Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah, that's good. All right, we're going to call the meeting in order. Um, first thing to do, we're going to do roll call. Commissioner Gorgio present. Uh, confirmation present. Call me in order. Um, first thing to do, we're going to do a roll call. Commissioner Jordan. Um, present. Is it hearing feedback? Not even literally delayed recording. Yeah, we're hearing the recording going right now.

Hey, President

and continuing the roll call. Commissioner Radnich present and vice chair Deming present. With that we have a quorum. Um first things first I entertain a motion to adopt today's agenda.

Sorry hold on everybody. I apologize. Okay. All right. We're going to take this from the top here. Yeah.

Going to give it a split second just to make sure we're not getting any kind of playback. All right. So, taking roll call. Commissioner Giorgio, present. Commissioner Mason, present. Commissioner Rnich, present. Uh, Vice Chair Deming, present. And with that, we have our quorum. Moving on. Um, does anyone have any changes or entertain an option to adopt today's agenda? Sure. I move that we adopt the agenda as as stated. Second. All in favor say I.

I. All oppose. Hearing none. Um, next up on the agenda is public comments. And I just like to remind that this is for items that are not on the agenda. If you have comments to items on the agenda, we'll be entertaining those shortly. But are there any comments that we've received for items not on the agenda? None in the room. Not online. Thank you for the reminder to check the online. I'm seeing no speaker slips in the room nor hands raised. Um and online. Seeing no hands raised. Excellent. Uh next we'll move to our consent calendar. Um, does anyone have any items they would like to remove from it or modify? Or if not, we'll entertain a motion to adopt the consent calendar.

I move we adopt the consent calendar. Second. All right. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Say nay. Hearing none. Okay. Continuing on. We have no continued items.

And so moving on to the uh item on today's agenda, the uh request for the lot line revision. Um the first thing we'll do is staff will provide a presentation. Good evening, chair, members of the commission, members of the public. Uh the item before you is a request for a lot line revision uh by submitted by Happy Valley Oaks LLC, the property owner. Uh it's located at 4123 Happy Valley Road. And I'll take you through some history and uh additional explanation as to the nature of the request. Um so here you're seeing the northern half of the city and the subject area subject property is uh multiple parcels but it's located all in that blue area at the northwest corner. Uh the northern and western property lines of the subject property constitute and are coincident with the city boundary between the city of Lafayette and the city of Arinda. Um the property owner proposes to reconfigure the property lines between three vacant parcels resulting in the same number of buildable lots. So no more it is not creating any lots. It's just moving a lot line between uh three parcels, three vacant parcels. I'll come back to the count uh in a moment. Um so Happy Valley Oaks uh is the property owner and this is zoomed into that area you saw on the context map. Um

the red representing the city boundary is coincident with the property lines. It for graphic clarity it is uh offset slightly here and the blue outlines all of the parcels. Excuse me. Um, you'll you'll have an opportunity. You speak up just a bit.

I will try to speak up a little bit. Uh, apologies. So, the blue outline shows the lands, all of the property owned by Happy Valley Oaks LLC in the city of Lafayette. And you'll see at the southern area as we go through the slide deck um the blue line is amended a little bit at the southwest corner through a lot liner vision but um the providence of the subject parcels um were all of the land was initially owned by um Barcel and the the subject uh the the constituents of uh Happy Valley Oaks LLC. Robin and Chris Ley um bought it from him and the perfected the subdivision which was initially submitted in 1987 and then you can see there were at least two changes to that subdivision. Um and it was finally perfected I think in 2008. Um so that was a minor subdivision that created parcels A, B and C. that subdivision uh prohibited further subdivision of lots A and C, but did allow further subdivision in the future of parcel B. And tract 9319 was that further subdivision of parcel B. So you can now see that parcel B goes away and is carved into uh subdivided into lots 1 2 3 4 and five. Um with parcel A and parcel C that means that following those two subdivisions there were seven buildable lots of record.

And so I have taken the exhibit which was in your staff report which was oriented north to the left and taken a snip and reoriented north to the right and

please wait. Yeah, this is staff presentation. Sorry, we'll get a comment later. Um and so I've taken a snip a image of the exhibit and illustrated uh for clarity during this presentation that the lot line moves from the excuse me chair could you ask the audience to um yeah not talk throughout the presentation. Yep. Sorry everybody. Can you please be quiet during the presentation? I understand you want to talk to everybody, but please

thank you. Appreciate that. Um, so the the lot line currently exists in the dashed blue area and the proposal is to uh move that to the solid blue line. Um, so here, ma'am, can you please stop talking? We can hear you up here and it's distracting. Thank you. Um so the the lot line revision is through is between parcel C and lot five. So C is the the lands to the south of the blue dash line and parcel uh lot five is to the north and I I said I would come back to the number of lots. Um, we provided public notice that said a lot line revision between three lots essentially and we did that because there are three APNs, three assessors parcel numbers. Lot five is one legal lot of record, one buildable lot, but it has two APNs, two tax parcels that constitute it because there is a tax rate area. um delineation in there. So, it's just has two APNs, but it's one legal lot of records. So, two buildable lots, but three APNs, three three tax parcels. And so, I say that just for clarity purposes, but the the proposal is to move the dashed blue line to the solid blue line. It's that is the full sum of the proposal. Um, and I noted earlier that the southwest area uh of the lands would change a little bit and you see it on screen now. Uh, it is the area that was transferred from Berry to Happy Valley Oaks by a lot liner vision uh in 2022.

So moving on, the lot liner vision findings which are in the resolution uh are that in the approved condition following the lot liner vision each parcel has a suitable and and buildable area uh which meets the hillside ordinance uh in chapter 624. And I'll just I I'll come back to the theme here, which is there's no new lots that are being created and that the building sites for each of the previously approved parcels are remaining the same. I'll I'll speak to a very minor dimminimous um illustration on the uh sub on the current map, but um that that the staff can make this finding and so we are recommending approval. I'll go through the remainder of the findings as well. So the lots were previously approved with these building sites and remain uh they remain consistent between the existing conditions and what is currently proposed. Um the commission will also have to find that each affected parcel has adequate emergency vehicle access. That remains unchanged and um each parcel will have adequate emergency vehicle access. Um and the third the lower bullet here is in the after approved condition each affected parcel complies with the general plan and zoning and building ordinances. Once again they were previously approved. This is simply moving a line from one location to another. Nothing else about the properties changes. And in there after approved condition, if the commission

approves, um the all of the lots would continue to meet the general plan land use designation, the minimum lot area, the minimum lot depth, average lot width, etc. So, um it is a relatively ma'am minor. You'll have your chance for public comment. Sorry, staff. You'll have your chance for public comment in a few minutes. Please remain quiet, ma'am.

Staff, you please continue.

Uh, in staff's opinion is a relatively minor modest u movement of the of the property line not affecting other aspects of uh other aspects. Uh and lastly, in the after approved condition, each affected parcel doesn't violate a prior condition of approval. And um whereas previously a lot line revision was was submitted which was not supported by staff, not approved by the planning commission, not approved by the council because we could not make this finding um that based on the approval of the subdivision being in parti uh a function of clustering of the homes on the lots. one through five. Um that lot line revision previously I think in 2018 would have violated that. However, now since all of the building sites remain unchanged in in essence um we can make that finding. So our recommendation will is to adopt the resolution finding exempt from squa and approve the application. I will go back to the exhibit real quickly and you can see on parcel C in the lower portion um the approved building site in the dashed rectangle and what is currently being shown is the the proposed building site largely overlapping one another. So it it is um I think approximately a 50-ft change which on a very small parcel could be significant but on the overall scale of the subdivision and the the lands associated with each lot is really dimminimous. Uh so um with that I will be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

Any questions for the staff? I just just want to just summarize what I heard to make sure that the audience is hearing the same thing that the only real the only real change is the adjustment where the dash blue line now is is moved over and the rotation on on the um the one building site um is in the southeast corner. Those are the only two real changes. Everything else about the property has been already approved. I mean, and um through a series of public hearings. Um is that a fair way to say it?

Yes. And I will note that um staff consistent with past practice and and our uh municipal code and state law provided public notice uh in the prescribed time frame ahead of the meeting. Uh posted notices in the vicinity and till up until the time the staff report was published. No public comment had been submitted. Since the staff report was published and this meeting being uh convened, no public comment has been submitted that we're aware of. So um just wanted to advise the commission, no public comment's been received and to check because as you noted with the litany of new laws are passed. um this particular request does it fall I mean essentially like so long as it it stands that it hits the standards that were noted in the report what is our ability if any to you know request if there was some reason we didn't want to approve or essentially what would be the result um lot lighting revisions are part of the subdivision map act and the city's discretion is highly limited if the proposal is meeting um the prescribed standards and and uh the findings. So um I I'll leave it there, but the the city's ability to deny it would be limited. Understood. Anything else? Okay. All right. Uh at that point we will ask the uh applicant to come forward with if they wish to do a presentation. Uh that one sir and I don't know if you have to turn the mic on or not. There may be a button.

I don't believe so. There might be a button. Uh could could you please turn it on sir? It just makes yeah for recording. Here we go.

I'll be brief. I think Greg's done a great job in presenting what we're trying to achieve. I want to thank the commission for considering it and as we worked pretty um closely with Greg to get to this point. My only comment is uh is on the initial uh subdivision, sorry, the lot line adjustment that we attempted um it was denied for a a number of reasons and and they were restated a little bit as to why now those denials have been corrected. Technically, we still disagree with some of the reasons, but we're very happy with the recommendation and we want to thank you for the consideration in in doing that. It's like we worked hard to try to um work with the city on this one. So, that's it. Any questions for me?

Um I would actually just request if you could kind of put in your own words why would you why are you requesting this lot line revision? Well, we have uh own we've been in Lafayette for 25 years. We bought this property 20 years ago. We expected to be able to build our house there, um raise our kids there. We had all four kids, five kids, sorry, go through the school systems here. And we sort of hit a blizzard of uh litigation uh from, you know, neighbors that didn't want us to develop there. And the next thing you know, we were years in this battle that was not pretty and ugly. And we felt as though uh we tried to um meet the neighbors uh demands and they may not think that we did, but we feel we did. And at this point, if you can see the original approval where the home site is, it's barely moved, but we wanted a bigger lot. And that ultimately their goal is to for us to build our own home there. So it was an adjustment and um I don't know if that answered your question, but uh

we still love yet we love the property. Essentially your goal currently, not saying anything obviously tied to anything, but the goal would be for the for your purpose for the lot line is to open up the lot to a larger size to build your correct house. That is correct. For your family. Okay. Thank you. That is correct. Any other questions? Yeah. Okay, seeing none. All right, thank you. Uh, and now we will open up to public comment. Staff has received no speaker slips, but I

there's Yeah. Um, so generally for the audience, uh, we request speaker slips that are provided in the back and that way we can just know your name and call you up in order and maintain some decorum. Um, it appears we may be having one now. Uh, but if you want you can try to fill those out. It would be appreciated. The first speaker is Martha Clark. Thank you. Thank you. Um uh let me start by thanking the staff for slogging through the long and sorted history of this proposed development. Um and also thanking you for the for the notice. Um uh we didn't know until Friday that this meeting was taking place. So appreciate that. Um,

we did not know we we did we got a notice on Friday and I appreciate that. I appreciate that we're here. We we we could definitely ensure and try to correct any deficiencies in our notice process, but for now, thank you so much for showing up genuinely. Um, and please,

so over the 20 years that various plans have been proposed for the development of this property, um, we've learned to look very carefully uh to understand what's actually being proposed. So, we have um and we do have a major question. Um and as an aside, just figuring out what was being proposed was not that easy, I have to say. Um every map is shown in a different orientation. I don't know if you looked through the materials, but with different portions of the property outlined with uh all sorts of notations. My daughter suggested I put it in Gemini AI uh and see if it could make out what was going on. But we took our time. We did it old school and uh look through it, but we didn't have time to submit comments in advance and I I apologize for that. Um we are concerned that the staff's recommendation may actually be based on one key factual error and that is the the staff report reads on page three that the building quote building sites remain their previously approved locations. And I think that's one of the fundamental assumptions going into an approval of this. Um however, we're not aware of any approved uh site um for building on the new lot 2. Um the there are in fact five uh lots now just as before, but lot two is a place that as far as I'm aware there are no approved building sites. Um it is a very hilly uh lot. Um, and as far as we are aware, please correct me if I'm wrong, there uh is no analysis from an environmental standpoint, it appears to violate the city's clustering guidelines for subdivisions and it may in fact violate

the city's hillside view ordinance. Um, so I I we do not oppose the development of this property, but the applicants have come back several times with the same desire, which is to build in inappropriate places on their property. And we request that the city um postpone approval until the new lot 2 building site is identified and properly analyzed. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I apologize. Usually there's a timer that allocated. So, I just wanted to check with staff that that was exactly You may have heard the tone at the end after she concluded.

Um, nothing you did wrong. This perfect timing. Uh, thank you. Do you want me to sit down? I I guess I I have a question for the speaker. Um, when you say the new lot two, uh, based on the exhibit on the screen, do you mean the lot two or No, the new lot two. Well, lot two remains unchanged. No. Uh, no. C and five are affected by the lot line revision. And the lot line, there's what I understand. the lot line revision.

Right. So lot five has the solid blue line on it and lot C, the dashed blue line separates currently lot five on the north and lot C on the south. So you you I understand your statement to be there's no approved site on the new lot C. Is that correct? Sorry. So, on this map,

this is a different This doesn't show the approved uh lot uh building sites. There was one at the end of the packet that did that. And I was working from that. I'm not sure what this actually even is. There's one with pink uh uh was one of the last pages in the submission that had pink building sites identified. Very good. I'll bring up that exhibit. Thank you.

Thank you. We're now seeing pink building sites. This is the last page of the staff report packet and this goes back to them to the track.

As I understand it, these are the currently approved building sites. If you go back one page, no, maybe a couple more. I don't know that one. I My understanding is that that's the proposed building sites. Am I misunderstanding the application? Apologies for the confusion. What is on screen now was the 2018 proposal, I believe, which move. So you can see there's only four up at the northwest area and it moves one of them over onto this eastern side. So

and south of this exhibit which is not shown is that additional home on lot C. So this would have placed two homes over on the east side which the city ultimately didn't disapproved. Um, so the current proposal keeps these five up at the northwest corner and oh goodness, how do I get back to and uh so the building site on lot C is currently down here and it moves ever so slightly slightly like roughly 50 ft to the north. So all of these other five are maintained in their approved location. C is currently approved down here and it would move slightly north. So no macroscopic building site changes as part of the lot liner revision. That's pending this evening. I thought the proposal was to combine the the two that are at the top right there. Combine those lots. That's what the

that that was the 2018 proposal that was not adopted. No, like I said, it was very What we could do is Oh, apologies. Go ahead. Okay. So, the the uh then I don't understand the purpose of the lot line adjustment which was not really answered. So, um I will just leave it at that and we can ask the applicant to speak to the applicant will have a chance to respond and provide clarification. Thank you though. We appreciate the the clarification. Uh we have a second speaker slip. Tim Johansson, I believe. Yes. Very good. Thank you. So, how do I do this? Three minutes. Is it working?

Okay. Uh it it's nice to see the limies this evening. We've been here a few times before, but you have not. And when Robin, you have, but when Robin initially addressed the 20 years we we've all been gone through this uh and to Martha's point, which I think she touched on, but it maybe a little confusing. This whole site has really been very confusing. But from the very beginning, it was delayed. Not because of capriccious nature of the neighbors, but because we had an underlying feeling that there was a significant landslide risk and it took a lawsuit for us against the city to finally get them to agree to force the limies into repairing the landslide. So to think that to leave the impression that we're just a bunch of neighbors that are nimi and and and we have we just like to cause trouble. It's not true. We would do welcome the development. At times I'm surprised it hasn't been developed because these have been approved. Much to our surprise we've got no notice. All the neighbors are here except a couple families tonight. My wife and I didn't find out till Saturday's mail. The clerks were lucky enough they found out in Friday's mail. And due to the confusion, my recommendation is that the planning commission gives this at least another meeting for us to look at exactly what's being proposed because we clearly don't understand what's being proposed. I it looking at these maps and the orientations, this is the first time we've had to look at them. I actually thought we would have handouts here I'd be able to use while everybody was talking to look and to get a clear understanding. I thought about bringing my laptop and I don't need that because we'll have all the handouts. Well, we don't. So, my recommendation is we push it off to another meeting. Give us a chance as a really concerned neighbors to look at what you all are thinking you're going to approve. I think it's only fair to us and the 20 years and

it's certainly nothing against the lemies but there's been a tremendous amount of confusion and a little bit obs or hoped they would be and surprisingly we thought this was solved in 18 but it's not. uh it solved 18 because the count the the council and the planning commissioner I believe both voted against this on sort of what's going on and here we are again on almost the same issues but the lot line adjustment is a is a whole new wrinkle and I just I ask that you give us time to look at this and and talk as neighbors and decide what we think is in our best interest and recommend and make recommendations at the next planning commission meeting as to that because we have not had time we've got no notice whatsoever on Thank you.

Thank you sir. I have a question. Sure. Tell me so um how did you what was the mechanism that you learned of the meeting by the postcard? The postcard and this postcard came to us on Saturday and we're all busy. Fortunately, we were home. We had no notice whatsoever. Thank you. None. I wasn't looking at the at the phone polls. I'm sorry. I missed the notice. I I was just going to ask I was because I know even our neighborhood we've seen them before. Um so the postcards go out. How prior to a meeting do they usually go out? Um we strive to do 14 days. Minimum is 10 days before the meeting. First state law.

And where are they post when's that postated? Well, it was a holiday weekend. I'm surprised we got it actually. It's It doesn't have Oh, doesn't have a date. It just shows a post, you know. Yeah. So, the holiday would have given an addition 822, but we received it on Saturday. Saturday and and so we were out of town, but to to my point and to Martha's point, the confusion, it it's not right for us to have the time. We appreciate Thank you so much.

So, I have a question to the speaker. I Mr. Johansson, you you stated that um you you are requesting the continuence so that you can study the exhibits and understand what the proposal is. Correct. Yes. And and if history is any indication of the of the present and the future, we will definitely study it. Thank you. So based on the exhibit on the screen, I'm lost. Okay. I'm lost. And I I hoped what I really thought tonight. I thought we would have the handouts. We always get the handout speakers we have to get to. So there's only one binder.

Correct. But the physical exhibits, if you if you're look wanting to see a paper exhibit, it is at the back of the room. The postcard has a QR code on it which brings you directly to the location where you can see this on at the in the convenience of your home anytime, night or day. Um the exhibits that are on screen. Okay. So, thank you. Thank you, staff. Thank you, speaker. Thank you. I'm assuming there's another slip. We do have another slip. Um I think the first initial is M and then it starts with an H, I believe. But does that sound No, I'm inviting. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

I'm Mary Hartfield and I'm another neighbor. Um, I I just want to say that my only concern is I we understand the four or five homes up, but then it's the one that's down east that we had a lot of trouble with because of the hillside ordinance and I believe there were some issues regarding drainage and um clustering and so that the city council actually did not approve it. It was denied and it looks to me, but I don't know because I'm lost too. This doesn't mean anything to me cuz there's four here and two here, but it was the lot on the east that was denied by the city. And I just want to verify that we're not building again on that same hillside lot. Um, last time they had to put red flags up and you could see where the lot was going. So, I I think all of the neighbors don't know what's going what's happening, but we just want to be assured that what the city council decided in 2018 and the reasons for its denial is not being changed or lost or forgotten or whatever.

Thank you so much. Um I do want to offer a quick clarification. Um that the particulars for tonight uh don't really have to do with for example things like drainage or development of the actual land itself. That would come at a future date if the you know applicant the owner does decide to provide a building application and they would have to show and all the environmental study and all that such things in accordance with the rules and regulations. Um just noting for tonight that it is very specific to a property line adjustment and not to do with any kind of development for tonight.

Oh, okay. Well, the the reason the lot whatever was denied was due to some kind of a clustering issue and a hillside ordinance. Y

so I I and I'm this we we don't really know. So that's why we would really like to see all the lots um something that could show us exactly what's happening. Thank you. Next speaker. Uh, we don't have any additional cards, but a hand raised by Mr. Peter Clark, and I'm I trust he will submit a speaker following his comments.

If I can find one. Yes, I'm Peter Clark. I live along with Martha, my wife, below to the to the right on this on this map down the hill on Sora's Lane. Uh I I'm I'm up here speaking to just clarify something. Notice notice what's happening. When you move the lot line from the dotted line going across to the diagonal line going up, you you essentially create an extra lot. Now, I I thought that was that was taken care of because you were combining old lots one and two, and so you got got another lot there, but you you need you need a building pad on that lot. So, if you could draw an outline on uh new lot, the outline of new lot two, is it is it the same as old lot two?

So, I I think it might be helpful to if you can move your cursor to where So, lot two is not touched by either of the blue lines where his cursor is there. Can you see that, sir? The little hand. Yes, that is lot two and is not being changed proposed to be changed tonight.

Okay. So, so I I was I was maybe looking at the 2013 uh map and getting getting confused. So, let's let's stay with this. The the lots lots are uh the same as they were before and they're not moving at all. We'll take that as given. What's What happened to lot uh parcel the what was left of parcel B here? moving that up seems to generate another lot.

So parcel B in the current condition extends from the far west all the way to the east and goes. So that's the that's a that's a lazy sea there. That's five. That's lot five, right? And below that is parcel C, right?

So parcel C's northern boundary would now move to the northwest and be here. So parcel C would be significantly bigger and the applicant noted because they would like to build their house there and just have more land associated with their house which the original building site is in this rectangle and the overlapping rectangle is the proposed lot B5. Lot five, which current currently goes west to east, gets smaller and remains in in this area. And the building site was approved way back in in 2011 2012 in this location and it remains in this location.

Okay. So So parcel C is getting expanded a lot. Yes. So if you take parcel five, I'm sorry, lot five and parcel C, the inter the the boundary between those two is shifting, but you start with two lots, you end with two lots, and the building sites on each of those lots remains consistent. Um, may I Okay, that's that that clears it up for me. Thank you.

I I I I appreciate your your questions because For a lot of people, it's not easy to read maps like this. And it took me some studying. So, if I could suggest to staff, if you go back to the one of the earlier slides that had the that outline, if if I if you don't mind and I'll say something, you can correct me if it's if it's wrong. Happy to. Slipping that bottom part on five, flipping it up makes C that much bigger. C will end up looking like Florida. And what happens is A and C I believe are not subdividable.

Correct. So what's happening is you're making all that middle section that had the landslides and so forth is not going to be developable. It won't be developed on because of this change. It'll make the the the lot five smaller so it's similar in size to the other lots. Um, and so that was one change and the only other change was a a really minor rotation. Right. I understand that on on parcel C.

Right. But I I don't know if that helps understand that that it's just a it's it's a switching of some areas between those two, but it's not going to give any opportunity for more housing. So, I was going to say if staff could just clarify, same number of lots, same number of proposed houses, homes, one different lot line.

Correct. There are before what's pending, seven approved lots with approved building sites. If the commission approves the lot line revision, there'll be seven buildable lots with approved building sites that remain consistent um with the one minor rotation shift noted. Um, I I'll apologize that inclusion of the old materials as background material to to kind of give you the background may have been confusing to some readers thinking that was the current proposal. And so I I do apologize for that. But I wanted to make clear again a lot one, two, three, and four are not affected by the proposed lot line revision. So that's why on this exhibit, you know, A1, two, three, four are essentially um they're there, but they're in a in a very light tone and not they don't have a solid line around them because they're not part of the subject application. only lot five and parcel C.

Yep. So, lot five is getting substantially smaller, lot C substantially bigger. Yes, basically. Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh any speaker slips or are there anyone in the audience wishing to speak? Uh if you do, sir, could you please come to the podium? Thank you. Scott Schulty, we're down below the Yeah, B lot something or other. Thank you, sir.

I'm getting confused. We're rel we're the new ones here. So, we're confused with all the numbers versus the letters and stuff. But just to confirm, when you showed previously one of those pink dotted maps, there was a building pad to the to the right of that section of the road there, just above partial C, I think it is right there. That in 2018, if I'm not mistaken, was disallowed.

Yes, sir. Okay. So now there's no building on that section and as far as I can tell there's no building on parcel Above that section from the 2018 decision. A is unaffected by this today and is a buildable lot. It is a buildable one. Yes. Okay. All right. C you can see here and it's affected thusly.

You're correct. 2018 the proposal was to essentially reconfigure these lots up here to have three along the northern boundary four and move the fifth one over to here. So there would have been two homes on the east ridge call it or that that's open slope. But just to avoid confusion and for everybody's purpose, that is not what's happening tonight. Not proposed. Was denied specifically.

And just going back to the the colored photograph that you had which showed the I was a little confused by the fact that the the blue lines don't include the whole whatever the property is 4123. It just goes around C and just goes around because I don't see a blue line between basically the letter A to letter C. And that's part of the Oh, I see. There there's a green line there, but it's a green line, but there I don't understand why there's the blue lines and green lines. I mean, yeah, that is just a graphical thing. It's the green line there would be otherwise thought of as the blue line.

Yeah. Okay. Oh, there you zoom in. It's a Okay. Sorry. I should have put on my my binoculars. Um Okay. Very. Thank you for the clarification. You're welcome. Any other attendees wish to speak in the audience? Ma'am, okay. Uh, any other online?

I I will check online. One moment. Just just after we confirm whether there's any headlines, sir, you you will I that is the next step in the process, you'll have a chance to offer comment. So, there are four attendees uh on the Zoom and if you would like to speak, go ahead and uh raise your hand now. Seeing none. Okay. Uh the applicant has a chance to provide. Uh ma'am, did you have a comment on the matter?

Okay, sir, the applicant now will be given a chance to provide rebuttal, I guess.

Look, I appreciate the neighbors coming out again. What happened in 2018 is not being proposed here today, and I know that this has been a much contested piece of land. Uh but when we have been denied things, we've come back with new proposals, and that's what we did here. So there is nothing on that hillside that everybody seems to to think is that they're worried about and our proposal basically over overlapped the previously approved home site and we thought that was going to be um accepted but I do understand if you guys didn't have a chance to review things and there's some confusion. So, but again, I think with the the all the contested history of this thing, people are a little bit raw, but the reality is you've said twice or three times this that's not, you know, what was previously proposed is not being proposed today. And we hope that that's enough at this point. Thank you.

Okay. At this point, uh we'll enter into a period of discussion for the commission members. What's that? Oh, I'm sorry. I have a close for public comment. Um, and now we'll enter a period of discussion. So, who would like to start us off? I'm happy to.

Um, thank you staff for the report and thank you for everybody bringing your questions and also thank you to the applicants for your your statements and and the rebuttal statement. Um, I did spend some time looking through the map so I appreciate what everybody's been saying. Um, for me this is a a very on the looking at it after the after I got over the map section. This is a a pretty straightforward um approval process to in my mind. It's a matter of adjusting the lot line and making sure that we're okay with the the minor rotation on the building site. And um based on the staff report and and the reading of the um draft uh proposal, I I don't I I'm prepared to support the uh the uh staff report and the proposal.

Um I'll I'll first start by thanking staff for the presentation and the applicant for the presentation and for the public comment. We usually don't get a lot of public comment. So, I do appreciate that people are interested and people have read the staff report. I do think based on some of the public comment staff, I do think there's things we can do to improve these type of staff reports graphically when we present them. And I think staff has probably taken note of some of those items. I personally can make the findings. I agree with Commissioner Deorgio that it's a straightforward lot line adjustment is what we're looking at tonight. We still result in the same number of buildable lots. Um it's just one boundary more or less is what has shifted. So I can make the findings. Thanks.

Okay. Um, my experience on the planning commission all too often has been that when projects get off on the wrong foot, they never get back on the right foot and people see uh conspiracies where there may not be any. I think that this is a uh um fairly simple lot split. I think it was complicated by the fact that for whatever reason there was a delay in the postcards being uh received by the neighbors and I would uh I'm sure the city would welcome you know the input back from the neighbors so that whatever happens doesn't doesn't happen again because this does did take some studying to you know you know uh to figure out what exactly is going on because there was a lot of information there. I to see this as a fairly simple lot split. I you know whatever the past history was is not before us right now and I don't see any nefarious action. So I can also support it.

Okay. Um I mean for me um I was lucky enough to have a dad that was a land surveyor and I'm a lawyer by trade so the maps made sense to me. Um, but I can very much understand, especially for homeowners that have lived there, it can feel unnerving. Um, I can find I can find the findings for tonight. And I really want to emphasize for the audience members and very clearly involved and active in your community. One, thank you again for showing up. Thank you again for commenting. Um, I'm relatively new to the community, but it makes me actually kind of happy to see how much people care. Um, I also want to emphasize that again, tonight is more of a procedural step. um any building development plans, anything that that they will then do in the future towards putting buildings up as you know with markers and prior applications and all that are going to have to go through the process um that you will then be hopefully notified in a more early manner and it will involve assessments and engineering and analysis and everything. I'm hoping you would all like to see um and you would obviously have a chance to public provide comments then as well. Um it's just for particular for tonight this evening it is more of given the sort of constraints we have based upon state law requirements um the applicant meeting those standards um I think it's we are basically obligated to provide this approval um and then obviously once it comes to the building developments then that might be a different story but we assumably we'll see that when it comes to it

um I would just like to add We I also can make the findings. So not even out of obligation. I personally can make the finding. So I would like to make a motion that we adopt planning commission resolution 2025-10 finding the project exempt from SQA and approving the application. Second. All in favor say I. I.

All oppose say nay. Hearing none. The motion passes. There's a 14 calendar day appeal period which the decision of the planning commission can be appealed to the city council. Okay, next up let me see. Thank you. Yep. So, now we're going to turn to other business. Um we're going to need an ARC volunteer uh for this coming Friday, September 12th. Um the meeting at 9:30. Uh I believe I should be able to attend that. Yep. I I can do that one unless anyone is really hearkening to

I'll be your backup if you can't make No, no, I'm serious. Let me know. Do we have any commissioners reports? I don't have any. I likewise also have no reports. Um I would encourage obviously the applicant and community to discuss things that uh looks like it's already taken place. So that's good to see. Um, other than that plan director's report

and actually I did want to check um just cuz in good being a good citizen um was there so there was a period earlier to provide public comments on items not on the agenda. Was there members of the audience that wish to speak on let's say items that were not on the agenda? Sir,

believe that was like was that a consent item? Correct. Oh yeah. Yeah. So So yes, I and now I understand why I was confused by in the lobby. I didn't understand what you were asking. The panorama drive item is been continued to September 15th planning commission. Sorry about that. Okay. So on September 15th at the the next meeting, I'm assuming it may be delayed. You should just keep aware of your your email and all that. It will tell you if there's any delays, but otherwise come September 15th, that's when the will be discussed.

I'm sorry I didn't know you were here for that. All right. All right. Thank you. Hope you have a good rest of the evening. Um, you might ask Mr. Wolf if he has any report. Yes. So, sorry to interrupt your Do you have a report? Not at all. Thank you for taking care of the public in attendance and and um Ma'am, ma'am, I'm I'm so sorry, ma'am. Give us a few minutes. Just bure bureaucratic wrap-up. We'll be with you in 30 seconds. Um, so no report. Uh, take a motion to return.

Oh, he said been trying to bring up on screen uh simply the city's website.

And if you append to love.org and you do a slashadu, you'll go to our uh ADU page, accessory dwelling units. Um if and there you will find our ADU accelerator program which um up until now the city has subsidized uh ADU applications uh the the processing fee and has for the past two years reduced development impact fees um by 50%. So the there's already a reduction and and that is for ADUs which are over 750 um square feet. Under 750 ft there's no impact fees whatsoever. Um so small ADUs are subsidized application fee and no impact fees. Um now through uh Senator Glazer's office and and budget allocation um we have monies that can just assist uh outright with the construction of an ADU. So um it's the unlock up to 15,000 in rebates for your new ADU. So, in addition to those two things which I just mentioned, you can now apply and have reserved for you um up to $15,000 towards the construction of your ADU if you essentially can complete it by the end of next year. Um so, it it is intended to truly incent uh construction of ADUs and particularly small ADUs. So the if you read the specifics of the program, the smaller the unit, the more money you get um because they want to encourage smaller ADUs. So I just wanted to announce that to the the commission. Um

I'll also invite you to participate in the city's booth at the Lafayette Art and Wine Festival in three weeks. Um, we're always looking for volunteers and it is um always fun to engage with with the public. We will have flyers uh postcards uh to hand out on this topic. Um and it's great to actually be able to talk to other you know council members and members of the emergency preparedness commission and and have some collaboration. So um that is my report. Thanks. I was actually quite looking forward to that until my wife reminded me I have a wedding to attend on the 20th. So I appreciate

Well, it's two days so if you're back in town on Sunday. Fortunately, the attendee has to be in Washington DC at the time. So it'll be a little very good. Thank you. Sorry. Um motion to adjourn. Oops. All right. I motion is adjourned. All right. Thank you.