh all of which have are shown on the plan and all of which have been approved and the maximum height on that I believe is six feet on the lower side and only four feet on the upper side. So, four six feet of retaining walls on each side and only really initially when you make the turn in and then you go up the retaining walls actually go away. Okay. Thank you.

Mhm. Um, I'm going to defer my my questions to you after the other public comments. Uh, and that those will have to do around the um the storm the storm drain comments you made about the engineer. And so I but I I'm going to return to those after our break. Look forward to it.

Um, so at this point is when we would typically open for public comment. We are going to take a fivem minute break. So if you would like to give public comment and you haven't yet filled out a speaker slip, please I see one in the room, but please fill out a blue slip. Bring it up to staff. Um it's looks like it's 9:01. We'll take a break until 9:06 on that clock. Yes. Yeah, on the clock up here. Thank you.

Um, we'll go ahead and resume the meeting. It's on the clock here. It's 9:06. And as a recap, we had just finished the uh applicants presentation and we're going to open it up for public comment. So, first we'll welcome any speakers who are in the room. I know staff has three or four blue slips. If you would like to speak tonight and you've not filled out a blue paper, please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to staff. Starting with the speakers in the room, uh, Charlie Glavin, followed by Beverly Jane Petus.

Great. Did you get um, Malcolm Fairb? I did. He's going to be he will follow Emily Jane Fairbar.

Sorry. Thank you. Um, thank you once again. Um, I'm gonna try and reference the commissioners by first name. I'll sorry Anna U. And I would also like to thank Ed for h having those meetings and being accommodating. Um rather than go through and restate a lot of the issues from prior submissions or even other things, let me address a couple of concerns the commission explicitly mentioned uh either last time or have mentioned since 2015 and 2018 as it does pertain and things really haven't changed. Uh first of all uh Stephen had expressed a concern about the new plan not uh not being compared to the old plans to give some sort of idea of comparative footprint. I did an overlay that's included which shows the old versus the the new one that was in the packet. And as you can see, there has been a significant expansion uh in terms of that footprint. And that is an applesto apples comparison uh uh not just done by size but by the total footprint not including the retaining walls. Um and that still you know and I I would recall the commission's prior resolutions approvals were on the footprint being reduced by 20% not the square footage. Second, um Carl had noted a concern about proximity. I think this has been addressed by Monica in regards to the prior uh plans had the house at a 58 to 68 uh foot setback uh whereas the current plans have a uh 27 and 48 uh so it's effectively reducing this uh the setback uh in half. But the proximity isn't the only complication. In order for this footprint to work, the design isn't just using every bit of the bench, as Carl noted last meeting, but requires dirt from the cut on the hillside to be expanded into the bench uh closer to uh the Fairbar's lines. Um

and remember, this is a swale, not an engineered uh grading previously. And this actually echoes a concern raised by the city in 2017 18 when it noted that the design which was actually a smaller one was quote reconstructs the bench or development pad in a manner that would increase the development area to accommodate a sprawled design. This manipulates the land to suit the building rather than the designing the building to respond to the land. I believe that was April 2017. quote, "Fourth, the expansion of the footprint also means removing critical trees, which Ed has, you know, been accommodated, but there's a lot, you know, of other trees that are still slated to be removed and exposed the general area. Uh, and as you noticed, that part of Happy Valley Road actually protrudes out uh rather than being recessed. Um, fifth, and I don't believe that this was um, noted is that the hydraology report, Greg, that you had mentioned, the hydraology report that was included since November of last year actually is based on the old design, not on the current one. And that's included on page seven of the actual design. That is not the current design. And so the hydraology studies and other comments even by the city engineer are out of date. These are basically representing 2018 and so any assertions meant to that let alone peer review you know should be considered to be invalid at least for now. Um and lastly the while the current app approval is the first step and we know this the impact on the trees uh necessary to be approved you know for cutting ed willing to take a look at this but we would ask that the commission take a look and ensure compliance with the city's tpo the tree protection ordinance along with ordinance uh 539 because we've already had some violations of that and even

when the Collinses originally proposed this in 2014 and 15 they said they would save all of the trees. This is still a concern because that area becomes very exposed. And while it is very, you know, possible to jam an expensive house into that hillside you like they do in Berkeley, the impact should not look like something that's suited more to overhanging the Calicut tunnel. That's something that fits into Happy Valley or into Lafayette overall. We can cite many of other um uh houses on Happy Valley Road that do conform to that that do protect the trees and are of you know equal size or smaller than what is being proposed on the same side of the street. This just is not consistent at this point. And for that reason, we just don't think that the size is reasonable to the construction. And I understand Ed's economic concerns, but the design's got to fit, not the economics justify, you know, the means. Thanks.

Thank you. Uh, one sec. Are there any questions for the speaker? Yeah, Commissioner Deorgio. Hi. Um, just to be clear, when I was mentioning the proximity to the neighbors to the east, I I noted it was closer. I noticed the distance, but also I I didn't state that that portion of the property isn't really where the house is located, right? It's house is set back farther, right? The the h Well, no, the house is actually uh closer itself. So, in the previous design, the house was 68 ft. Now, it's 40 uh uh 48 ft to the property line, I think,

to the property line. But in addition, if you take a look at the retaining walls, um those are closer. So that distance has been cut from 58 ft down to 27. So the implications relative to that to the natural drainage area including the out of-date uh reports which had that much larger area. But also the other factor within this hydraology report is if you actually take a look at the hammerhead within there, the previous design realized that the drainage was not sufficient which would be on that east side. So there's actually a collection area. Wait, excuse me. Because if you could just respond to Commissioner Deorgio's question.

Um, I wanted to get a little more information about your meeting in terms of the in your letter also you discussed storm driveway being flood the driveways being flooded from storms and and to the applicant's point that a lot of the water is going to be redirected down towards um upper Happy Valley drainage.

Not on the east side. If you actually walked it, it's an impossibility. Now, in the original 2014 and 15, the city made a mistake and actually had indicated that that storm drain was connected. I did photos in 2015 indicating that the city was wrong. The storm drains was not connected, but rather runs off into the Petros's uh property. Um, that's still the case. Gravity water's not going to flow. I get that. I wanted you to clarify what the city engineers said in terms of your concerns on it not being connected. didn't Oh, he didn't. Okay. Did

didn't address it. And as you heard from the original speaker, you know, today, the correction of a lot of these um uh sewer uh the storm drain lines were noted, but there just was no money to correct that and it would have been very extensive. When they redid the storm drains on Happy Valley Road, I believe it was a 2 week shutdown uh that they had to do in sections o overall. So, it would be pretty uh extensive for it. Well, when the Collinses originally presented the proposal in 2014 and 15, they were assuming that was the case. Much of the hydraology reports, including the humans, did as well. um given that you've removed a lot of the natural grading for the passive uh absorption along with the removal of the collection area by the hammerhead within this. I'd really love to have a couple of my friends who are are very well versed in this do a peer review on it because I just don't see how that transitory argument is possible.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Next speaker.

Good evening. Thank you for hearing us. Um, I'm more comfortable writing than speaking, so I'm going to read what I wrote. Um, we've heard a lot of numbers tonight, and here are the numbers that I can speak to you. We bought the property at 3991 Happy Valley Road 16 years ago with the intent to remodel a 50-year-old family home. After spending six months drawing up plans, we came to the realization that creating a home for four kids, three cats, one dog, a flock of chickens, and a couple of goats would require more work than fine-tuning a remodel. So, we started over and went through the process of designing and building a home from the ground up. A home that would accommodate our family of six, our extended family who live a thousand miles away, and hopefully someday a dozen grandchildren. Embarking on this process was a privilege. And so it was undertaken thoughtfully, creatively, and lovingly. We painstakingly preserved the grape vines which grew on the previous home planted in 1960 by its original owners, the Koshlin family. We maintained their extensive orchards, greenhouse, and gardens. For 50 years before we came along, the Koshlins owned both the 2.3 acre lot where we live as well as the hillside, the very steep, giant hillside. That is not what was in that picture in question. They often spoke of their intentions to preserve the open hillside across the street. The Koshlins did. And when the property was sold upon the death of Mr. Koshlin, the hillside was split off as a separate listing. We would have loved to purchase and preserve the hillside as well, but with four little kids at the time and both my husband and I starting up our own companies, it was not in the cards. I go into all of this because the Collins architect, Ed, said something in our meeting Saturday that struck me. He said, um, he said it Saturday and he

said it again tonight. There is no way he will design a smaller house. He cannot and will not reduce the square footage. As a speck house, the project must make money. Period. The Collins's are not designing a home while trying to figure out which kid sleeps like a log and could use some eastern sun to boost them out of bed or which kid likes loud music. Sorry, and needs to be furthest from the neighbors. In fact, the Collinses have no reason to care what the neighbors think after design review. After all, the developers are not going to be our Lafayette neighbors. In regards to our Lafayette community, all of our Lafayette community, the Collinses seem not to be interested in creating a home that is in keeping with the traditional style and more modest scale of the neighborhood. Additionally, the Collinses have shown repeatedly a proclivity for lying to hopeful homeowners about permitting as well as a penchant for cutting corners and heritage live oaks to get what they want. I brought a print tonight that most of you have probably seen around town. Is that a timer? I'm going to keep going. This photo was taken on our corner at Happy and Ever Happy and hangs in the entry. Reminder, we were here.

Excuse me one sec. Is that the three minute timer or is that one minute to go? That's the three minute. Okay. If you don't mind just wrapping up another like five seconds. for sure. Um, so here is one very simple ask. Thank you for addressing it earlier tonight, Ed. Please save, prune, and care for the neglected walnut grove between our homes. These trees provide greenery and good neighbor screening, as well as landslide prevention, water retention, and a perfect perch for the hawks to spot mice in the gardens of all your neighbors across the way. Thank you. Thank you. All right, just one there. Yeah, just one sec. We're gonna ask you a couple questions. I'm sorry. You You're trying to hold up something. What is that? Yeah, I didn't see it either.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. I've seen that picture. Yes.

Thank you, Commissioner Mason. Was that your question, too? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I believe there's one more speaker in the room or maybe a couple one more in the room and that is Malcolm Fairbar. Uh sorry I could you say the name again?

Malcolm Fairb and uh to advise the chair my laptop has run out of battery and uh no charger. So, or not a working charger. So, um I'll rely on our our technician to call on any. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Welcome. You have three minutes. Thanks.

Hi, I live at 3972 Happy Valley Road. It's the old Watson property. Um the closest dwell I have the closest dwelling. There is a very expensive greenhouse that is much closer than any of the other properties that were listed tonight. Um, I've had an opportunity and my first my first uh reaction was the same as you guys. The re renderings just don't show how steep it is. Thank you for driving by the property to give you I have several photographs here because I had a chance to walk up the story poles, you know, more or less there's a 45 foot um uh telephone pole that is basically the same height as the bench. the bench you're I think you I had it about directly uh you know maybe 50 60 yards away. So we're almost at a 45 degree angle on the shortest route route right down to the road. Um the entire property is just being carved into the mountain. There's massive grading that has to happen obviously and the rendering is really just I I don't think they really show just how much it was except for that very small person relative to everything else. It looks like the entire property is just going to be carved. It's all crowded in an area that is directly facing the my property line with where the road is. And so I'm concerned about the creating landslides, drainage, um um and also all the vegetation and the problems that we'll have with that. Um the other item that I have is that the story polls that I saw there show that it's only 6 feet above where the bench is, which seemed very odd to me that the entire house is only six feet above the bench. And so I have photographs here that show that too. I just want to make sure that the poles are accurate. We're representing and it looks almost like you're constructing a

pyramid with terracing and grading and one level after the other in order to make it a uh a nice property. So, I'm concerned with all the land that has to be moved, landslides, property or slides, drainage, vegetation, and also the renderings didn't show all the power poles. And I if he is removing them, thank you. I would appreciate that. I always think that looks but the renderings made it look much better than and it was almost misrepresented it and if you want to see photographs I have them. You you've been there but it's straight vertical up and down and uh yeah those are things I'm mostly concerned about. Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? Okay. Thank you.

Are the story polls accurate? Um, so what'll happen is after public comment, the applicants team will get a chance to provide response, and I'm very hopeful the applicant will speak to that. I I I'm sorry. I Yeah, go ahead. I had been I I didn't know if it was that impactful, but I was curious. From your house, are you able to see the story polls from my house? Not I can probably see them from the greenhouse, but not from We have enough trees and other stuff from my house. I cannot. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so last call. Please get taken down. I could.

Okay. Thank you. Last call for any other comments in the room. Okay. Um online. I will look to our meeting technician if uh they can check. There are no hands raised in our virtual audience. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so now will be an opportunity for the applicant to provide a rebuttal slash responses to some of the comments that were provided tonight.

Okay. So, um, first of all, to Charlie's comments, um, there if we keep the walnuts that we can keep, which are we we thought on Saturday that the ones we can keep are fortunately the ones closest to the street, which is sort of like two rows. If we keep those and they're not interrupted by the retaining walls, obviously that's a different We won't take any trees out. Zero trees. The two big heritage oaks that are next to Malcolm's property. Of course, we're leaving those. We're leaving all the trees now at this point. right now except for the ones that and again we have to maybe like one or two that that intercept the retaining walls but two or the three of those are dead. So with respect to trees, we're not removing trees now anymore. Hydraology, it's interesting how we're we're talking about hydraology. This is massing, right? I mean, this is early in the process. We we the the hydraology report, but fortunately, we we have one. Yes, it's based on the old design. We're not going to do a new hydraology report before you've weighed in on the massing. Come on. That's ridiculous. Um, and and Charlie, you were wrong on the front setback. It's 65 ft. It says right on the drawing, 65 ft to the property line plus 11 or 12 feet to the street. So, pretty good front yard setback, right? Um, to Jennifer Jennifer Jane, right?

Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me. Please address us and members from the public. I know it's hard, but please Beverly has a very large and Excuse me. I'm still talking because I can't hear you if I'm talking. So, please address us. Same comment to the the community. Thank you.

Thank you to her comments. Um, she has a beautiful property and a huge house. I think it somebody said it's 8,000 square ft. Why shouldn't we be able to do 6,000 square ft across the street? I mean, our requirements for engineering will be enormous, but that's why we need that that square footage to justify the whole thing. As far as caring about the design, I care about the design. In fact, I encourage anybody in this room, we just completed a home, not in Lafayette, but ironically on the Lafayette Arna border, 42 Charles Hill Circle. It's very different because it's a downs slope home, but if you just drive by that home and and and I'll take you inside if you want to see it. Lots of care. Lots of care. Lots of money spent. Lots of engineering. Lots of lots of materials, expensive materials. That's what it takes. And I'm willing to do that, but only under certain circumstances. Um, as far as you know, Malcolm's comments, um, we haven't had a chance to meet, so um, even though I've tried, um, the the story polls are accurate and I'd be more than happy to go out there. They were based on an engineer, human company, telling us exactly the elevation, and we went from there to the height of the building. Yes, the the garage is sunk in. Um, as far as these uh power poles, I'd love to have the power polls out, but uh we will not be taking out the power. Thank you.

Ask one sec. I I have one question. Yeah. Um in the staff report and on the figures, it looks like trees are being removed, but you just said no trees will be removed. Can you just clarify

that the arborist recommended taking out all the walnuts because they were meeting their 50-year lifespan. We went with that thinking that was they're kind of scraggly looking. So, we said, "Okay, probably everybody agrees." But lo and behold, they don't. And and I think it was Saturday that I realized, "My god, we should keep them. We can trim them up." But half of them are dead. You can go and see. So, those will be taken out. But if they're dead, they're taken out. And if they're in the way of the retaining walls, which again may be one or two. So I I can't comment on that because I I haven't really studied that in depth, but as a concept, we're leaving the any uh any tree. Every tree.

So you're going to leave as many trees as possible. We're going to leave sounds like every uh oak tree. We're going to leave every because there's only oaks and walnuts. We're gonna leave every walnut tree with the exception of maybe gets too close to one of those retaining walls. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Okay. Thank you.

Uh we'll close public comment and we'll bring it to the commission. I would like to ask staff one question before we start. So the what I just heard was regarding trees and so what was just mentioned by the applicant is different than what's shown on some of the site plans. And we have a condition of approval that basically I need to find it. conditional approval number one that more or less references that if we do approve this phase one that the plan set dated I believe April 11th I or 10th I need to go back and check. Yeah, thank you. Uh that that's sorry do you mind if I read that really quick? It says um development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the city office as modified by these conditions plans dated April 11th. So in that case, how does that relate to the trees or is the tree permit completely different independent of however the trees might be marked on this plan set related to what's being proposed for removal versus keeping. And the reason I'm mentioning it is there's a lot of public comment about the trees and the staff report and the presentation tonight say two different things. Excuse me. The staff report and the applicant's presentation.

Correct. I I think that the applicant's presentation has changed from the the representations that were made to staff via the plans uh when the staff report was written. So I'm hearing as of Saturday some reconsideration was given and some some changes are being proposed relative to retention of trees. I would like to see clarity on that. And I think it behooves the the applicants, the neighbors, the the everyone to have clarity on what trees he's referencing when he says, "We're not removing any trees, but we are removing some. Some are dead. Some may be next to retaining walls that need to be removed." But um the the plans are the tool for representing what trees exist. and with a red X as you've seen on the plans, those that will be removed. So that they have numbers. If tonight that plan can go up on screen and you can identify the the tree numbers that will now be retained, that can be easily incorporated into the conditions and we can move forward.

Okay. And if the applicant isn't able to do that live tonight and it is something that um the commission would like clarified in condition one since condition one does represent plan set that is different than the applicant's presentation tonight. What would we do? Would we potentially make a motion that then would include an update and revision, but our motion is only good on that assumption or does it come back to us?

It could come back to you if you feel that needs to happen. You could charge staff with it. Um, ideally we would get clarity from the commission having a plan up on screen and Mr. Pat Mont saying all of the trees that you see along Happy Valley Road, those will be retained. And if that's the direction of the commission, that's clear enough, we can make the amendment. Um, and the condition you read out says as amended by these conditions. And so that that can be incorporated. Okay.

At the council uh commission's direction. So, uh, if there are other trees, they just need to be identified, uh, and can be done. So, I'm sure familiar enough with the plans to do that. Okay. Thank you. Can I? Yeah. Yeah. Please, both of you can clarify clarify for me. And thank you for putting up the this sheet on the on the screen because I was looking at that earlier today. So, is are are you saying that that L1 I think that's what this is, L1.2 2 is not accurate, right? L1.2. Oh, well, sorry, staff. Go ahead. I whom are you asking? You or or or I I can't answer that question.

Okay. Yes. It's not accurate because when um the when the staff report was published um it was published on Friday and then they had a meeting on Saturday and you know one of the requests from the neighbor was to keep those trees and that applicant is amendable to that and so thank you. So I Yeah. So that's why I I thought he was talking in in possibilities, not I didn't know that he actually committed to doing it. So thank you. So if we wanted to amend the condition, we can ask the applicant live to clarify which trees to update L1.2.

Okay. Um thank you staff. So we'll bring it commission. Oh, go ahead.

I have a couple for for staff. So, and I I disclosure I I asked this question to Greg earlier, but it might be worth repeating. Um when this if and when this goes to DRC and then um it well in in the current conditions it's stated to come back to us um would staff mind elaborating on what our options or what we can do when it comes back. In other words, um, if we aren't satisfied with hydrarology reports or something, would we have any court recourse? That's kind of what I was getting at. And, and related to that was the whole the applicant was mentioning, well, we shouldn't expect final hydraology reports at this point in the process. Is that correct? Or is are the hydrarology reports really produced right before the DRC meeting or are they done after the DRC meeting approves a specific set of plants? I I would concur with the applicant at this stage. Hydraology is is it is not expected nor needs to be ironed out at a sighting and massing uh level which is the the nature of tonight's hearing. Um, I'll forego the background on on why the process is structured this way, but basically the the goal is to identify whereabouts on on the site and we have a plan and the kind of the the serial box volume of the of the structure and I think more information, more detail has been provided um than is minimally

necessary and it's certainly helpful to know the visibility you know some sections and and offsite visibility. So I think that that has sufficiently been provided notwithstanding the the artistic license taken with the some of the renderings in terms of perspective etc. Um, but I think that that it is sufficient. And so if the commission tonight approves the sighting massing as amended relative to trees or anything else, the the follow on steps would be to flesh out the design landscape and the and the details including uh hydraology because I think what is lacking on the plans is what Mr. Patma spoke to, which is a a detention or retention facility for storm water to meter it out. So, that needs to be figured out and incorporated into the plans. Um I that should happen when it comes back to the planning commission prior to it coming to the planning commission because it they go hand in hand like figuring that out and incorporating it into the design should go to the design commission should come here. It would surprise me if there if the commission um somehow was not satisfied and had additional uh things. There's still discretion at that time, but we would recommend it be limited to like addressing those issues of concern about the, you know, landscape or the the hydraology and not the overall question of can this lot be developed and, you know, with a what kind of residence and whereabouts and how big. Like the those

are the threshold questions of this evening. And then it's just, you know, putting additional um attention to and polish on the on the project moving forward, but but fixing any critical details that have not been sufficiently addressed.

Commissioner Mason. Um, well, this is where I I kind of disagree because one of the things that came up previous meeting came up in this meeting was whether the water could actually get there. The storm drain line was broken. Applicant insert insists that it can't and it is functioning. The neighbors insist that it isn't. And that's not a minor detail. I mean, if if it if the if it's functioning as the applicant says it is, then it shouldn't be a problem for us to add uh add that as a condition of approval that it is prepared and function and not leave it to uh a phase two. So, I mean, we've had two two meetings and we still haven't got a consensus whether or not that line actually is connected or or works because we have different representations from people who live right there. And that that's a concern of mine.

Understood. Thank you for that. And and I think Steph's view is that if a house is put roughly at that location and it becomes impervious and the water that would fall on that footprint needs to be handled in a fashion and same with any other imperous surface that there is sufficient fall between where the house will go and the street level that the it could be s managed one direction or the other or both and whether there the so I I I'm not seeing that that that there's anything that would fundamentally change the sighting and massing based on the ability or inability to handle the the it it seems like it can be solved. Um, and

it's like for example, you mentioned retention pond, but with slope that steep, I just don't see the ability to get a retention pond in there. So, I mean, it's it's been consistently been one of the the comments that the adjacent have and I don't have and I It concerns me that it hasn't been addressed better knowing that it is a one of the foremost comments that the neighbors have. That's all I'm trying to say. I don't want to lock myself into something which is hey we can solve it and it isn't really solved. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah. I I guess my thinking is that if they are unable from this point forward to solve it then they don't have a a app a provable project. Um okay it seems like a a engineering problem which are are vexing but I've not seen a a property that it can't be done on. It's just a matter of how uh kind of brutal is the is the manipulation and and the techniques that need to be brought to bear on it. So it just gets more costly um like geotechnical issues in a way.

Okay. Thank you,

chair. If I may, I would like to address the concern. So, um I did send um the neighbor's comment about the storm drain to um our city engineer. And so our city engineer said that the storm drain um crossed the street and discharges onto the downside property. It has been like it has been like that for well over 30 years and will continue to be like that. No changes are required as part of this development. That said, the development is required to make sure that the peak flow from the pipe does not increase from the current condition. And then um also the the city engineer did review the hydraulics and the hydrarology and hydraulic study and just said that it it just needs to be updated to reflect the most current design because the project will be going through different design iterations in terms of um the size or or anything else. And so it just needs to be updated um prior to approval. So so the commission will have an opportunity to uh see a new um um hydraulics um hydrarology and hydraulic study that will be updated to reflect the most current project and that would be peer-reviewed.

Okay. Thank you. And that's required that was added to as a condition. Thank you. Okay. So, I think we're good with staff questions right now. Thank you. Um, anyone want to start with thoughts? So, again, we're looking at massing and sighting tonight for phase one application. Yes. Com uh not commissioner. Um, Greg,

a a commenter in the audience is is articulating that that's not true. So, I don't know if you want to ask the question, open it back up. Um, I'm not clear on it, but I wanted to bring that to your attention. Um, that what's not true.

I believe last statement by staff. I do feel like we've had multiple um hearings on this item and we have asked multiple times for public comments. People were able to provide public comments. So, I know um sometimes it's frustrating to hear things or you might have a different opinion than some of the items that are shared, but um I think we've closed public comment and we're already in our deliberation and back.

Okay. And so I literally just said that. So please, please just keep your comments to yourself because and I know that's frustrating, but um I will say that this isn't the only meeting on this project. And if there's something that you disagree with or that you would like to share with staff, you're welcome to share with staff after the meeting. And what I will do is ask Mr. Glavin and Mr. Ludre, the city engineer, to be in discussion and conversation as this project continues to move forward. Yeah, perfect. Thanks.

Okay, so commissioners um I have one is well outside of the the hydraology. Do you mind just into your microphone?

Outside of the hydrarology which will be addressed um I have two concerns. We've been consistently referred to a footprint of a given size and this exceeds it. Also remember that the deck to the east is very large and it's solid around. So that to me would also be included in the footprint which puts it out even more. Um the other thing is I was disappointed with the renderings. Uh the last meeting we talked about the concern standing on the street and looking up and all the renderings were at the level of the house. There isn't anything that shows what it would look like looking up because they're only four they're four feet walls but they're only so far apart. So looking from the street looking up it would look like an 8 8ft wall. Uh I am sympathetic to uh the applicants but to me it is it has been um it's just been a little bit too much. And over the various times that it's been before the planning commission, both us and our predecessors, everybody's made it pretty clear about what size footprint we were looking for at on that side, and I tend to agree with them and and wouldn't wouldn't change their their earlier recommendations. Thank you.

Okay. Um, so what I'm hearing is generally not supportive of the massing. Correct. Okay. What about the sighting?

Well, the sighting the sighting and massing go together because it takes up the the the mass itself, the footprint itself takes up what it has to take up because we're trying to do this essentially on one level. um you know if they could get you know square footage a different way I'm I would take a look at it but you know the the all the previous ones referred to you know footprint in the mid 4,000 square foot range and this is drastically over that and I know we've had mission creep before on from phase one to phase two and this is already passed what previous council uh previous planning commissions have uh have thought.

Thank you. Thank you. Um anybody want to go next?

Sure. I don't like to get on square feet because I think a few things. One, I think over time houses have gotten bigger. I live in a 2400 foot house, just for the record, and that's good for me, but I don't want to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do within a range. And and to that point, uh it was brought up earlier about a developer versus an owner. And while I totally agree with that sentiment, we can't make judgments based on who's doing it. We have to be agnostic to who's doing it. It's not fair to do that. So I just want that to be clear because that's the reality of now it doesn't mean we can't as people make our own indei decisions at the end of the day but we can't say oh that person lives here that person's developing here so I'm going to ignore that part but I'm looking at one of the renderings and I don't know whose house it is but the house just below it looks quite massive now it's probably different because it's lower impact ing views. So when we just talk about square footage, I think it's a disingenuous uh uh uh uh factor to look at because there are houses bigger than this on the pictures right in front of us. So then I think we have to look at okay how does it affect the views? How does it I mean go back to what we're actually charged to uh make findings of and one thing we have to keep in mind is we have to let people have economic viability of their property. We can't just say you can't do it. So then it's like what's the limit and that that that's a very slippery slope. So, I just want to get that out there because I I tend to not want to tell people like if we say 6,000 whatever is too much, what's okay? 6,000

599. I mean, are we going to set an actual number? Because you can hide that just by how it's how it's built into the into the into the hillside, which I actually think um this has done a decent job. So then I'm rambling a little but I had kind of just circled all these things that I wanted to kind of hit analysis uh uh zoning compliance you know all the setbacks those are based off zoning code and they comply on every one of them single family maximum height front left rear aggregate rear parking check they all work design guidelines um here it starts getting a little more subjective So, I will admit that it's not as easy as just saying yes or no, but I I do feel that the building it into the hillside, let me find where is that? Um that that lowers that issue. I also um uh Cheradnich had a really nice photo. I'm assuming that's from your car sitting in your car. So this is a I I hadn't seen the story poll. So um I'm relying on this picture that's from a car up against right up against and when I look up and and now after the applicant explained that the two white lines are the retaining wall. You can kind of see there two that setback and c could I put this up for everyone to see to you? I think it's you know just so people know what I'm talking about because this is show up on your screen.

Can it uh maybe see if you can uh pinch the the the iPad a little so it shows the whole There you go. Back up. But what I was going to say here is you can see um if it Yeah. Uh, it's a little harder to see on that, but you can see the lines of the front 4 foot retaining wall and then the second 4 foot retaining wall. And then it's really hard to see on this, but you can kind of see behind it the poles where the lights are that show um what would be the roof line. And some of them you wouldn't see from this vantage point because the retaining walls would block it. But but what I was happy to see is you could still see the top of the mountain or the hill or whatever you want to call that. Um now I'm relying on the fact that these story poles are are are to what the design says and I think the applicant said they were. So, I'm gonna believe him on that. So, well, how about this? Let me just pause. But this is kind of where I am. So, I have a really hard time telling someone they can't. I'm all the other issues with hydrarology and stuff. I do think those will get picked up. So, I'm not concerned that we're gonna pass the buck if we don't deal with it now. I'll pause. That's probably most of it.

Okay. Um, George,

thank you. Thank you. Um, a lot of your thoughts are similar to mine. Um, I do appreciate the elevation drawings in the staff report. Um, I think that that in a lot of ways gives a a good representation of how the building is designed to in terms of sighting and massing to fit in. Um, I'm not so concerned with the distance to neighbors. Um, the el the the renderings I I still am not happy with. Um, I did mention to staff that the one in the staff report, the figure 13.3D, the 13 3D view was closest to what I wanted to see. I really wanted to see a a a drawing that showed when you're at the street level or across the street at the at um at the neighbor's house, you're looking up similar to what what um was just shown on that image. I I that's what I was really hoping for, but when I look at the elevations, I I feel like it's it's done well and it's set in to the natural area to the best that it can be. So, that's that's where I'm at.

Okay. Um, yeah, I'm I'm frustrated by some of the detail or lack of detail in response to some of the things like, yeah, the renderings for the actual depiction of what it looks like. And of course, the landscape's beautiful and that may or may not be there. It might take a while. But in terms of massing and sighting, I do have to agree with Commissioner Leange. Um, I know previous applications and previous planning commissions, I think only two of us were there in the 2018 decision of denial, but that was for a previous application and the planning commission has changed over time, 2015, 2018, today, right? Our our members have changed. The the market has changed. I don't appreciate the comment that, oh, I have to build this square foot to earn enough money. However, that is also everything's built on cost, right? Like that is a reality. But so I'm viewing this as a new application. Um, so while I respect the previous comments and as a commissioner that was on a previous decision, right, the Commissioner Mason and myself for denial of that application, this is a different application. Um, do I think 6,000 square feet is a lot? Um, yeah. Personally, my home isn't close to a fraction of that, but in looking in the surrounding area and in looking driving up to this lot, it's a very it doesn't seem out of place to me. Um, I was glad to hear the applicant was willing to leave trees and that that

came out of a community meeting. We don't always have projects where the applicants meet with the neighbors. Um, I do appreciate that. If we make a motion tonight, I would like to see the updated um, landscape plan. I think it was L2.1, 1.2, L1.2. I would like to see that updated live so that we can incorporate that tonight into our motion so that the applicant does need to commit to it rather than hoping it works out. um hydrarology, ge uh geotech, huge issues. I'm confident that between regulations, standards, city engineers, department, agencies that they're going to have to make it work or the project isn't going to get approved. Personally, that's my take on that. Um, so in terms of what we're charged for tonight, massing and sighting, phase one development, I would be ready to make a decision on it. Um, would let me ask the commission and I know m commissioner Mason, I'm mostly looking at you, but it's it's the angle. Um, how do the other commissioners feel about updating figure L1.2? to live. That's the tree figure as part of um tonight's meeting.

I would rather have it done right than rushed because in updating it live, they don't necessarily have the latest. Uh first of all, my family had lots of walnut trees. I know the history. the 50 year life is correct. I can go into a whole lot of more detail than most people ever want to listen to. Why? And they look pretty bad at the end. Uh so I wouldn't want to commit them to saving something which just isn't savable. I'd rather them come back and uh leave it to staff's discretion to have it uh uh done and included in in the plans rather than start a whole another argument months down the road when something was committed to be saved when it wasn't. You know, if the retaining walls are on peers, that shouldn't affect the root system for most wall most trees adjacent to it.

Yeah, I I think that's fair. What are or I mean I can understand your your comment. What are other commissioner's thoughts? Need your microphone. But if if we could say what we want and then ask this because we've had it before where staff would review and and see if it's deemed appropriate to what we requested. Like I would say something like uh they're not dead. Dead ones don't need to be said and they're not u being impacted by the U retaining wall. But if they submitted something back to I hate to see you having to come all the way back to planning commission just to do this one thing. So I'd rather say here's what we'd like and then let staff use their discretion to say they meant it or they didn't.

Yeah. So I was going to ask staff that. So along those lines, hearing Commissioner Mason's comment, um would we be able to make a motion tonight and rely with um kind of like a tweak to condition of approval one specifying what we would ideally like to see in the updated plan and then leave it to staff to verify um the information. Could we make a motion kind of that vague regarding condition of approval one? Or would it be better to have the applicant bring um that figure back to planning commission before it goes to design review? Or would it come when it comes back to us after design review? I'm hesitant because condition of approval one is linked specifically to the April 11th plan set which is clear and so the the desire I think goes to simple clarity and my suggestion earlier of having the plan up and and Mr. Padamont identifying simply just identifying the trees that he has now had a change of heart about their their retention. My understanding from his wording is it's all the trees along Happy Valley Road. Now while that representation and and it can be memorialized in the conditions that the applicant is committing to retaining those there will be qualifiers and it is not a a

um that is not immutable in the future if between now when a tree is still living and in the future when it comes back, it dies or some other aspect of like we also need to deal with storm water and the only way to deal with it is to put a pipe through this location and there's a tree there. So there has to be some um pragmatism and and uh ability to um deal with a multitude of circumstances. So I think we can take the direction from based on his representation this evening that the intention and what the commission is approving is the retention of the trees along Happy Valley Road. And I'm looking for an it was really just looking for a nod because I think that's what you said.

But but but not these Okay, I'm going to put it up on put it up on screen. You can try it on. Yeah, point it up.

Thank you for entertaining the Okay. What? You're what you're seeing is sheet L1.2 and they're not they're having a discussion but we're what Mr. Pat said is all the trees along Happy Valley Road they'll now shoot to retain but those which are up in here 3 54 355 352 and 356 um those may not be retainable because of the driveway coming in there but beyond that 153 eastward he's his intentions are to retain this.

And so to clarify, the applicant would be able to get a tree removal permit to remove a tree that's not on his parcel because the driveway is going through the other parcel where the trees needing to be removed. that property owner would need to be a willing cooperative uh signatory to the tree permit or Mr. Patmma would have a a dominant easement that would allow allow that to do that.

Okay. Um, so because the properties were jointly owned, they were joint and jointly presented together and they involved one access, they really need to be entitled together in order to um be able to build the project. So unless there is a a dominant easement that enables the the eastern property to do the work on the western property, um they need to be in cooperation, the two property owners. Um but the the commission can entitle the eastern property and the work with demonstration of this easement um on the west or the western property owner can be an authority and saying yes I I consent to this.

Okay. And uh what about tree 346? I'm not clear. Is that um intended? It's the top right X. Is that part of what's being preserved based on tonight's conversation as well? Okay. Thank you. So then, Commissioner Mason, because I know you and I I do understand like your your point of like not rushing it, but also making sure that these trees are viable and healthy. So knowing of what we just heard of which ones they're planning to keep as long as they're safe, healthy trees, are you comfortable with this?

I'm comfortable with I'm comfortable with that. But the the whole gist of my conversation is are they healthy enough to save? I mean, I look at walnut trees. They're kind of like the joke about the trees at Joshua Tree. It's not that they live long. It's just they take so long to die. You know, they can look bad and look bad for a very, very long time. And hey, if you're just keeping it to fulfill a promise, but it's mostly branches with a couple leaves way up the top, why bother? So, I just didn't want to go do all this exercise and find out, well, you know, tree uh 350x that has well, that's a big, you know, 349 and 348 aren't looking that healthy. We're going to cut them down and then we go through this whole thing. Well, you said you're going to save them. That's why I said I would just assume have an arborist look at them and make a final determination. you know the trees up on you know by the driveway area they're gone no matter what I have no trouble with that

and Steph there is an arburous report right already so it should so to commissioner Mason's point if staff is able to crossorrelate work with the applicant as they submit their actual applications or you know entitlements down the road the intent would be preserve as many trees as possible as they indicated tonight, but per the findings of the arborist report of what's a healthy tree, what's a unhealthy tree, staff agrees with Commissioner Mason. There is a pragmatism to taking out all the trees that are essentially nearing the end of life and replanting new. It is a dramatic visual change. And so it is often the case that we support retention of even trees that are in decline so long as that the work is done, succession planting is put in the ground, given a chance to establish itself and start to grow and then with the understanding everything is going to die and those walnut trees have been in decline and will come out at some point. I assure you. Um but it we have had the work done. The succession planting is in and it's not as dramatic a clear cutting if you will.

Okay. Follow up.

Yeah. So the the landscaping plan hasn't really been developed. This well it's preliminary is my understanding. Right. Um, is there any history to ever tying the tree plan to the to the um landscaping plan in the terms of your point of succession planning if they're taking out would that be a mechanism we could use to to address this issue? I I yes I think the the representation of the retention of the of the trees as discussed in the last 10 minutes or so um and the this there's an initial landscape plan which is um I'll say busy graphically on the on the plan set um a simplicity and an acknowledgment and incorporation of succession planting of scale scale uh should be part of the phase 2 application

uh thoughts. I I' I've just been re-reing re reviewing uh what what conditions we have to findings we have to make and and I I'm in the same position. So, I'm ready to uh take this to a vote if if everyone else is.

Yeah. I just finally want to mention my main concern has been, you know, the hydrarology um the water issues that that could pose a problem. And as long as um they're going to be there's going to be an upgraded hydrarology plan and everything's addressed correctly in phase two, I I I I'm good with the the the uh staff report.

And let me ask staff, so I know earlier we closed public comment, there was conversation in the audience um referencing a false statement. If that statement um would it be possible I assume that statement was regarding hydraology because that's the point of the conversation knowing that that is a hot topic would it be possible to just hear that one comment briefly or would we have to reopen public comment previously and the reason I'm saying is previously I was very firm on the like the public comment opportunity had passed. But knowing that that is such a a community concern, I feel it would round out our decision making

and and if that's the chair's you have the prerogative to do that. I I think that the um and and I'm all for hearing uh comments out. I think there is ample opportunity for that between the property owners, the neighbors and the city engineer. And even if this project were ministerial and approved over the counter, they would still have to address the hydraology grading and drainage issues even without. So um what if I open it again? Do I open it for everybody online, everybody in the room, and then we bring it back to li deliberation again?

Yes. Won't this be addressed though in phase two? Yeah. So, that's what I was just going to say. Um, I do know it's important and I do know it's a it's an important issue and I do agree phase two. So hearing that and hearing that there are going to be ample opportunity, I'm fine waiting. Go ahead.

Um, one question for staff because we're only approving the east side. Does the high I would assume the hydrarology also has to follow the west side because they they just dumped all the east side on the west side water uh property and say, "Well, that's not before the council. That's not our jurisdiction. That's not our problem." Wouldn't that make the situation worse and tie everybody's hands. the hydraology reports um covers both the east and west lot

and then and then um when um the applicant submits I mean um when the the design reiterations are um made during phase two um and prior to going back to planning commission um it would be updated to to reflect all of the the grading work that's being proposed on across both parcels. But

so I think your point is that not only the access needs to be coordinated between the two properties, the grades, the retaining walls, but also the drainage needs to be coordinated between the two properties to ensure that it is not just creating a a kicking the the can down the road. Yeah. Because the concern is which was my point exactly. earlier of they need to be developed or entitled in coordination or the it needs to be a standalone solution that doesn't um hobble the or unduly restrict the the western parcel. So I think I think we're we're clear on that.

Yeah. Because the concern is since we don't have a house for the western portion. So essentially by burying it into the hill, we essentially create a dam. Water comes down, hits the retain wall behind the garage and all the drainage and is directed either way. And so half the water goes or mostly will go a lot will go to the western side, but there's no structure there to determine what's going to happen when that house comes up and it's benched into the hill and all the water is redirected because we're just assuming it is and we're just like we're assuming that that house may come together, but we may just entitle a driveway and that that's it. Did I make Did I They make that clear.

Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? had it. Shoot. Page 16 of 32. Yeah, I know.

All right. I propose that we adopt PC resolution 2026-04, approving the project subject to conditions, including whatever we discussed on the trees. That is that clear enough for staff that the planning director got? Yeah. Subject to conditions approval. Yes, I said that. I think subject to conditions of approval. Yeah. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? I. All opposed? Nay. So, three eyes, one nay.

The motion carries with the majority of the commissioners present. And um I would ask staff to let me know when it goes to DRC. Thank you. We can try to Yeah, if you can make that happen. Um there is a 14-day appeal period. Thank you. 14-day appeal so it could be peeled up to the city council. Okay. Moving next on our agenda, other business. 9ARC volunteer virtual meeting Friday, May 1st at 9:30. Um, I'm happy to do it again if no one else can.

Yeah, I can do it. I really am t tough on those. I know the last one they said emails. I didn't read that till too late, though. So, yeah, but I can do it, Carl. Yeah, that's fine. I'll be your backup. Perfect. So, can slate me for that? Uh item 9B, vice chair election. So, Commissioner Deming, Vice Chair Deming has left our commission. With that, we have a vacancy for the vice chair. Um I will take I I have I would like to nominate uh Commissioner Deorgio for vice chair. I accept.

Second. Okay. I All in favor? I Okay. Um, welcome. Thank you. Happy to help out. Perfect. I think you'll be an excellent vice chair. Yep.

Uh, 10 commissioners reports. How about director planning director's report? The chair participated in interviews for potential planning commissioner candidates uh to serve on the commission uh today with the liaison from the city council to the planning commission. And so that item will be on the next city council agenda for the potential appointment of up to two uh commissioners. Are are we trying to get back to seven or is that still a goal or just curious discussions uh have occurred? Uh but no, you know, with the the mayor uh and the city manager as to, you know, what what the we're contending with. Um thankfully we've only missed one meeting due to quorum issues and it's not the first time that the commission has um had multiple vacancies and so um a multitude of potential options have been uh floated including reducing the number statutoily down to five. um combining the com design view commission and planning commission. None are or no plans or a foot other than to um appoint and get the commission back to its full force of seven.

Great. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.