Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Are we good to start? Okay. I'd like to call this meeting to order, please. Um, uh, I'm going to do roll call. Uh, Commissioner Mason, present. Commissioner Deorgio, present. Commissioner Radnich, present. Vice Chair Deming, present. Chair Bunge, present. Um, and I have a motion to adopt the agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor? I.

Motion carries. Um, uh, public comments. If we have any public comments that are not on tonight's agenda, now is the time to do that that are not on tonight's agenda. If they're on tonight's agenda, we'll come back to those. So, any for that are not on tonight's agenda, I'll look over to staff to see if we have anyone online. Uh, correct. We have no speaker slips in the room for items that are not on tonight's agenda. If anyone online would like to speak on an item not on the agenda, but within the purview of the planning commission, please raise your hand. Now, if it's on the agenda, you'll get an opportunity later in the meeting when that item comes up. Seeing none. Thank you. All right. Before we on the consent calendar, um there are four items. Um uh there's draft minutes from November 3rd. I'll ask anyone if they have any revisions to say that. We also have three other items that I will call out real quickly that have been continued to the de December 1st meeting. That's uh Razapore um MS put my glass on. MS502-25 Razapore that is being continued to the next regular meeting December 1st. Excuse me. HDP32-22CC Robinson Family Trust. Um that also has been continued to next week uh excuse me to the next regular meeting on December 1st and then V05-25 Ka Yanski I apologize if I'm not saying that right and that is being continued to the next meeting. So if you're here for any of those they are being continued to the next meeting. Um, so with that, uh, can I have a

motion, um, uh, to adopt the consent calendar, please, unless anyone has any questions. Uh, ju just a tweak for staff, um, on the minutes, um, the reference to a code reference um of 6-2408 has a extra dash in it. You'll just change fix that. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Can I have a a motion to adopt the consent calendar? So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. Motion carries. 50.

All right. Uh continued public hearing. We have HP HD, excuse me, P08-24. Uh Zong, not sure how to say it. King Queen LLC. Um and I will and we have three uh separate ones of the same uh owner for similar but each unique uh public hearing. So I'll turn that over to staff now and help me with the pronunciation please. Thank you.

Of course. Thank you everyone. Um my name is Nicole Ziddle and tonight I'm joined by my colleague Madison Leonard. I'm sorry, Madison Church. And we are the project planners for the three HDP applications um shown on screen. These are phase one hillside development sighting and massing determinations at three vacant lots on Cambridge Drive. Each of these lots is a separate application, but tonight um we will be doing one presentation and touching on each of the three lots during this presentation. So for some context, in the bottom left is a the rough location of the parcels in Lafayette. They are in the northwest portion of Lafayette and on the right we see highlighted in blue the three subject parcels. So going from left to right delineated as number one is 1233 Cambridge Drive, number two is 1231 Cambridge Drive and number three is 1227 Cambridge Drive. The three parcels range from 1.5 acres to 2.4 acres um and are our 40 and our 20 zoning districts. They are accessed from Happy Valley Road um to PaloAlto Drive then to Cambridge Drive and all three parcels are um along a private portion of Cambridge Drive. On the slide, we see the three proposed homes as they um sit next to each other. So, in the middle and on the right are lots four and five. Those are cited roughly at the same elevation as each other. And in the graphic on the left, we have lot six, which is cited at a lower elevation. All three homes are more than 100 ft from each other. And there is existing and proposed um vegetation that would screen the homes

from each other. And now I will hand it over to Madison who will talk about the first lot. Thank you, Nicole. Moving on to 1233 Cambridge Drive. This is a new twostory home, roughly 4,300 square feet with an 830 square foot attached garage. The maximum height of this home is 22 feet 5 in. For context, 1233 Cambridge Drive is the westernmost lot of the three. On the screen above, you'll see a constraints analysis showing the existing slope and trees. The brighter red is characterized by less slope, whereas the darker red is characterized by greater slope. This lot is steeply sloping uphill towards the south of the lot. It's heavily wooded throughout the lot, and there's a clearing toward the north or front area. Now you'll see a composite constraints showing the home is proposed to be cited in the strip that extends east to west across the northern portion of the site. This area features gentler slopes and a lower concentration of oak trees. There will be 14 protected trees removed as part of this development. You can see that driveway access extends off the private portion of Cambridge Drive and that the home is oriented north facing Cambridge Drive. On screen, you'll see a site section which shows the new home in relation to

the north side neighbor across Cambridge Drive at 1234. The proposed residence sits at a higher elevation to the neighbor across Cambridge. There are existing and proposed trees for screening. The new home is built into the hillside with the seconds story setback to break up the massing. Another view we can see on the site section shows the new home parallel to Cambridge Drive in relation to the westside neighbor at 3921 Happy Valley Road. We can see that there are existing trees for screening and that the new residence sits at a slightly lower elevation than the neighbor um on Happy Valley Road. Passing it back to Nicole.

Thank you. So, the next lot we'll be looking at is 1231 Cambridge Drive. This is also a proposed twostory home approximately a little greater than 4,000 square ft with a large attached threecar garage and its maximum height is approximately 26 feet tall. And this is the middlemost center lot of the three we are talking about tonight. And looking at the constraints analysis and slope for this parcel again um lighter red is of low lesser slope less than 30% and that in darker red is greater. Um this slope in comparison is steeper than uh the slope Madison just discussed. It is steeply sloping uphill towards the south which is the rear of the lot. It is more densely wooded with existing oak trees and there is a little clearing towards the east side of the lot. So kind of in between the cluster of trees shown on screen and looking at the kind of composite constraints being able to visualize the areas of slope. Um we see where the home is cited. It is cited kind of in that little clearing of oak trees on the northeast side of the lot. The front of the home would be oriented towards the northeast and the garage oriented north across Cambridge Drive. The area where the home is proposed is of a moderate little lesser slope where there is a lower concentration of existing trees, but this application does propose to remove 16 of those trees. Driveway access would be from the private portion of Cambridge Drive shown kind of snaking up to the garage. And looking at the site section for this

home, again, we are looking um kind of through the side of the proposed home. So to the left is the home kind of across the way down onto Cambridge, the home itself, and then up the slope. Um the second floor of this home is nestled into the hillside. The garage is slightly embedded into the hill slope. Um so the second story is sitting further back which helps break up the massing and um the nestling kind of minimizes the visual prominence of the twostory home. Now back to Madison. Lastly, we have 1227 Cambridge Drive, which is the easternmost lot. It's a similar size of the other two. Um, I believe this is the greatest height at 26 ft 6 in. This lot has the least amount of slope. However, there is a steep slope coming directly off the culde-sac on Cambridge Drive which elevates the lot in relation to the street. Um, the lot gently slopes at the front with a steeper slope uphill toward the rear. There are oak tree clusters on the eastern edge as well as in the rear of the lot with a clearing towards the north or front. The home will be sighted in this northern area again to minimize the amount of grading and tree removal. There will be two protected trees proposed for removal. Driveway access will be from the private

portion of Cambridge Drive as well. It will not come from the culdeac which is consistent with feedback from the study session at the design review commission. This home will be oriented on a slight norththeastern tilt. Here is a site section showing the new home in relation to the north side neighbor across Cambridge Drive at 1232. There are existing and proposed trees for screening which we can see. Again, this lot has the least amount of slope, but the proposed massing is similar to the other two homes where it will still step with the hillside. So something I um wanted to mention earlier and I think for clarification is the difference between a phase one and a phase 2 hillside development permit. So this is a phase one. So the planning commission is strictly looking at the sighting and massing of the proposed residence. Um and then after the phase one the application will move towards a phase two which is seen by the design or acted on by the design review commission and those are more um kind of like the architectural considerations landscaping really kind of sight specific um considerations but again tonight is just the phase one sighting and massing analysis. So back to the slide shown on screen, these three projects were referred to our outside referral agencies and we did receive um comments back from a few of them which are included in the staff report as attachments. One um comment from or fire comments from the fire district I kind of wanted to um focus in on. So, as discussed in

the staff report, the private portion of Cambridge Drive, which extends from the culdesac to the subject properties, is a deadend road exceeding 150 ft in length and would typically require a fire code compliant turnaround. The fire district reviewed the proposed plans from all three lots and approved an alternative materials and method approach um allowing turnaround to be emitted from Cambridge Drive in exchange for implementing um fire mitigation measures which are shown on the screen. Staff has incorporated these mitigation requirements into the conditions of approval to be implemented during the phase 2 hillside development permit. All three projects were noticed to surrounding neighbors within 300 ft and posted in the vicinity of the parcels at least 10 days in advance of this meeting. We did receive two public comments that were included in the staff report attach in the staff report as attachments. Staff has evaluated the three applications against the findings for a hillside development permit on an existing lot and recommends the planning commission find the project projects exempt from SQA and adopt planning commission resolutions 202517 202518 and 202519 approving the three projects subject to conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Um any questions for staff? Uh, Commissioner Radnich, thank you for the presentation. Um, do you mind going back to the fire mitigation slides or the condition of approval eight? Has the applicant reviewed these and agreed to these? Yes, the um the applicant reached out to the fire department to discuss this and has to our knowledge agreed to these mitigation measures. So maybe applicant when you give your um speech if you could just hit on that. Thank you. Okay, that's it. Thanks. Anyone else? Go ahead.

Um thanks also um for the uh the second presentation, the lot five. Um, I didn't notice in the conditions of approval number eight, they didn't mention the AMM that were mentioned in other reports. Can you explain that?

Yes. Um, and thank you for um pointing that out. I believe that was an oversight on staff's part, but the intention is for all three lots to have that condition. So, we can amend the conditions to add that. And then um another question had to do with grading and that's primarily a phase two issue I guess or we're we're we're proving grading at this point or we're not proving grading.

It's my So you're correct rating was kind of analyzed in the um in this project in terms of you know how the home is situated into the property. Um, and we did outline the findings, but it I believe it is my understanding that the the grading will be further analyzed during the phase two.

That's that's what I thought. Um, and for for that point, when you get to that point, I was curious and it's outside of purview, so I'll be really short. Um, with the amount of uh dirt that's going to be excavated and hauled off, I didn't know whether the city tends to incorporate any any conditions of repairing the city streets. I know this is a private road, but that might be something to consider when it gets to the um phase 2 portion.

Yeah, definitely. Thank you for bringing that up. Um so the public portion of Cambridge Drive is under the purview of the public works department. So that is definitely something that could be brought up with our city engineer during the phase 2 review. Commissioner Mason,

uh to follow up on the recent comments, uh one of the things that is common on these type of lots where have a steep ups slope is, uh neighbors complaining about interruption of water flow down the hill being redirected someplace that they don't want it, like on somebody else's property. uh will that be sufficiently addressed in uh the phase two or would you put a request to have that physic sufficiently addressed?

Yes. So yes, I believe in the phase two that the grading and drainage is more fine-tuned and more heavily analyzed. But um that is a concern that was brought up at the study session um before the applications came to a phase one. Um and so um it's my understanding that in the phase two I think the city engineer will review the plans again and if there's any comments on you know the the drainage or runoff um they'll be addressed at that time.

Thank you. I just have uh so I want to make sure on so um sighting and massing that that includes setback right? I think it does. Um, maybe I missed this, but when we were when we were looking at and I it could have been on the other ones, but the one I was talking 22 232 Cambridge, I thought it showed the set side setbacks as 15, not that one. It's the uh I think it's the middle one or no, it might be actually it's the far western the one closest to the Yeah. So right there it looks like the setback is 15 and 15. If I could and I if I read this it says side is 40 aggregate 20 minimum. That means it could be well 20 and 20 I think. Um and what they and what this says proposed is greater than 20. Oh, you know what? I might be on the wrong one. Um, I'm on the wrong one. Hold on. Uh, well, it's probably the same required though. They're all three would be the same, right?

So, I believe one of the parcels is R40 and the other two are R20, which would have different um sideyard setbacks. Yeah. Okay. So, let's look at this. Maybe that's what I did wrong. So three, I believe it was three, even though there it says 1227. I think I gave you a different address, but So that's Well, that's R20. Well, maybe it was one. I'm confused now. Wait, maybe staff can just review the setbacks for each. Yeah. Yeah. Yes.

Just Yeah, that's all. Thank you. That's a That's a much better idea. She should be doing this. Um, okay. Uh, with that, uh, let's see. Um, if the applicant for this one would like to come up, introduce yourself and maybe help us understand some of this. Thank you.

And if the button There we go. There you go. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Bill Wood with Williamwood Architects and um been working on this project for seem like about two and a half years and uh I want to want to thank staff because it's been a long journey to get to here uh to make this project like the most low profile uh low impact and as much as possible on this project to um kind of answer your question that lots four and five, excuse me, lot four is R40 um zoning which is the far lot at the very end of the at the end of the private road and then the other two lots are R20. So we try to get as much and lot six which is the the end lot closest to the culde-sac is the narrowest lots when you're going up the property. It's very deep but it's very narrow. So we wanted to and that's an R20 zone. So it's very it's similar in consistency to the neighborhood as far as all the other homes that are on that uh on that street. But we did meet with uh Chuck Greenberg and also Bob Swat. um couple many times with uh Mr. Greenberg with the client um very transparent throughout the whole process on drainage, soil stability, um visual impacts, you know, and everything as far as uh you know, access for for vehicles and parking on site and so forth. So, we went through the process and it's been about two years since we went to the study session on these homes and uh got a lot of great in input back from them. I wanted to try it. Majority of my homes are on ridge lines, hillsides and things. So I try to, you know, respect the the uh I call it the design guidelines for RGLE designs to go as low as possible on the on the designs of these homes. Number one has always been when we go to a study session has always been where's the house going to be located especially on the hillside when you have numerous trees you have uh you know limited access to the property and try to find the path of least resistance

and getting the keeping the mature trees as much as possible around the perimeter of the of the home to screen from the neighbors as well as giving stability of the land around the house and then um try to try to dig the homes into the hillside side as much as possible with respect to getting the driveway and and access to the uh property, but most importantly have guest parking because there's no there's no uh parking on this private lane. It has to be self-sufficient on the property, meaning you have to supply at least enough, you know, cars there for guests and so forth to park without having to um impede on the private road. Um, we also what the one of the first things we did on this project was to go to the fire department, which is I do on every hillside project because um, some properties that are left in the county are just not accessible and and they're legal lots. And so we work with the with the fire chief and and that's where a lot of this came up with regards to the um you know alternative alternative measures and um materials on on the houses as well as um keeping the distances. Everyone has to stay away from the trees as much as possible around the permanent out for fire insurance. I mean, I planted oak trees around my property 41 years ago, and my fire insurance wanted me to take all my trees down within 50 ft of the house, which was a condition of approval for the for the approval of the home. So, I'm sure you're probably facing that now when people are coming in wanting to take out trees because their fire insurance won't to do it. But oak trees are probably one of the very few that is very fire resistant um around. I mean I get rid of all the pine trees, the eucalyptus trees and so forth, but oaks have always I mean that's why they're living so long is they do go through fires and they are very uh hardy in terms of fire resistance. But keeping a a certain distance away for all vegetation, that's another one of the

things that's required. And um I to answer um Commissioner Deorgio's question regarding the street um normally what we'll do is we'll do video of the streets uh prior private road and and the street itself. uh for any damage prior to that and then submit that to the city, have them keep that and then come back at the end of the project and any damage is done to the street usually is uh incurred by the by the by the owner and that's pretty standard. And then then on private lanes usually have a I call it a um roadway maintenance agreement that anything dur like say same thing take uh video of the property and the uh road beforehand and then uh check it out at the end and see if there's any damage done to the to the road. One of the major things I tried to to achieve on these three homes was to keep the lowest profile possible, lowest height on uh lot number four, which is the the first lot, which is at the very end of the of the of the private road. I tried to keep um that home as far as parallel to the topography, try to keep it at 21 feet or less on the height of that house. I know you're allowed to go up to 35 ft, but I'm trying to do this because Mr. Swat is across the street. We place the home up above with a lot of trees in between him and the and the home site and um be able to accommodate not only enough parking up there for uh for guests, but also a turnaround for guests to be able to come back down. He was very concerned about backing out into the street. He wanted to be able to come out frontwards on all the all three lots. And that was uh our you know that was our major goal is to unfortunately the car has a huge impact on the design of a home. Not only necessarily to get get into the garage and back up and get out but getting guests to come up there and being able to uh get in and out of the property easily without burdening

the neighbors. Um the second lot which is lot number five we were we were only 17 ft parallel to the topography on that one. We tried again I say to stair step the home back into the hill on if you look at the the building sections that we have it's on page um A5 which is under I think A5 on lot five I think it's uh I think it's the same sheet same sheet on on I think all three homes as a A5 has the building sections showing the existing grades and how we kind of tucked it into the hill. Um my major goal was to try to leave as many of the mature trees around the front of the house as well as the side. So we kept um I think on lot four and five we had quite a bit of distance between the two homes. And the same with lot five and six tried to keep as much distance between the homes and then let the trees kind of uh get do much of the screening from the street back up to the homes. So it was a balancing act. you know, you don't want to go too far up the hill because then you do more grading and then if you get too close to the front, then you get all your your vegetation and trees that are protecting the views from the neighbors are going to be gone. So, um I think we found the sweet spot on all three homes. I feel very proud of how we, you know, attempted to design a home on a difficult three lots and to try to make sure that uh the neighbors were were taken care of too in terms of drainage. As far as any um erosion control measures, normally we do erosion control measures anyway, and I don't foresee these starting until April or May. Best time to actually do the construction is between April 15th and October 15th. So, the goal would be to start construction after the winter and have the house enclosed by by by next fall and then take the winter to just basically uh finish the interior of the home and then then it's ready for

occupancy that following spring. So, I've always I hate working in the winter. It's the best thing to do is to start in April 15th or later, and then, like I say, get it in closed, go for a rough frame inspection, have the uh even the driveway uh put in as well by that point. So, you're basically just doing the interior from um October through March of that following year. Um materials and and colors. So, we try to keep a very muted colors, more earth tones, things that would blend into the to the property. And um I've been great working with the neighbors. It's always the first thing we do when we go up and um start a project. I mean, I always I was a planning commissioner back in the 80s and 90s and then Martinez and I used to always tell people, go knock on the doors of everybody. If somebody slams a door in your face, you tried. And and actually, I do that on every project. It's the best thing you can do. your best allies really are your neighbors because they're the ones you have to live with and also you want to please them and uh do a better job than you know each decade bureaucracy gets more complicated and uh the two things that I I stress more than anything is drainage and u foundation. Those are the two things that I'm a fanatic on. I always tell clients you can fix the wood but it's hard to fix the foundation and drainage is very difficult. So anyway, um I'm open for any questions you have. Be happy to answer anything.

Just for Steph, are we going to do this three times? Okay, that's okay. I don't mind. You didn't want to take away your time, but I think you got Yeah, I I I pretty much did. Yeah.

Okay. Does anyone have Does anyone have any clarifying questions for the applicant? Sorry, this is going to be a very broad one. I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but for lot six, the L-shaped lot there. Um, just a curiosity for since this sort of just sighting and massing for this this phase, was there any particular reason? I mean, it does seem sort of like up, you know, matching the rest of the homes up against the road on the culde-sac as opposed to like that large backspace area there that would kind of offset it a lot more and bit further out. Yeah. Yeah. But obviously, it looks like it's a much more hilly area, so it' be harder. Is that the primary reason it wasn't pushed back further? Kind of because the other ones are a little Yeah, a little further.

The other ones are further up. And what we did is we kind of threaded the needle on the on four and five because we had to come up through the trees. And if you look at the topography on lot five, you can see the house is parallel to the topography because it goes sideways where this lot, lot six, actually goes straight up the hill, but it's narrow. It's narrow. It's much narrower. You can see how much more narrow the lot lot six is than lot five and four. And so as you get to where the back of the house is, that's if you can see the o overlay in the background, you'll see the overlay of the vegetation. You go further up the hill, you're taking a ton of trees out and it gets really steep. So, and that that lot is kind of a transition lot between the adjoining home on the east side, which you can see right next door, as it goes up the hill, and then once it gets past lot uh six going to lot five, it starts sloping up. And then you can see all that vegetation that's between lot five and lot six between the two. So you should be get some screening there. Lot six is just you're right now it's a almost an open area for considerable amount of space. But you once you go past the uh the I call it the drip line of the trees at the back of the property. It just gets so steep and you'll be taking out a lot of trees. Well, I had a question on the there were some comments about turning around and you mentioned about parking. So, all three of these would park basically off of the the private drive like go the the dotted kind of concrete up.

That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. So, there was one kind of concern and I'm just curious how you would address it. Like it looks like lot six you have a lot of turnaround. It looks like lot five is more of up and back and then I guess lot four it looks like it has kind of almost a hammerhead up. Correct. Yeah. So I mean I I'm I'm trying to address something that was brought to a public one of the public comments. So could you just walk us through how you would envision lot five specifically? You know if I don't I don't know how many people you envision but you know let's say six cars. You got a nice dinner party going on. How how would that work?

Well, the right side of the property or the right side of the driveway itself that that from the garage back to the uh uh to the turnaround area is around 32 to 33 feet. So, I assume that the cars themselves would pull in straight in toward then they back up toward there's a there's a turnout very slight turnout on the right side of the garage that comes in. Lot five was one of the most difficult lots and and and without going further down the hill and grading and going back up the hill. Um I didn't want to start to impede on the the property line area on that side, but it should be big enough. And actually the goal is when during the middle of the day if you have a Amazon truck coming up your driveway, that's where I looked at that and did all my calculations on an Amazon truck coming up and making a turnaround. So, I can usually get about four or five cars in a driveway and uh but you got to you got to leave one area for people to back up and come down frontwards. That's the goal. And I got um pretty much all these will work fine. Lot five is a little tighter, but you should be able to get about four or five cars in there. And um the driveway also gets a little wider at the throat. One thought I had was to also because I think I've got 16 or 18 foot width of a driveway. Sometimes I'll I'll widen the driveway and near the ent entry throat of the of the main driveway to like 18 or 20. So that'll still give you 12 or 13 feet for a car to get down, but it'll still allow you to have a car at a park parallel to that driveway in case you had a party of five, six, seven people. But I know that the SWAT and the Greenbergs, you're it's tough. It's a tough property. I mean, they have to back out of their driveway no matter what. And um it these are much more severe lots. So did the best we could for considering as I do a lot of hillside projects. The the car and parking and backups are the number one

key on all hillside projects because I don't know if any of you are realators. I always joke that I know a lot of realtors. They said the biggest deal killer on a house is driving your car to show a house to somebody and you can't get out. Person's gonna say, "Get me out of here. I don't want to come back." And it I just want to confirm. I I don't think the Amazon drivers are going up there, but maybe you do. But I'm assuming that that the width of that private drive a truck could sit idle on one side. Someone runs up. Yeah. I mean, you could. I mean, yeah, you could. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I hadn't really thought of an Amazon truck. That seems even worse, but or whatever trunk. Okay. Well, thank you for

You Yeah, you have to meet the fire department rule for the height 12 and a half feet of clearance. So that's the most important thing because it can't uh have any tree limbs hanging down. And just for my understanding since you seem pretty good on this, if you weren't doing that condition of eight of approval number eight, what would be different about the road? That's the alternative material was it it's

well it's actually there's two parts of that. One is the amendment. Number eight is that measures and alternative methods u materials and methods as well as um you know the fire mitigation um around the around the home meaning keeping as much clearance around the home of any vegetation. So they don't want any flammable materials you know within so many feet of the of the uh of the home. And I was talking specifically on the road. What would have been different about the road? Anything like a turnaround or just any anything? You'd have to have a hammerhead which is you know the new hammerhead requirements now are just outrageous. Now the new culde-sacs I think are 92t in diameter instead of 72 feet for

would that be at and I'm just trying to understand this trying to drive any points is that each house would or the private road would need a culde-sac at the end of it the extension of the private road. Well it's not quite that simple but I'll I'll try to do it in a nutshell. So your your requirements are you have to get within 150 ft all the way around the house with the fire truck. So if they can't do that, so they can go 150 ft without having to back up. I mean without having to have a hammerhead turnaround.

So they'll go 150 ft from wherever they where they can turn around. They'll go 150 ft stop. Then they have 150 ft of hose and usually going some of them are going up to 200 now. Uh and then go you have to go all the way around the house each way. You have to go 150 ft this way and 150 ft the other way. And if you can't meet that, then you either have to have a hammerhead or a turnaround or you have to do alternative measures and materials or non-flammable sprinkler sprinkle the home. Um sometimes put a fire hydrant in, have alternative materials that are nonflammable and then also have vegetation that's a certain distance away from the house. Okay? So, you're trying your best because you're not going to you're not going to it's almost impossible to make anything completely fireproof unless you had just a concrete box and you had fire uh you know, laminated glass and so forth. But for the most part, um yeah, I mean this was a tough I mean I got done I don't know 200 hillside rgeline projects over the last 45 years. These three are tough because this probably why these lots were were have been never been developed because it's a tough property and uh you got to take some take some sensitive sensitivity to the properties and u make it look like they belong there when it's done. That's the whole goal.

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Uh any more questions? Yes. Um again since we're talking sighting and massing it looks like you've already given some thought to it but can you walk us through the site retaining walls the extent the uh expected heights um so the first goal has always been and Lafayette is one of the probably the best cities in the Northern California for sensitivity to hillsides. um going back 40 years, we always try to do retaining walls, maximize retaining walls, even if you do multiple retaining walls at 3 ft because you can vegetate the top wall and the lower part of the wall and make it disappear after a year or two. Um so our retaining walls, like I say, my goals have always been to try to stay three feet max on retaining walls. um just because it's a lot more less intrusive to to being, you know, in the driveway or around the house. Unless the house is built into the hill, like a garage is is bunkered into the hill, but you don't see the retaining wall. It's buried into the hill. Any retaining walls behind the house, I try to limit to three. And I think sometimes I might as go as high as four. But I don't like I I can't stand like 6' 8t high walls. It's just too obtrusive. And I'd rather split it up into smaller walls. And then that way if you landscape below it and above it, I like times I use rosemary or some hanging vines to come over the top and then I do a shrub at the bottom that'll cover the top two or three feet. So within about a two or three years the retaining walls are disappear.

That's what I was hoping to hear. Thank you. Uh just following up on the parking spaces. So, I know we're doing masking and sighting, but um we were talking about I just I think I see a discrepancy. So, I want to make sure in the middle site five or yeah, five. In the staff report, I believe it says three parking spaces, but on the site plan, it looks like if you count the indoor and the outdoor, it's six. So, again, just back to the whole concept of is there room for guests? Is there room for deliveries? if you could just confirm the number of parking spaces for uh site five.

Site five. Yeah, lot five, you should be able to get uh the goal is to get uh at least three outside and three three parking spaces um in the garage and then three possibly four that you could get on the driveway.

Okay. I just making sure it wasn't only in the garage. Thanks. Right. Okay. Thanks. All right. Um, now we'll open this to public comment. So, if you do have any public comments, if you could make sure that the planning group has your card and then they'll call you up. Please come on up, introduce yourself, and you have three minutes. Three minutes. The first speaker is Lawrence Johnson, I believe, uh, followed by Chuck Greenberg and you're welcome to stand at the lect turn or have a seat and speak for up to three minutes.

Do you need to press anything? Uh, the green light is on so it is amplifying. Okay, good. Thank you. Well, you you knocked out quite a few things on my agenda. Uh the main thing was the um proposed um the drainage issues. This is going to be covered in the next meeting. So drainage and then uh the construction actual construction issues will be discussed. Mr. Johnson, can you uh two things do you mind telling us where you are just so we can get perspective of your questions? Like are you you're one of the neighbors I'm presuming?

Yes. Okay. On the down side, I am on the upside. Well, I'm on the downside. You're right. The downside. I'm more at 12:30 Cambridge, which is right next to Okay. And then if you would please address your questions up here and just go, we might not answer them in real time, but if you could address them up here, we'll try to make sure we can deal with them. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So hold off my questions till next phase on the drainage and construction. Um and then also the the yeah the peers. Do we have a start date on this? This so we're this is a phase one. there's going to be a follow on phase two and they'll go through design review and and out of that I mean I don't know what their plans are but that'll be up to them. So the answer would be no. There's no start date right now that I'm aware of.

Okay. Um, in reading through the proposals, um, I keep seeing the reference to, um, that it should be, something should be versus will be. So, are we trying to build in some wiggle room there or why won't Why doesn't say should will be? Is there a specific one you want to point to just so we're clear? because I don't know if you're talking about the staff report or conditions of approval or

Yeah. Okay. There's um several several of them. I didn't I'll pick out one. Um page six, very the very bottom. Uh just so for clarity, are you talking about uh because there's three of these, they might not all be the same on the page number that is there. No, there throughout the document. All right. Says steel reinforced capable of resisting this force should extend to the full length of the pier and should be tied to the top of the bar instead of saying it will be.

Why don't because I'm a little afraid you're going to run out of time. So, is there any can you've got 22 seconds left so is there anything else? And we'll try to address what you've said. Um well other than there's the parking I think in on lot well address is 1227 is has for seven cars. Is that correct? I I' I'd have to look but is there a question in there? Is it the number of cars that Yeah, I'd just be interested. I think I read seven and but you talked earlier about six.

Well okay and I think your time's up. I think there in the one we did look at there was room for three in the garage and then you know you could fit three but I think the applicant they can they can answer this afterwards when they come on. I think he was alluding that maybe four would fit there as well you know if you parked them smartly but I'll let them answer that. All right. Um hold on a second sir. We we're going to have clarifying question possibly.

Thank you. Um kind of give you a broad picture. stuff. So, what we're doing right now is the big picture stuff. Phase two, we start getting into the more details. Now, this is what I do in a in another life. Um, things like uh this project and not having spoken to the architect, but my guess is he will have a geotechnical engineer to review all the soils. He will have a structural engineer to design the the house and the foundation. Typically they will have they tie if the house is on peers they will tie the peers to the grade beam for some continuity every so a lot of the times when we say should means that hey we haven't gotten the architect the applicant haven't gotten to that portion yet because we want to see the big picture and we want the big picture as close to what the little picture may will end up being. you may orient the houses a little differently to make the foundation work or something like that. But if you do have specific questions, you know, uh talk to the applicant, talk to their say, hey, I'm I this is my concern. And then that puts in their back of their mind and makes they make a little note that, hey, this question will come up later. Let's make sure we address it because nobody wants to sit up here and have everybody say, well, gee, that's a good question. Why haven't we thought about that? So, you know, I'm sure that your questions will all end up being answered just uh not at this not at this time.

Okay. Well, I thought, yeah, now that I know that there's a phase after this one or meeting after this one, it makes a lot more sense. Yeah. And also after the the the residents will go to Contraosta uh be farmed out from the city of Lafayette to Contraosta County and they will do an independent peer review of the structural uh design of this uh of these residents. Okay, good.

That's great. Thank you. That's that was very helpful. And this phase two is with the design review commission. It's not with the uh planning commission. So when when you're looking for it online or on, you know, the city website, it'll it'll you'll probably get noticed based on where you are, but it's a different commission, but they'll be more in the in the details. We're we're looking at site and mass. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Makes sense. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Um think we had another Mr. Greenberg is next.

Thank you. Just push the button right here, sir. Uh, see green at the base of the microphone. Is that on? It is on. That does not have a green indicator, but it is on.

That was a trick question. Uh, my name is Chuck Greenberg. I live at 1232 Cambridge Drive, which is just below lot 5. Um Bob Swat is my neighbor. He lives at uh right next to me and he lives below lot six, excuse me, lot four. So, as Bob said in his letter, and I said in mine, and we by the way, first I want to thank thank Bill and his team, Bill Wood and his team, and Mike Yang, the owner, uh, for their cooperation and transparency. Their cooperation and transparency over the last two years. Uh, they've done a great job in responding to our concerns. Um there are very few remaining issues that we have and it's more and I'm not an engineer or an architect so I I would revert to you all to determine whether in fact we there can be six cars on lot five uh and any one of them can turn around. I don't think Bob says Bob Swat who's an architect says that's really not possible. Bill had responded to to Bob's comments on lot four where he widened the turnaround on lot four, but as you aptly pointed out, lot five is still the same. And that I don't think you can get six cars in that turnaround and any of them without to be able to turn around and come down without backing down the road or trucks backing down the road which we think it'd be a significant danger because not only are they backing down into down onto the private part of Cambridge Drive, they're backing into the culdesac where twice a day we it's it's a designated pickup and drop off zone for Happy Valley Elementary. We got a lot of kids coming around that culde-sac. So, it's important that no trucks and no cars um back down their driveway uh in to enter the private road or to enter the culde-sac. And so again, um whether whether it's adequate or not, I can't say. It doesn't appear to me as

a layman to be adequate. And I think Bob is suggesting that at least on lot four that it be expanded and we would suggest the same on lot five. the the the drainage and uh runoff issues we can deal with in phase two. They're very serious issues that that hillside steep. Tremendous amount of runoff. I won't deal with that today. Um the fire danger here is intense. So whatever is done with alternative methods uh is really important uh if that turnaround is if there's not a turnaround for an emergency vehicle because it's not going to be possible. Just to make clear, the drive, not only is the private road um a fire lane, so there's no parking, but each of these driveways, the private road is under 20 feet. The private driveways are 15 feet. So you can't park on the driveway either. So the only parking for anybody coming to that or for trucks coming up is at the top of the site next to the next to the garage. Those are those are the comments that I would make.

Great. Thank you, sir. Hold on. Uh uh we have my clarifying question, Commissioner Mason.

Actually, it's just more of a comment. Um I live on a private street also, just like yours. The property lines go right to the middle of the street. The street had been there for 50 years or so. And one of the things I can recommend is get some sort of agreement with all the property owners so you don't say, "Well, I don't have as much like what happened to us. I don't have as much frontage as you do, so I should contribute less. Well, you still have to get in and out. And we spend a lot of time arguing that. So, anything you can work out together now is preferable to sometime later when beloved oak needs to be trimmed down because it's encroaching or or something like that.

We we we totally agree and I think Bill would agree as well to have a to have a road maintenance. There's also an architecture control committee because on the six lots that would have to approve the the the sub subdivision anyway the construction of the homes on the side. But it's very good advice and we've been to that movie. I won't get into the details but I share your concern. Good. Thank you. Uh vice chair. Um but just two quick questions. One, how long have you lived at your current location? Uh 45 years.

Okay. And I just I mean for I guess easy real world example have like how often or how do you find for your own use of your own driveway and parking guests having over Amazon delivery trucks whatever it may be for your own setup with the size of your driveway and turnaround. Do do you have trouble? Do you have to back in and out? You have turnaround. We can turn around and the trucks can turn around. Nobody backs out intentionally. Okay. I'm just trying to think like, you know, size, spacing, and all that kind of thing.

Yeah. I mean, we have a wide a very we have a driveway that's I think I don't know, whatever is 14 feet that comes in, then it widens and we have a threec car garage and a turnaround. I don't remember exactly the size of it, but you can easily turn around a truck. Well, you can't. I mean, a semitr, no, probably not. But Amazon delivery trucks all the time turn around. Okay. Okay, cuz I was just kind of looking just trying to vaguely guess looking at from the you know Google maps photos online and all kind of roughly comparison.

In our case with people that can come to visit can park on the culdesac. So we're we're very close to the we're very close to the culdeac. The homes lots four and five are going to be very very people are going to have to walk up a long way uh to get to the and then up the private driveway to get to the get to those homes.

Thank you sir. Thank you. Those are the full extent of speakers in the room. So now we'll turn to online attendees. If you would like to speak on this item for these three applications, uh please go ahead and use the raise hand function now to raise your hand. Seeing no raised hands.

Okay. Thank you. We will uh close the public comment period and we'll bring it back to commission to discuss. Oh yeah. I'm sorry. Applicant, if you'd like, you're welcome to respond to any of the comments if you need to or feel you want to. Made so.

Thank you. Bill Wood again on um in regards to Mr. Johnson's on lot six. Uh the yeah the recommendation from the soil engineer that was what I think he was referring to. Um all the u engineering for the foundations have to go back through the soil engineer to um verify that it's compliant with the soil recommendations for each of the lots. And then drainage. Um we can also for the final drainage grading and drainage plans. Um we can even go over that with him as well with the civil engineer. But as far as uh starting on the project, I don't foresee starting on any project in the winter on this property. It's just too it's too much of a mess and plus it's not worth it. So the goal is start after April 15th as I mentioned and have it completed by at least the outside uh site work being done before winter hits

the next sorry just to declare 2026 that's correct I think that's what I mean we started in 2022 or 2023 so I think some for uh hopefully next year. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, with that we will close public comments and bring it back. All right, anyone have any comments? Anything you want to discuss?

I just like to say I I appreciate your presentation. It's well thought out. I also have lived in Lafayette since I think about 68. So, I know the hills, you don't take any uh chances on hills. Uh the should be and stuff like comments like that, you defer to a a structural engineer. This is what I do. I work with it and uh I agree. There's no such thing as a minor foundation problems. There's either no foundation problems or big foundation problems. And the last thing you want to do is come back 10 years from now and, you know, support the foundation and stuff like that. uh there is water. The fact that you have oak trees there means there's water in those hills and you know, yes, you're going to spend a lot of time making sure the drainage really works and the water goes where it's expected to. And that's why uh we will deal in phase two. Chances are if you look at the credentials of the people doing the work the structural I know I know I've known of William Wood for a long time he only uses top-notch consultants I'm sure if you check their credentials of their consultants the soils engineer the geo um the people do the civil who's doing the drainage and the other ones you'll find that those are also topnotch because at the price point of these homes There isn't going to be you're not going to cut corners.

I think they're saying you're out of time. Yeah, I can support that's my way of saying I can support this. All right. Uh any other questions? All right. Well, and I will just say I do think because there will be a phase two and we find this time and time again. The best solution is for you folks to get together than for us to make decisions based on we we because our charge is to follow the findings and say can we make these findings yes or no and if we can make them yes then then we vote our how we feel. So

um there are these little inetweens that don't always fall exactly into that. So, I just say your best bet is to talk on that, but you also have your phase two that you both can come back to and talk about some of those if you haven't worked them up.

Question. Um, and you're kind of shot yourself in the foot on this one because I've been thinking about the whole time for I think it's lot six, the Lot for the setbacks like because we had asked to to come back on those to like to track. If we approve sighting and then it turns out they're actually in setbacks, they need a variance. They need something like how would that work? Would they have to redesign their plans? You mean you're saying we approved the sighting of it and for some reason they the the staff report was wrong and they couldn't put it there? I I'd defer to the planning director but or or staff but I would assume that that would supersede our sighting approval. I would like the project planners to affirm that the setbacks for each of the proposed homes are being met so that the planning commission, the neighbors, the public all have confidence that an erroneous approval of anything is not being approved. Um, so just I'd like them to affirm that tonight.

And I I should have said something. my question. I did go look back and when I found the right one, it was 15 feet, which is what we were looking at. So, I was incorrect. I was looking at the the wrong one. So, the one I asked about is correct as far as I can see. So, um yeah. Um if you give us one second. Um Madison and I are confirming right now. Okay. Yeah. I'll keep talking then. Chair, when I when I reports, I saw that the the setbacks looks correct versus the regulations the privilege. Were you asking about that or were you saying that there's some other thing out there?

No, no, I mean that was essentially it was more of a procedural thing because it had been noted. It just got me thinking again just looking how kind of close it is like if if we do and you know the turns out it was actually oh this driveway had been shifted or something we approved sighting and it was this is more of a procedural thing less of a yeah you know I mean for to what it's worth is I do think you've done an excellent job of reducing massing trying to blend with a tough lots and my one question was really just going to be like well how have these lots gone undeveloped for so long and what's different now and I'm sure it's just economics um but yeah the the sizing would have been the only or sorry the sighting would have been the only with like setbacks, but again, it seems okay. I just want to make sure.

Um, I guess we'll wait. We're still waiting, right? Yeah. Okay, that's fine. I am going to have Nicole put the site plan for lot six on the screen. So according to the R20 side setback requirements, it is a 35 ft aggregate side setback with no side less than 15. So you can see on the project plans that one side is 20 ft and the other side is 15 feet and the footprint of the home is outside of those side step back areas. Thank you. All right. Unless there are any other questions, I will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion. So for HDP08-24, I assume we're doing them all separately. This first one, I recommend that we adopt PC resolution 2025-17, approving the project subject to conditions. We have a second. Second. All in favor? I. All opposed. That motion carries. 5 approval. All right. Chair like to make a motion. And just so I'll say with that one, each one of these can be appealed within 14 days to the city council. Yeah.

And that applies to all three of them. Okay. All right. I move that uh we rec uh we adopt the planning the staff recommendations and find the project exempt from SQA. Adopt PC resolution 2025-18 approving the project subject to conditions with uh friendly amendment. Yes. Go ahead. No. Yes. with the amendment of correcting the conditions of approval. Second. What? I'm sorry. What was the condition that had to get? Was that the double dash? That was No, that was the adding of the AMM into item. Thank you. Okay. So, was there a second? Sorry. Yeah. Second. Okay. All in favor?

I. All opposed. Okay. That motion carries. 5 approved. again, 14-day appeal period. And there's one more. Yeah. Um, I move that we adopt the PC resolution 2025-9 approving the project project subject to conditions. Second. Um, all in favor? I.

All oppose? None. Okay. Motion carries. 5 Z one as well. And there's again a 14-day appeal period. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we are going on to new public hearing. Give them a couple minutes. Next one is a uh item 7A. And uh I'll turn it over to staff whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, commission. I'm just gonna share my screen in a moment.

Oh, I was like, Ari somewhere. Where is she? I'm not in the room. It's true. One moment, please. Okay. Okay. Are you able to see my screen? Yes, Arley. We could see it. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. It's good to see you all again, if not in person. Tonight, I am presenting on HDPO425 and GR125, an hillside development permit and grading permit for a new six-foot concrete retaining wall. This is before the planning commission um because uh the proposal includes development within the 15 degree declination from the ridge line which the planning commission must approve an exception for. And here we are. The context of the project is that it sits at 1166 Commamino Valisito which is in the uh northwest Happy Valley neighborhood of the city on about a half an acre lot. The lot is relatively flat along the north area but slopes down to the south which is where the retaining wall is proposed. And there's a class 2 ridge line uh that runs east west approximately along the south edge of the property. You can see the ridge line in the orange line with the ridge line set back in the light orange shading. On the other side of that ridge line set back is a class 3 ridge which does not have a setback. That's the yellow line. The property is outlined in green here with the proposed retaining wall in red. I'll point out that the house has no proposed changes. This is simply a retaining wall. Uh there's no protected

tree removal proposed as part of the project and no landscaping. This image shows the distance from the house to the surrounding properties and homes. The closest being approximately 80 ft away. Um, these are measured from the existing home, not the retaining wall, but uh, the retaining wall is not far from the home. So, similar numbers. And I'll point out that the, uh, applicant called out the ridge line in this dashed blue line. I think it actually sits a little bit uh, to the north, especially on the right or east side, more where the purple line sits. But that change doesn't change how this project is reviewed or if the findings can be made. Here we see the survey and grading proposed. Um the proposed wall is uh approximately 150 ft long. It six sits excuse me just 6 in off the southern property line um which is shown in the heavy black line um going from left to right. And the Lal ranges from 1 or 2 feet tall on either side to a total of 6 feet tall towards the center. The grading proposed includes 150 cubic yards of cut and 600 cubic yards of fill for a total of 790 cubic yards. This triggers a grading permit. Um at 50 cubic yards being the trigger. The two red dashed lines show where sections were provided. These are those sections. So A which was on the left is shown in the upper right here and B in the lower left. Um the majority of the wall is above the 15 degree declination. That's the red dotted line here. So again the exception must be made by the planning commission to be approved. You can see that the wall itself is

shown in the heaviest black line. Um the thin black line just to the right of it is just the property line. That's not a structure. It's just meant to show where the property line sits. Um, and here we can see uh the top of wall being at 648. This would allow uh fill to be added behind the wall extending the backyard area of the property from the house towards the property line where slumping has been occurring. the property owner is concerned um for the state of the house and um the rest of their yard um because sliding has begun to occur and so that is the reason for this wall. You can also see on the left um where the red dotted line comes to the proposed um grade level the class 2 and class 3 ridge line um that we mentioned earlier. This is a photo of the proposed wall staked um with orange netting to be as visible as possible. Um the again because this is parallel to the property line, the property line itself would sit just 6 in off this netting. And so the property on the right is not part of the subject property but of the neighboring property. You can see that there is um heavy mature vegetation there which would do a fairly good job of completely screening this wall. Um this is another photo taken of the netting from below downhill looking up towards the property. If you squint in the dark little shading spot between the two green massings, you can kind of make out the netting. Um but it's pretty hard, which I think is a pretty good illustration of how difficult it would be to see the wall. However, all of that screening does sit on someone else's property and is therefore under their control, not the property owner of the subject property. I have some images here from Google

Earth. I actually want to start on the right. Our subject property here is outlined in the green line on the right at the top. All that tree coverage I was just mentioning sits below it downhill, which is to the south um or below the house in the image. Camino Valisito is the road that's at the bottom left corner. It actually winds all the way around in kind of a big U shape. Um, and you can see there's very large trees. The left image is scrolled kind of down, so the perspective is much lower. Um, you can see again the tall massing of the trees. Um, it would be and this the road is this tiny little uh gray triangle at the center bottom of the left image. So, we're still not at the road level at all, though we're much lower in perspective. And you can see that most of that property line um is hidden at this point. Again, the property line being a good substitute for where that uh retaining wall would sit. So, those images kind of help understand where the wall is, how visible it would be. Um, again, the the trees are offsite, so not under control of the owner, but the property owner to the south where they do sit is in uh support of that uh of the project. So, to that end, notices were sent to 18 neighbors surrounding the property and posted in three locations 10 days prior, as is our norm. No public comments have been received. However, the applicant did submit three letters of support from the neighbors again including the property owner to the south. The referral comments went to um Contraosta Fire as well as the local HOA who turned back no comments for the property. However, engineering did have comments as uh were referred to in the staff report. Here I've listed the three that remain um unresolved from an

engineering point of view. The first is that um the uh prior wall that was in a similar location is still shown on the plans. That wall failed and in fact was also placed off of the property on the neighboring property. It's still shown on the plans. It's no longer there. It should be removed from the plans at time of submitt for the building permit. That's condition 22. Also contained in that condition is a reference to the building code requirement that a railing be placed above um a drop off of six feet. However, per Lafayette standards in order to not require a variance, that railing must be placed back six feet from the edge of the retaining wall so as not to be continu considered a continuous um height of six plus whatever the height of the railing is. say it was 3 feet, that would be 9 feet in our code. Um, unless it's set back correctly. So, again, the condition has been added to have that railing set back correctly. So, it's not considered part of that height. And finally, the most complex comment um from engineering is that the wall concentrates drainage across the property to the south. Um, the condition that's been added requires that the plans either be updated to the satisfaction of engineering or that a drainage easement be entered into with this property and the property to the south formalizing the maintenance and the disposition of the runoff. The point being that while the current property owner to the south supports the project, at some point in the future, these two properties will probably be owned by other people and they might not all be in support of the wall and the way that the drainage has been concentrated. So um in uh with the goal of making sure that everything is above board for the current and future property owners um and they understand the conditions um

this would need to be added um this easement would need to be required at time of building permit per the conditions the secret determination is that this project can be categorically exempt pursuant to sections 15303 new construction or conversion of small structures and 15304 minor alterations to land. Staff's recommendation is to find the project exempt from SQA and adopt planning commission resolution 2025-16 approving the project subject to conditions. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Let's see if we have any clarifying questions. We have a bunch. Okay, Mr. Mason. Um I'm concerned confused about the uh the comment about the drainage easement across the southern property. To me that means that if it's a drainage easement needs to be recorded dimensioned it will block construction over that uh easement. And as just a general vague comment I'm not sure if I can evaluate that portion of that. Can you please uh clarify that?

I'm not sure I understood your comment about evaluating that portion of it. Could you clarify that? Well, what what I was saying is we're asked to retain uh asked to uh approve a retaining wall

and the drainage is going to be directed across the southern property, but we don't have an idea of where. you mentioned an easement uh I think in your as one of the possible uh solutions under the unresolved comments and so that whole wall I'll assume you have a drain line behind the wall that will redirect the drainage uh the water flowing down. So, the first question is where is it going? Because it looks like it has to go across the the southern property, but it's not shown where. And so, I'm not sure I can look at that in absence. If it does need an easement to drain across the other uh southern property, it should be shown and recorded.

Commissioner, if you look at condition of approval 21, I think it might answer your question. It's uh Can you go You can look at it right here. Just look at

I believe I heard Chair Leange referring to question uh commit, excuse me, condition 21. That is where the proposed condition sits. That states that either the city engineer needs to be comfortable with the design of the drainage, which he is not currently, or an easement needs to be recorded stating that the property owners understand the new drainage patterns and are comfortable with them such that it will travel with both properties. The image I've moved back to here shows uh the proposed wall um just off the property line and calls out a few weep holes um which is where the water will be issued from um when soaking through the wall. So this arrow at the bottom with a note here um says coordinate with neighbor to the south to provide 4in weep holes at 10 feet on center and then 3-in weep hole 15 ft on center are calling out these small dark markings. I don't know how well you can see them. There's a few scattered throughout the wall. Um and so the idea here, uh the city engineers comment refers to the fact that without the wall, if it rains and it rains heavily, water sheet flows across the land evenly and spreads out evenly as it travels from one property to the other. But if um if this wall is installed and especially if any future um improvements were made such as a concrete patio which would not require our review um water would be further concentrated and it is simply by this wall into the weepholes which will then be the issuance of the wall because the wall sits six inches from the property line. There's no room for the property owner to dissipate it. have the water land on rock and slow and and remove kinetic energy from the water before it lands on the adjacent property

owner. So that's the concern of engineering. Well, because my concern is once you put in the words record a possible easement that to me would imply a restriction on the southern owner. For example, you're talking about weepholes. There's a lot of water in these hills. Not sure if that's sufficient. I'm not concerned so much about the water as a sheet flow, but water as it is directed in one specific uh spot. Weepholes tend to get clogged up over over time. Um anyway, that that's just uh uh my concern to me. It just seems like this presentation is a little bit premature. And so would you be more comfortable if the easement was already recorded or were you suggesting something else? Sorry, I didn't understand.

I would be more comfortable if the easement was already recorded because then I would know that the southern uh property owner had uh already signed off on because an easement will put restrictions on future development of that southern property.

But but they're not going to enter into that easement. They would have to agree to that easement. So, it gives it gives the applicant two options. One that they can do on their own without the southern property owner or one that they can do with the southern property owner's approval to agree. I'm not convinced that option one is a feasible option. And so therefore to me that's approving it is premature because if option one isn't a a feasible option and they have to go to option two then I think they should take a look at it because that would put a restriction on the southern future development of the southern property. But only if that other party agrees to it. But then we've approved something which can't be built.

Sure. Yes. Could could staff sorry could staff clarify the way I read it was the restriction or the easement was on the owner to the north not to the south. It's the owner to the south because the water will flow to the south which is downhill. Okay. Thank you.

But it shall be entered into and recorded. So it's not it's not mandatory. They're not forced to sign that. They would have to agree to those terms. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the way this operates since it is time limited is that they have I think it's like one year or whatever it is. So we approve it. If it turns out to be engineering infeasible for option one and the southern property owner decides not to agree and so they don't sign the easement, our approval then lapses and yeah, we've approved the wall that doesn't end up being built. But I don't see any harm or foul there. Is that how it would operate or am I missing something? You are correct. Okay.

And sorry uh Arley. Um and additionally even within the term of the approval within the one year if the southern property owner is not interested in signing and or granting an easement to the northern property owner and the northern property owner can't figure out a way to accommodate the drainage within the 6 in between where the wall is designed and the property line. then they can't build that property, that wall as designed at that location. And so they need to come up with a alternative solution to accommodate their desired scope. Um and and they would need to resubmit essentially.

Well, I just want Commissioner Mason, are you okay? Um yes and no. I mean, we get a lot of tilted failed rain retaining walls in this town. And a lot of them is because drainage doesn't work. You've got the water pressure behind the wall, which is generally about one and a half times the weight of the soil that it was designed for, and the wall uh rotates. So,

I mean, are you okay with the fact that the condition of 21 if it doesn't work, they can't go forward? The southern property owner isn't forced to do anything. Like the planning director said, they would have to come back. I would be more comfortable if we put in the condition that a a drainage study and waterproofing study be done to verify that op the first option works. Can I can I ask something? Sure. Can we maybe just ask questions clarifying staff the applicant is hearing the questions that we're asking staff applicant can choose to chime in and then we can save this for discussion maybe. Sure.

Good call. Okay. You have a question quick question. So, as I recall um from the report and hearing, there was a retaining wall previously that has currently failed. Correct. That is correct. Okay. And I mean just a quick like do we know why it failed? Uh it was a wood wall. You can actually see it in this image. It's a it's not a very thick line, but it's just here running parallel to the proposed wall, but on the neighbor's property. Um, and so that wall is not there anymore. It's the failed retaining wall. I don't know how tall it was. It looks like we've got about six or seven feet. Um, and so my understanding is that maybe it rotted. It's it was not functional anymore.

Got it. So it's not necessarily some underlying incurable movement of land that even a concrete wall would not be able Okay. All right. Any other clarifying questions? All right. Then if the applicant is present, if you'd like to come up and help fill in all the spots we miss. Sure. Thank you. Let me see if I do the Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. I'm Greg Orley. I'm the applicant for the Shapiro and I've uh actually been working on several homes around the area. So, I'll be able to answer some of your questions, including SP9 lot subdivision on two of the adjacent properties. So, I can also clarify where future development may be or is going to be if you would like to know that because that southern portion that we've been talking about is an area that will be left native for as long as I guess SB9 rules dictate where how many times you can subdivide a property. So, I can show you on a map to where the uh new SB9 lot location would be for the Wattleys, which is the southern portion. And so, just keep that in mind. I have some answers to some of your questions for developable area. How far in proximity the new homes are from the existing retaining wall that was failed, which is six feet, which is roughly six feet for if you put that back up um showing where that failed retaining wall is. It will give you I can give you an idea that that is the kind of the tallest portion of the wall that is proposed. The wall is basically between 1 feet and six feet. On on average, it's about three and a half to four feet tall. 30% of the wall is going to be maybe six feet. And it's roughly in that area that you see where the retaining wall was failed. That wall was put in um not by the Shapiro, but by the previous owners, not knowing exactly where the property line was because it was not surveyed at the time. And so that wall was in all effect there to retain the Shapiro's backyard and that has failed. And that's why the staff report points out very well. Arley did a nice job uh putting together a very complete report uh talking about how the land is

sloughing. Uh there's been a soil engineer that was uh hired to give us remediation uh for the many cracks and foundation failures that are currently happening or has happened in the Shapiro's home. We have foundation cracks that are that are roughly 1 to two inches and walls inside their house are cracking almost in every room. So it's a if you can imagine a saddle, they sit right on the saddle and the land is falling off on both sides, both north and south. And so the fix for that was phase one, which we did last year, which was we put entirely around the whole home, we put in hunch pers that were drilled down 12 to 15 feet so that we could shore up the house. And that was phase one to make sure that we didn't have to go into the interior of the home and put in honch pierce. So after uh in conjunction with that remedy, the soil engineer in his report that you'll see in his sections of recommendation asked for a retaining wall down on the southern side to act as a buttress wall in order to keep the lands from moving because we weren't exactly sure how deep the slide planes were if there was a active slide. and we weren't exactly sure how well they keyed and buttressed the original found uh foundation grading. And so the only uh way that the soil engineer would feel comfortable with a retaining wall was with a concrete retaining wall. Pretty much replacing that old 6-ft uh wood retaining wall. We happened to have to be on the property. So we had to move up slope so that we weren't on, you know, just replacing like for like sixoot retaining wall. old wood failed wall with a concrete wall. Uh we had to move it up onto the Shapiro's property and

that wall has been designed so that it has concrete quesons that go down into competent material into bedrock. So we couldn't just get away with any type of retaining wall. We had to do a queson peer peered in place with concrete retaining wall on top which met the criteria within the uh soil recommendations from the soil engineer. Uh the human company also worked uh who's a civil engineer trying to figure out how best to place this wall, how to design the wall, and how to make sure that we kept our footings on our side so that the footings are towards the UPS slope so we don't at any time cross the six-foot or excuse me, the property line with the new retaining wall. Uh so during this phase two, we're hoping that this wall, this new concrete wall will prevent the Shapiro from having to rip up their interior portion of the home and put hunch new peers in hunch peers in about 35 more locations all throughout their house. So, this is a kind of a complex complicated uh series of events that's been going on for the last year or two. And the Shapiro have been experiencing settlement for maybe 10 years set, excuse me, a settling for maybe 10 years or more. And it's gotten way worse in this last year. And uh so with the recommendations from the soil engineer, from the civil engineer, and from our first go round putting in all the hunch pers around the perimeter, we're hoping that this concrete retaining wall uh will satisfy um and prevent any further soil movement in the backyard. Where they used to have a backyard, it's all sloughed off now because that old retaining wall has failed. So, when it looks like maybe you're thinking this this property owner is potentially just trying to get a backyard with a big retaining wall, that's really not the case. I hope they get that because they got to have some type of benefit for spending as much money as they're having to just to

preserve their asset from further erosion and and further um settling. So, if you wanted to know if there's any other development below the southern portion, the Watley's. The Wattleys are the ones that have a huge 14 acre piece. They just finished their home up on the top. They're over 500 ft away. They probably sit in an elevation of about 75 ft higher. And then to the south, the Wattley's have proposed an SP9 lot split. Um, which is about a thousand feet at least from this location where this retaining wall would be. So the actual the actual um area where there there would be no building as you saw before where you see all the dense trees down below. There will be no building in that section because that's 1,000 ft away from the building pad that's already been proposed is on application under SB9 and just got recently a fire uh approval. So, it's in its last phases of the SB9 approval. Um and then from the 64 viewing corridors, we looked all over. You can't see this wall really from anywhere. Arley did a good job of providing one of those pictures from the most probably viewable area, which is not one of the publicly viewing corridors. It's just the Camino Valisceto Street. You really can't you can't see the wall. Uh it it's very uh dense. So if there's any other questions uh that you had that I can answer regarding drainage. Um well maybe I'll just let me just help you out with the drainage real quick. So the drainage was designed to be at 15 ft and 10 foot weepholes. the historical concentration of the drainage was flowing down and it was there was a wall there at one time but now it's just flowing down in sheet flowing. So in order to prevent the concentration of any one area of drainage, the human company has got together with Matt at the uh at the city

and they've been discussing putting the weepholes at every 5t instead of uh 10 or 15 so that the concentration is more like is is it's less concentrated um in any one specific area. It's more of a it's more of a very big dissipator. the whole wall becomes a dissipator in a way across what if they do a concrete patio later that concrete patio actually can be drained to a drain that's in the front part of the house. The reason why we can't drain the wall to the front part of the house is because it's so much lower in elevations. It's impossible. We'd have to trench 30 feet down to reach the drain. So, you really can't. It's kind of impossible. Uh but any patio that they may put on the back side of the house, it's uh on the south southern side could be drained to the regular area drain that's in the front of the house. So you'd probably have a six or seven foot cut trench, but definitely doable. So hope that answers your drainage concern as well.

Great. Um thank you, sir. Let me see if we have any clarifying questions. Anyone? Anyone? I don't see anyone. Uh thank you for the presentation that alleved a lot of my concerns. Uh sure. We've seen a lot of uh build walls here and a lot of them were just poorly designed and not thought through. Uh I know the human company I think very very highly of them and uh their endorsement means that they've between the two of you you've thought through most of the potential problems. So I'm fine. and I can now, you know, support this. Great. Thank you. You're welcome.

Great. I think any other clarifying? Okay. Thank you very much. Sure. Thank you guys. Appreciate your time. Um, all right. Do we have any public comments on this? Anyone in the room or online?

I have no speaker slips for persons in the room. So, we'll turn to online. If you are attending online and would like to speak on this item, please go ahead and hit the raise hand button now. I'm sorry. Did you say you've got none? Seeing no raised hands.

All right. Um well uh you you're you're welcome to speak more but since no one said anything unless there's anything new I'll assume you're good and with that I will bring it back to the commission for any discussion andor motions and I'll just say I can make the findings so I'm ready whenever you guys are. I can make let me just say I can make the findings too and from the uh photos this would be better if they do it now rather than later. I wouldn't want to go through another window another winter with cracks in the foundation.

All right. If anyone would like to propose a motion, I can make a motion. Please. Um, I move that we find the project exempt from SQUA and adopt PC resolution 2025-16 approving the project subject to conditions. Second. All in favor? I I. All opposed? None. Motion carries. 50. Um, there is a 14-day appeal period. I should just say that every time. Thank you, commissioners. Good night.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. Now, we are on to 7B. Um, I'll turn it back to staff, please. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. Um, good evening again, everyone. Um, I'm Nicole Ziddle. I'm also the project planner for this hillside development permit and variance permit. Um, I hope the planning commission is not tired of me yet. Um but going right into this project um on the screen um is some context for where the parcel is located in the city and then at a neighborhood scale. So this parcel is located along Upper Happy Valley Road which is in the um Upper Happy Valley is in the western portion of Lafayette and this parcel is accessed directly off of Upper Happy Valley Road. What this project proposes is a 412 square foot uh master bed and closet and bathroom expansion um and a expansion of a second bedroom. As I mentioned, the total area of expansion is 412 ft. That is shown dashed on the screen and then I've also highlighted it um in blue. Um, as part of this request, there is a variance to encroach within the front yard setback. Um, the total area of encroachment into the front yard setback would be 24 square ft. Um, and in other slides, I'll uh focus in more on that area. So, in looking at the home, the site plan that's on the side, it is there are existing non-conforming sideyard setbacks. Um the two sideyard setbacks are highlighted in red boxes. Um so back in 2000 a variance was approved to reduce the sideyard setback to the south which on our screen is to the left. Um and on the right side that area of the house exists encroaching into the required sideyard setback.

In the graphic image, the aerial image up on the right we kind of get an idea for how the home is cited on the property. So it is not sighted. The walls of the home aren't parallel to the property line. So it sits kind of a skew uh to the parcel lines. Um in this slide I just wanted to demonstrate some of the context site context of the home. So where this image is taken is if you were standing on Upper Happy Valley Road in looking directly towards the front of the residence. In the top right, I've kind of shown a blue arrow kind of demonstrating the direction we would be looking at um on the street. The parcel is, you know, cited ups slope from the road. It's pretty decently um screened by vegetation at the front of the yard. Um, and I think in the top left it kind of more clearly demonstrates how the sighting of the home in relation to the property lines and the small area of addition. But again on this slide um I've strived to kind of demonstrate what what the proposal actually is. So the blue dashed line is the setback. So the 15t side and the 25 ft front. What's shown highlighted in or outlined in pink is an existing deck that would be demolished to accommodate the addition area. Further, what's kind of shown in orange, that little triangle, is the four square ft of area that encroaches into the front setback. um highlighted the dimension 22 putt 22t 5 in is the dimension from the property line to the edge of the encroachment and then the 3'

1 in kind of demonstrates how far into the setback the addition would encroach. So what's shown on screen above is the existing condition. On the bottom is the proposed. So we can see the front edition popping out towards upper Happy Valley Road. Um this alteration is not altering the maximum height of the existing residence and the massing is well incorporated into what is existing. The addition area is also fairly well screened from all sides so the privacy impacts to neighbors are mitigated. Staff has evaluated the findings for both the hillside development permit and variance and requests that the planning commission find the project exempt from SQA and adopt planning commission resolution 202514 approving the project subject to conditions. Thank you.

Thank you for your report. Any clarifying questions for staff? All right. If we have an applicant, if you'd like to come up, if anyone in the room, hello, my name is Mark Newman. I'm the architect for this project and the owners are here with me as well. um they purchased the house probably I think back in February or over the winter and um hired me to uh do their addition project for them. And their primary goal was to get a larger primary bedroom um and bath out of this project and just increase the overall square footage of the home. Um, in doing so, um, we we knew very early on to do so, we'd have to get a variance. And so that's where we are here. Um, we looked at a number of options and we'd end up even losing program space or getting a less desirable uh, primary bedroom suite than than we wanted. Um, so this is where we're at right now. Um, I think one thing that hasn't been mentioned, um, this is an R R20 zoning district. However, the site is, um, smaller than the R20. I think we're like at 15,600 ft or something like that. So, and as Nicole mentioned, a variance was approved on the side set back in 2000. Um, so those are, you know, kind of what things we're looking at early on. Um, and the front edition, it's a flat pad, so it makes sense. It's the most buildable area. And looking from the street, um, it's barely visible. It's screened. It's

a It's a higher elevation than the street. Other than that, it's a pretty simple project. It's just a little bumpout for a um, and a remodel. Are there any questions for me? Let's see. Thank you for that presentation. Uh any clarifying questions and I I just you you had answered it, but you said you guys looked I know it's a constraint site with all the set with all the setbacks. So you said I think you said you looked at other this was the best option basically.

This is the best option that we came up with and that they're happy with. Um we looked at options when they first hired me. We went through a round of options. We again went through some more options the past couple weeks after our um zoning administrator meeting. And you know, we we'd lose something. We'd lose either, you know, program space, existing space. Um the primary bedroom would get smaller. Um it's it's not it's not um any significant size of primary bedroom as it is and even the expansion, it's still fairly modest and um kind of to today's standards is for a 2500 3,000 foot home. So

great. And I just want to ask I don't I don't think I saw any comment letters, right? That's correct. No public comment was received. Had no other comments. Correct. Okay. I Does anyone else have any clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. I think we're good. Uh, any other public comments in the room? You're all with the applicants, so I'm going to assume then. Anyone online? We have no speaker slips for persons in the room and currently no one uh attending online on the Zoom. So, no public speakers for this item. All right, we'll close public comments. Bring it back. And um any anyone have any questions, concerns? Otherwise, let's vote.

Of course. Um, first of all, I think it's well done. I don't think anybody's going to notice. Uh, just on a side note, the years I've been here, I've never had one where we've had variances on three out of the four sides. And you know I would like uh in the future I would like to have everything accumulated because I don't want to get the habit of you know give a variance and come back two years later ask for another variance come back two years after that come back with a third variance when if they're all presented together we would have just said no you know so I would like that uh in the future but having said that it makes sense no one's going to notice uh the extension uh once the construction's finished. And you know, I I can support this.

I think those are good points. I mean, I I don't like to I I think we all want to be honest about variances in why we're doing them. That's probably why the uh arc pushed it up here. Um what what helped me a little was a no comments. No one's has an issue. Uh you can't see it very well from the street. the sides are kind of protected. So, but I do agree with what you're saying. So, anyways, if there anyone else have comments? I I just want to say I I support the project. Um the amount of intrusion is is so minimal that uh I think it's going to be a great addition. All right. Well, then let's uh I will entertain the motion.

I'll make a motion. Um, I move staff's recommendation that we find the project exempt from SQUA and that we adopt PC resolution 2025-14 approving the project subject to conditions. I'll second. Let me I'm just giving one sec. I just want to There's so many. Let make sure I want to make sure. I couldn't find. You got it right. So, where did it go? See you said 22514. Yeah. Okay. We have a second. Okay. All in favor? I.

All oppose. Motion carries. 5 approved. Uh you have 14-day appeal per I guess you guess you could appeal if you don't like it. But okay. Thank a neighbor could. Yeah. Anyone else in the room could appeal. We're online. All right. Thank you very much. We're all We're all guys. Appreciate it. Um All right. We're almost there. going to uh uh so other business this is saying we're having a meeting on the first no matter what coran lack of agenda either

yes I think at our last meeting or or may have been communicated to you that we did not have any items on the agenda at that point in time so might be cancelling it that's no longer the case we do have agenda items uh the the three items that you couldn't continued uh on the consent calendar. So you will be having a meeting provided that there is a quorum and uh we're able to meet in this room.

All right. So we have chair vice chair elections. Um uh first of all I'd like to thank the vice chair for an outstanding year in that position. Um, and I I did reach out to some folks um and we had some discussions. I think that's okay and not a Brown Act violation. Don't think right. There's no Brown Act issues with this item, is there? Correct. No, the the way you handled it speaking to individuals without conveying information from one to one, right? It was not serial. So, right. Thank you. Okay. You're welcome.

So, uh, anyways, I guess we will take nominations to elected chair and a vice chair. So, I'm going to start off and nominate, uh, Commissioner, uh, Radnich for chair. Um, and and, uh, because she clearly is the best chair we have here. She acts as the chair, which I like. So, let's just cut to the chase. So, uh, I'm going to put that out there. Um but maybe u but and and and I would like to continue um commissioner or vice chair uh uh Demi as uh vice chair. I'd like to recommend that too if I can recommend both. So

if either of you don't want to do that, please speak up. Well, can I start with something? I just think you've also been a great chair. So I think we should acknowledge that that you've been doing it for two years and u great job. Thank you. Thank you to everybody here. Yes. Thank you. And the people that watch it will also agree. Yeah. All my friends and family, they text me. Oh, no, they don't. Like, comment, subscribe, go. But um So, are you good then with that concept?

Yeah, I'm happy to chair. I know this last year I wasn't um able to chair. I'm happy to do it in the future. And I do think we have a lot of great commissioners on our commission who um could also fill the role. I'm definitely happy to do it though, right? Um that's good news. How about you? Uh I've had a absolute privilege doing it so far. I've learned and you know drink from a fire hose. I am absolutely happy and willing to continue to do so with the conf vote of confidence of my peers.

Great. I will say I will second uh Commissioner Radnich's uh about this commission. I think it's a great group of uh different-minded people which is useful, helpful. Everyone's striving for the betterment of the community. So, I think we're lucky and everyone else is lucky. Um, and I think uh this will be good uh further kind of seeing it. Um, Commissioner Radnich has been around for a little little while like myself and uh so anyways uh do do we need we need a vote on this? Right. I believe please a motion and vote would be okay

a motion to adopt the chair's recommendation now. Well, I could make a motion. I I I make a god, it's been a while. I make a motion that we um uh nominate uh Commissioner Vice Chair Deming to continue on as vice chair Demming for the next year and Commissioner Radnich to uh step up and become the new chair uh for next year. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor? I All oppose. Okay. Motion carries. And that I think's effective next year.

Traditionally we we the yes the first of the year is is the rollover. So is December 1st going to be our last meeting assuming we have quorum? I can check on that. Uh it would be the 15th you would have a a regularly scheduled meeting. So, um, we can look to see if there are any items I just scheduled on that agenda so far. I don't believe there's anything on there yet. Have a holiday get together. So, uh, any commissioners reports? Well, I have a I have a question. Um, is there an ARC meeting coming up?

There surely is. Uh, I believe next Friday is the day after Thanksgiving, so we'll skip that one. Um, I think last Friday we arked all the the applications that have currently come in. So, um, we'll reach out and and ask for a volunteer by email.

No commissioners report, planning director's report. Um the I wanted to advise the the commission and members of the public that on Thursday evening at 6:00 p.m. in this room. Uh we'll the design review commission will have a special hearing, special meeting, um an open house if you will on the the phase two uh objective standards for so design objective standards for multif family and commercial downtown. Um and so there'll be display boards, there'll be um members of the consulting team here along with members of the commission. um presenting and they'll be able to have a dialogue about the next phase um and final phase for the foreseeable future uh for the objective standards um for downtown development

this Thursday. This Thursday. Okay. In this room. Can can I ask a question to staff? I was a little confused about some of the emails because I read them late. I was traveling. So, are planning commissioners able to come to the meeting Thursday or are you only able to come if you have already said yes, you're coming?

No, anyone is welcome to to come. Planning commissioners, public anyone. Um we because it is a they are focused on design. We were not anticipating bringing that uh as an item to the planning commission for discussion, deliberation, recommendation. If you would like it to be put on your agenda, we can do that. Please uh let us know. Um or you can discuss whether you want to and then um indicate to staff. But we were we were process-wise going to following the commission the design review commission's work and recommendation it would go to the council but you are invited to come to the to the workshop on Thursday.

All right. Uh if there's nothing else. Was there any more? Okay. That's all. Thank you. All right. I think we're ajourned. Thank you. Good meeting everyone. Yeah. Finally.