[0:22] That was very loud. Good

[2:32] evening. I'd like to call tonight's meeting to order.

[2:44] Before we do roll call, I have just a small script to read from. As a courtesy, members of the public may participate remotely in this meeting. Please refer to the meeting agenda for information about how to provide public comments either in person here in the room or via teleconference.

[3:01] The agenda has other items if you're listening to how to raise your hand if you're online and I would just advise you to look at that and you'll get the rest of the information.

[3:16] With that, I will have roll call.

[3:21] Commissioner DeGeorgio.

[3:22] Present.

[3:24] Commissioner Mason.

[3:25] Present.

[3:26] Vice Chair Radnitch.

[3:27] Present.

[3:28] And Chair LeBonge, present.

[3:30] Our other two commissioners are excused this evening.

[3:36] All right.

[3:38] Can I have a motion to adopt the agenda for this evening?

[3:43] So moved.

[3:44] Second.

[3:45] All in favor.

[3:46] Aye.

[3:48] All opposed, motion carries.

[3:51] All right, I'll ask staff if we have any public comments for tonight that are not on tonight's agenda.

[3:59] If you would like to make a public comment that is within the purview of the Planning Commission on an item that's not on tonight's agenda, please go ahead and raise your hand now.

[4:10] Seeing none online and no speaker slips in the room.

[4:12] All right. Our consent calendar has two items. Does anyone wish to remove or amend or adjust or question any of the things on the consent calendar?

[4:25] I would like to make a correction on item 5A, the draft meeting minutes.

[4:31] Okay. Go ahead. What do you have?

[4:34] All staff already knows my last name is spelled with the space, so it's DI space gene, they will correct that.

[4:42] All right.

[4:43] Thank you.

[4:44] Anything else?

[4:46] If not, may I have a motion to adopt the consent calendar?

[4:50] So moved.

[4:51] Second.

[4:52] All in favor?

[4:54] Hi.

[4:55] All opposed?

[4:56] Motion carries.

[4:59] All right.

[5:00] Tonight, we have continued public hearing.

[5:03] And I will turn it over to staff to.

[5:10] Good evening, planning commissioners.

[5:13] This is Sonya Azul, Assistant Plan Director with the staff report today, regarding our

[5:17] health and element implementation.

[5:20] Before I go into the details of that, I wanted to make a note that the agenda that was published

[5:28] included information stating that this item would be continued and that recommendation was incorrect

[5:34] actually an action item that we have before you for today, so I wanted to make

[5:39] sure that the record reflected that this is an action item, not a continued item.

[5:45] Okay, once again, is

[5:57] it it?

[6:02] Tonight we are joined by the staff of Lisa Weiss Consulting which provided their

[6:08] expertise in developing some of these recommendations for you.

[6:12] They will be, I will frame up the presentation and then they will go into more detail for us.

[6:18] First, as a reminder, the City Council considered the revised draft housing element in April of 2024 after submission to housing and community development agency, that department, the State Department provided us a letter in July finding that the housing element will comply with state law following completion of the necessary rezoning and reduction of the housing element by the City Council.

[6:43] So we are here with you with that information, that material, for your consideration.

[6:52] The three applications before you are a general plan amendment, GPA 0124, a zoning

[7:00] tax amendment 0224, and a rezoning application 0124.

[7:08] Try to summarize, there's a lot of parts to this action, so I wanted to break it down as

[7:13] That's simply as I could, or five components to the action that we are asking you to consider today.

[7:18] And we're going to be re-adoption of the revised draft housing element as approved by the

[7:25] reviewed and approved by a housing community development staff. Second is the adoption of the

[7:31] Addendum to Certified EIR that was prepared previously. Next is the actual implementation

[7:37] component which is the general plan amendment of the land use element to align with the

[7:42] healthy and element changes that were proposed as part of the implementation plan.

[7:47] Next is zoning text amendments that are necessary in order to allow for the proposed densities.

[7:53] And then finally, the rezoning of the changes of the zoning map that we're proposing.

[7:58] So those five boxes are the ones that we want to review with you today.

[8:04] First, very simply, the revised draft housing element that HCD considered is what we are recommending to adopt again.

[8:13] with absolutely no changes, not only the base document, but also all the appendix A3G.

[8:21] Everything would be brought back to the City Council in the same form that they considered

[8:25] back in April.

[8:26] And that's what we would be proposing to the HCD.

[8:34] For the agenda into the EIR, the EIR was originally certified in January of 2023, yes, 2023.

[8:42] three. Since then, after receiving a few revisions, changes were made to the housing

[8:49] element. These changes impacted faith-based organizations, otherwise referred to as

[8:56] FBOs, FFH actions, and then the silver partial rezoning. So the underlying environmental impact

[9:05] report had to be reconsidered to incorporate those changes.

[9:09] The conclusion was that the revisions to the 2023 housing element would not result in any additional significant impacts.

[9:17] And that's what we are putting before you today that provide that addendum to the EIR.

[9:24] So those places I think those two first two components.

[9:30] This is the implementation component.

[9:34] How will we bring to life the housing element as proposed to HDD?

[9:39] What we did was, now we made five amendments to the General Plan Land Use

[9:45] Elements. Number one, we created three new Land Use Designations, taking

[9:51] base Land Use Designations and then making a version that would allow for

[9:56] sixty-dollar units per acre. That's what you will see in the materials that were

[10:00] provided to you. We changed the table in the General Plan Land Use

[10:06] We added descriptions to the land use designations.

[10:10] We changed maximum densities from 17 to 20,

[10:15] which is one of the programs that was proposed as part of the implementation.

[10:20] And then we included references to what was called out as program 10.3g

[10:28] in the implementation plan that would require minimum density requirements

[10:33] for any of the opportunities sites in the commercial or multi-family zones.

[10:38] So we'll see that's where we referenced it.

[10:41] So any site that was identified as an opportunity site would be subject

[10:44] to these minimum density requirements.

[10:47] And then finally, when we make dinner plan amendments,

[10:52] we change not only the text, but also the land use map.

[10:55] And so we will show you that as well today.

[11:00] This is just a snapshot, but Lisa-wise consultant staff will take us

[11:04] through a detailed review of this.

[11:08] Next is zoning text amendments.

[11:12] In the next hierarchy of planning is,

[11:16] first is the general plan layer,

[11:18] and the next layer is the zoning text.

[11:21] And so what we did there,

[11:23] similarly then to the general plan amendment,

[11:25] is that we took some base zones,

[11:28] and then created four new zoning districts

[11:30] that would allow for the 60-dollions per acre.

[11:34] And you will see just for simplicity

[11:36] that we use the same name as the base zone

[11:40] and then added dash 60.

[11:42] That's why you'll see the new ones.

[11:45] Those can be found in four chapters.

[11:48] In chapter 6-2, 6-5, 6-8, 6-9.

[11:53] And we did prepare a table that was in your rituals as well

[12:00] that tried to lay that out and strike through an underlying.

[12:02] So you can see the changes in where we went to.

[12:05] we do have some visuals to walk you through that so we can review that as well to help illustrate those changes and what they mean.

[12:16] And then the last component is the rezoning. We had to amend the zoning districts so we're not just changing the zoning text in our municipal ordinance but also changing certain parcels to reflect the higher density.

[12:34] So this table that was also in the staff report shows the amount of acres that were impacted

[12:41] by these changes, so going from C to C-60, 15 acres of the 39 were changed and down the

[12:49] rest of them.

[12:55] The last thing I wanted to bring to your attention was one parcel, and specifically, that

[12:59] specifically was not called out as part of the housing element work, but it is a site,

[13:05] two sites that we staff is is a

[13:09] wear-o that is not consistent with the

[13:13] downtown specific plan but we thought

[13:15] this would be a great opportunity to

[13:18] bring that up to conformance and so

[13:21] this is property at 889 and 895

[13:26] Moraga Road for those two sites

[13:30] existing general plan designation is

[13:32] medium density single family and is

[13:34] don't need a P1 and the conflict is with the downtown specific plan in 2012, which called

[13:43] it out as neighborhood 2, sorry got sick on that one. So neighborhood 2 allows for 35

[13:53] dwelling units per acre. And so that's conflicting with the 2002 general plant as a donation.

[14:01] So what we propose is amending the general plan designation for these two sites to multifamily residential high density at 35 doing units per acre to conform with the neighborhood to specific plan designation.

[14:16] Also changing the rezoning that parcel from P1 to multifamily residential, which is also referred to as the MRO district.

[14:27] And so that's what we have for you today, lucky to have staff of Lisa Wise who has taken

[14:34] a long time to help us come proposed these objective development standards that would allow

[14:40] us to achieve the densities that were considered and approved by each city.

[14:45] So I'm going to pass the mic now to Monica and Dave who are going to take us through a detailed

[14:52] description of the proposal.

[14:59] Hello.

[15:00] I'm Dave Bergman, and I'm joined with I'm Monica. This is like from, least-wise consulting, least-wise consulting is a firm that specializes in planning, design, project implementation, and land use economics. We have offices in San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, where the firm has had court in Los Angeles where I'm from. I have been the project manager, director of the firm. I've been a project manager.

[15:30] project manager for over 16 housing elements around the state, including some in neighboring communities to Lafayette, such as Pleasanton and Piedmont.

[15:44] And I've been working closely with Monica.

[15:48] On this project, Monica is our lead on rezoning an objective design standards, and she's recently provided similar services.

[15:58] is in, well, again, Piedmont, also Portola Valley,

[16:02] and is right now providing some of our kind

[16:05] of rezoning to implement housing

[16:08] element requirements in Saratoga as well.

[16:12] So that's a little bit of a background

[16:13] about the firm.

[16:14] Monaco will give you a presentation on our analysis

[16:17] and recommendations for Lafayette.

[16:20] And then we're here to answer any questions

[16:22] you might have based on our firms background

[16:25] and experience throughout the state.

[16:30] Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. I'm really happy to be here. So what I'll do is

[16:36] just, there's a lot of material in your packet, right? There are a lot of links. So I'm

[16:41] going to just walk through the material. It might repeat some of the same notes that

[16:46] we heard from Sonia. But I'll just go through it again and hopefully it'll help lend some

[16:52] clarity to all of this information. So just to start out, generally speaking, we're here

[16:58] to implement the housing element and the bulk of our work is really implementing these

[17:03] four key programs, rezoning to accommodate the Rena number, achieved in the housing

[17:13] element, establishing minimum density, rezoning, faith-based organization sites, and increasing

[17:21] the density in one particular zone.

[17:24] And so, I know we heard about this from Sonia, so I'll just go through it so quickly.

[17:31] The zoning amendments are found in four chapters of the zoning code, and six, two, the amendments,

[17:38] Article five, the amendments basically make sure that the new, that the administrative procedures,

[17:47] The processes for new projects going forward will be compliant with state law, specifically SB 330.

[17:54] So we made minor modifications, really just as light of a touch as we could minor modifications to specify that subjective design review findings that you have apply only to single family duplex projects, and then multi-family projects that don't comply with all the applicable development development development.

[18:16] and design standards, and as we know we have established all of those development standards,

[18:22] the design standards are to come, and then just made it extra clear that multi-family

[18:30] projects are subject to the objective development and design standards.

[18:38] Chapters 6.5 was modified to comply with the state's no-net loss law.

[18:47] Your code currently has a provision that talks about conversion, conversion of residential

[18:52] spaces into non-residential.

[18:53] So we changed that section around so that that's not, that doesn't happen going forward.

[18:59] And then the zones, the MRA and the MRO zones, the multifamily residential district A,

[19:06] and the multifamily residential professional office district MRO saw minor changes, minor

[19:15] amendments to basically do with housing element size.

[19:21] Ensure that the density that is allowed is supported and facilitated.

[19:27] And then in chapter six, nine, all of the downtown zones, minor, just small modifications

[19:35] to an existing C1 zone and then the four new zones, 60 dwelling in it per acre zones

[19:42] that Sonya talked about, new sections for those.

[19:45] And so in your packet of links and all of your materials, one thing is this table that puts

[19:53] it's at all in one spot. Of course, it's just a summary, but so when you look at it

[19:59] just so that you can see what you're looking at. We've got the the MRA and the MRO on

[20:04] the left, and then we've got the four existing downtown zones spliced in with the 60 dwelling

[20:12] unit per acre versions of those downtown zones. And then what we've done is the new zones

[20:21] are the ones with the yellow at the top, those are all new, everything's new.

[20:26] The zones that are gray at the top are basically keeping them exactly the same with just a

[20:32] couple of minor edits that you see in red.

[20:34] So hopefully we've organized it to be as just as clear as possible given the amount of information.

[20:41] And of course this isn't the whole story, you have to go to the code, the amendments to

[20:45] see the whole story, this is just a summary.

[20:46] Okay, so now what I have is just a series of slides that I'll go through quickly that

[20:55] illustrates what's in this table, specifically illustrates how the new standards and the

[21:05] changes to the existing standards are necessary to support and facilitate the densities that

[21:13] that are allowed, and in some cases, on housing element sites, densities that are required.

[21:20] So let's start in the MRA zone.

[21:23] So here are the existing.

[21:25] So before any amendments, here's the summary, of course, it's just still a summary, but

[21:30] a summary of the standards that apply in the MRA zone,

[21:36] and then going forward some minor

[21:39] amendments.

[21:41] First off, we have the 88% minimum density for housing element sites, and what that is is 88% of the maximum density that's in your housing element as one of those programs we looked out on the first slide.

[21:59] We checked out your standards for FAR and lot coverage by modeling typical development

[22:06] configurations, so typical development configurations meaning typical lot on typical lot sizes, assuming

[22:19] typical unit size, looking at parking configurations, and we looked at a number of different typical

[22:27] development scenarios, to see, okay, what do we need to do to make sure that the allowed

[22:34] density is supported and facilitated. We recommend increasing the FAR and the lot coverage.

[22:44] The allowed height is just by right. You don't have to see PC approval.

[22:49] And then the open space goes down a bit.

[22:54] And once we make these changes, these kinds of configurations

[22:59] are workable.

[23:02] In the MRO zone, here are the existing standards you have. Of course, we have

[23:08] our eye on that 35 trillion is per acre and the fact that on some sites, there's a minimum

[23:16] of 88 percent of that. So during the same exercise, the standards are basically okay. We would

[23:23] just change the standard for FAR and then we notice that along two rights of way there

[23:34] was a very deep third story step back. We need to reduce that from 50 to 20 to make sure

[23:43] this density is really supported. Moving on, the RB and SRB are in the downtown area and

[23:51] They're pretty similar, so we grouped them together here.

[23:54] Here are the standards, there's not much to it, but we had to think, but for the, and we're keeping them as is, no changes here.

[24:05] But going forward, we would like to show, to point out how these compare to the, to the 60 dwelling unit and a per acre versions of these zones, right?

[24:15] The RB 60 and the SRB 60.

[24:16] So, RB and SRB stay as is, and we're looking at the 60 dwelling unit per acre and of course the density goes up to 60, and then we've got a minimum density from some housing element sites.

[24:33] We've got to go up to 60 feet.

[24:36] We added 10 feet for residential. It's just for best practice. Your code doesn't have that currently, but it is a good idea.

[24:45] We looked at street facing stepbacks at certain heights, so 10 foot step back at 20 feet in height and another 10 foot step back at 40 feet in height, shown by that red dotted line in the lower left.

[25:06] open space can stay as is and parking as it stays as is so and this is one

[25:11] configuration where we show sort of a double loaded building at the maximum

[25:19] density with podium parking and we meet all the standards and it's it's it's

[25:30] feasible. And if you were to have a mixed use scenario here, you under all of these amendments,

[25:40] if the standards were to be adopted like this with these red amendments, you could get the

[25:47] parking you need, ground floor retail, the density you need. And this is a similar building,

[25:57] except it's, so it's also double loaded but it's got retail and then the two levels of

[26:01] purging.

[26:03] Okay, so moving on to the C zone, here's the existing C zone, 35 doing this for acre, it

[26:08] stays as is.

[26:12] As we know, many C parcels would be rezoned to C 60, so when we do that, we've got 60

[26:21] Next you do leaners per acre,

[26:25] height of course increases, the setbacks decrease of it,

[26:30] and then we'll introduce the street facing stepbacks like in the other zones we just

[26:37] looked at.

[26:41] So here's one scenario,

[26:45] it's a double loaded with podium, all residential, and here's

[26:48] another scenario that meets all these standards and includes some ground floor retail.

[26:59] And the last one is the C1.

[27:02] Here we have a minor recommended change that we talked about a moment ago.

[27:09] And then for the C1, of course the density goes up and the height goes up.

[27:14] Again, we'd like the 10-foot setback for residential and then the step-backs.

[27:24] So there's a scenario that's all residential and here's a scenario that's mixed use.

[27:31] So that's it for the zoning amendments.

[27:35] Sonya also talked about the general plan land use element amendments, pretty minor.

[27:43] We increased the allowed density of the low-density multifamily residential.

[27:48] And we added the three new land use designations that correspond to the four new zones.

[27:56] And then we can take a peek at the maps here.

[27:59] So the zoning map looks not too dissimilar from your 2013 zoning map.

[28:06] But most critically, it includes the 60 dwelling unit per acre areas.

[28:12] We've got a little detail on the right there and then we have a version that sort of highlights the change areas.

[28:19] So these are the parcels, the ones that are highlighted in thick red are the ones that are being re-zoned.

[28:26] So you can see all of the areas, all of those thick outlined areas are just south of 24.

[28:34] they don't meet Mount Diablo Boulevard and then there are a few scattered around that are the FES.

[28:48] And then looking at the General Plan Land Use Map, so here's your current GP Land Use Map.

[28:54] It's got a range of hatches and it's in black and white.

[28:59] We propose this to create a General Plan Land Use Map

[29:04] map that is generally the same template as the zoning map, but it's got some general

[29:10] plan land use, colors and conventions and hatches a little bit different from the zoning

[29:15] map.

[29:18] So, and then here's the same map with the change area parcels highlighted,

[29:30] and I'll

[29:30] turn the presentation back over to Zonia.

[29:33] Yeah,

[29:35] thank you Monica and David, so just to highlight and I don't want to overlook the big change that you're going to see in terms of the objective development standards here is the proposed increased heights of 60, I mean 60 feet as a maximum height for the news on the districts.

[30:00] I know there was a lot of information, but it really took a lot of research and dialogue among staff and our consultants to come up with every proposal. So, I don't want that to get lost in all the work. But we really want to thank Lisa Weiss consulting for all their feedback and consultation and developing these objective development standards. And what the development standards do in terms of the zoning and tax is provide that outline of what

[30:29] But a potential development would look like we will be as part two of this effort is that

[30:36] we will be coming back for design standards and more of the nuanced features of a development

[30:42] but in terms of reporting back to HCD that we've done the appropriate amount of rezoning

[30:47] that we wanted to provide at least high setbacks, that sort of development standard that is objective

[30:54] and easy to, to include in the Zodian information.

[31:01] We are happy to answer any questions.

[31:04] Do you have any for us?

[31:11] Thank you.

[31:13] Can someone show on a figure the two properties that 889 and I think was 895?

[31:21] I will pull it up.

[31:44] Is this one?

[31:47] eight, eight, nine, eight, nine, five.

[31:52] These two here.

[31:58] Okay, and when you clicked on the top, can you click on the top one first?

[32:06] Yes.

[32:06] So the whole thing, what is the black line?

[32:10] I didn't this site come up at one point, but it's a single parcel.

[32:15] Correct. So on screen you're seeing the essentially the intersection of St. Mary's Road and Maraga Road and the properties just to the northwest of that intersection.

[32:26] So the orange is designated as designating, showing the MRO or multifamily residential commercial along the corridor.

[32:37] and then the yellow from their south is single-family residential.

[32:46] So the one parcel which is kind of pinkish, 889 Moraga Road,

[32:52] back in 1993 was re-zoned to P1.

[32:59] So a planned development to allow for the property not to be used

[33:03] as single-family residential, but rather for that residence to be converted to a law office

[33:10] and only operated as a law office, so it didn't allow any other essentially use.

[33:17] And then the property to the north, it actually is orange and then wraps to the west and comes down

[33:26] to the same line. That is a medical office in those three buildings and then in the yellow part

[33:34] of that property is the parking lot associated with the medical buildings. So this was discussed

[33:42] at the General Plan Advisory Committee when we were scouring the city and looking at sites

[33:51] that could have an opportunity for housing, there was significant discussion given to these properties.

[33:59] And the conclusion at the time was to not include them as opportunity sites.

[34:04] That's not to say you couldn't do housing, it's just that we're not demonstrating housing and

[34:09] including them in our inventory submitted to the state.

[34:13] And so if you have the DSP map, that would be helpful.

[34:17] The downtown specific plan in 2012 included the two areas in yellow, the full 889 property

[34:31] and the western portion of 895 as part of neighborhood 2, which the council adopted

[34:41] and the DSP holds that as, designates that as multi-family residential up to 35 dwelling units per acre.

[34:53] So that was in 2012.

[34:56] The city has not updated its zoning accordingly, the zoning map and general plan map, as envisioned by the DSP.

[35:08] So it has been an inconsistency since the DSP was adopted and so we're taking this opportunity to make that correction.

[35:20] Okay, so what is the density that's going to be allowed on those two parcels?

[35:26] 35.

[35:27] The consistent with the remaining area going to the north, 35 doing its breaker.

[35:33] Okay, and then the L-shaped parcel,

[35:41] it won't, so the entirety of that parcel, not just the parking lot or not just the existing medical office buildings, but the entirety will be the same 35.

[35:52] So I'll take you through the exhibit that's on screen starting with the first page, which shows you the existing,

[36:02] I'm pausing, so we go to the first page, there we go.

[36:07] So this is 89 Maraga, this is the current general plan designation.

[36:12] And so all of the pink in this diagram is single family residential, the subject property, and the 889 Moraga in green, the next sheet shows, and the property is outlined in green, the next sheet shows 895 Moraga, which is split zoning, and split general plan designation, so you can see the darker color being a multi-family resident.

[36:42] residential along Maraga Road and office and the Western portion being in the single

[36:49] family.

[36:50] So, those two areas in lighter pink are the next sheet will show the extent of the downtown

[37:02] specific plan, oh, I apologize, this is showing the zoning which is consistent with the general

[37:10] plan above.

[37:10] So the next sheet will show the extent of the downtown specific plan neighborhood 2,

[37:18] and you can see how this area in kind of yellow includes those two parcels in their entirety as

[37:29] is neighborhood 2, up to 35.1 units breaker.

[37:34] So again, what we are covering right now is conforming those two anomalies, which are

[37:45] adjacent to one another, to what the council adopted in 2012, because from the 2002 general

[37:52] plan and the preceding 93 rezoning, those are currently persisting and are inconsistent

[37:59] and with the later directive in the DSP.

[38:04] Thank you.

[38:05] You're welcome.

[38:09] Thank you very much.

[38:10] Thank you for the presentation.

[38:13] One of the things that doubt there's any subject we get more

[38:17] controversial questions on than building height.

[38:22] So could you do me a favor and break what you said down a little farther?

[38:27] In other words, so for a 40 foot building height limit,

[38:32] how that impacts parapetite, penthouses, mechanical screening, and then, similarly, for the setback, if it's a deck, does that include guardrail protections and stuff like that?

[38:48] Because what most of the people care about is what they see, and what they see may not necessarily be allowed or

[38:58] except for or not, except for under the building heights.

[39:02] Thank you.

[39:04] So I'll start and tell me if I'm understanding your question right.

[39:10] But we're, staff is not proposing any changes in the way we measure height, we're not proposing any changes to the exceptions to height, so any occurrences, whatever we have currently is what we're proposing.

[39:27] other than increasing that.

[39:29] Okay, so it's still the code definition of height, because I understand that, you know,

[39:36] Wafia defines height differently than the California building code.

[39:41] And I want to make certain that we're not, something's not being slid in here.

[39:49] Correct, so the definition of zoning which has been in place salient to

[39:56] And applicable to this planning and zoning law in Lafayette for at least three decades is not changing.

[40:06] No proposed to change.

[40:07] And it was intentional when it was adopted to consider the fact that Lafayette has hillsides and

[40:18] And to address potential filling, you know, downhill, retaining walls and potential fill, not starting at a zero line of that fill, but acknowledging the existing grade and using that, as a baseline, if it is lower than the finished grade.

[40:40] Thank you.

[40:41] Thank you.

[40:42] I

[40:47] think that's all the questions we have.

[40:55] Let me just go back.

[40:56] I did have one on the setbacks.

[40:58] This is more just in my head because every housing that we've seen in recent with new

[41:05] housing state law have used concessions and waivers to kind of waive setbacks.

[41:12] So why do we have it there if it's never going to be actually used?

[41:17] Is that, I mean, maybe that is not for this meeting but any thoughts on that because it feels

[41:22] like we're not really ever having setbacks anymore.

[41:26] So an applicant can choose to apply, and this is just not a Lafayette specific state law,

[41:35] can it choose to apply to provide a density bonus?

[41:39] Density bonus, if you provide varying levels of affordable units, varying levels also of senior units,

[41:47] it allows for waivers and concessions.

[41:49] The economics of density bonus can vary between communities largely based on land values,

[42:01] land prices, and rents or sales prices.

[42:07] You don't want to assume in your zoning code a particular economic state right now.

[42:14] You want to have a baseline that makes sense for the community and produces forms that are

[42:19] compatible with community vision schools and objectives.

[42:22] As land values increase or decrease,

[42:25] as the requirements of state law,

[42:27] as we know have the ability to change,

[42:30] and changing every year the state legislature meets.

[42:34] Annually, we've seen new changes.

[42:38] So you want to have in your code a standard,

[42:41] a baseline that is aligned with your general plan,

[42:45] meets community visions,

[42:46] and then understand that, yes, applicants will have the opportunity to ask for waivers and invoke waivers in concessions using different state-density bonus programs.

[42:59] It's just good practice, but yes, we do acknowledge that a whole variety of state initiatives allow for variance with local zoning cuts.

[43:15] Let me do a follow up then.

[43:20] Have you seen in your work any city challenge the viability of a concession or waver based on a standard or some logical metric.

[43:35] So there's two elements here and one just got made a little tougher and then by the by the state in this most recent round of housing housing

[43:46] package.

[43:49] The first is that if there's a public health and safety issue, and that's very

[43:55] high standard, right? There's something dangerous. And you make a finding that it's dangerous.

[44:04] Then they may not be able to have a concession away from that particular issue. The other is originally

[44:14] The way the legislation was written was the applicants had to show that it was necessary for the project to be feasible.

[44:21] And so the city could, or the jurisdiction could request an economic feasibility analysis that shows that that concession or

[44:31] see if you can note here, because then they changed it.

[44:34] That the concession or waiver was necessary for the project to be feasible.

[44:40] Now the sale of slitchers has been cheesed that there is a presumption that it is necessary and it is up to the city to demonstrate to prove that it's not, so they flipped it.

[44:53] Okay.

[44:54] So it just got harder.

[44:55] That's basically impossible.

[44:57] I mean without getting in a lawsuit or setting your-

[45:00] It's a difficult standard. Okay. It's a difficult standard.

[45:09] You want your standards as written to match the density to really correspond to the, the, the massing that's required. The idea being that, well, four projects that apply for density bonus, not for other projects, but just the ones that apply for density bonus. Then in order to achieve that,

[45:29] density, the standards have to be relaxed in some way in one direction or more, so there's

[45:35] a correlation there.

[45:38] And that's why we established the standards to begin with.

[45:41] Okay.

[45:42] All right.

[45:42] Thank you both.

[45:43] Appreciate it.

[45:44] All right.

[45:45] I don't think we have any other questions.

[45:47] So we're done with the report.

[45:49] Okay.

[45:49] Let me just catch up here.

[45:53] We asked any clarifying questions, so we have no more.

[45:58] I guess we'll now open it for public comments, so if we have any public comments.

[46:05] If any person attending would like to make a comment on this item, please fill out a speaker

[46:10] slip in the room and go ahead and hand it forward.

[46:15] You're welcome to actually raising your hand, you're welcome to go to the podium and you have

[46:23] up to three minutes to make your comments and then you can fill out a speaker slip afterwards

[46:27] words in submitted, terrific.

[46:33] Is the button pressed?

[46:37] Greetings, managed Roger Deming,

[46:39] recent resident of Lafayette.

[46:42] So I will ask a series of what are probably

[46:44] somewhat silly questions to some,

[46:45] but I'm just trying to learn as much as I can.

[46:47] I happen to notice, again, as estimated

[46:51] the concern over building height.

[46:52] I was just curious, is any building in Lafayette

[46:55] currently of such height?

[46:57] Just to kind of get a good gauge

[46:59] of what these things, the buildings might end up looking like?

[47:09] Go ahead and answer your question.

[47:11] What do you know?

[47:11] I'll do all of them and then we'll.

[47:13] And then next on it, just why did you get to that height?

[47:17] I apologize, I was looking through the material,

[47:19] I couldn't find it, especially the sort of sidecut view examples

[47:22] you had of like the parking and then above, above, above.

[47:25] And it seemed like the mark for 60 was,

[47:27] noticeably above the top of the building.

[47:28] I don't know if that was accounting for the mechanical

[47:30] impermanences and things like that.

[47:31] Or were you planning on larger buildings going in?

[47:34] So just kind of curious how you arrived at that particular

[47:36] height standard. Why above ground parking and up below? Is that could theoretically, if you

[47:41] dig down for parking, you could decrease the overall building height and maybe leave you

[47:44] some concerns. I'm assuming seismic or very valid reasons. I was just kind of curious why all

[47:49] the examples had those above ground parking. While not I'm out the oblo for the vast majority of the

[47:55] developments, or the change that I should say, I was just curious again at 60 feet at what point

[48:00] are you starting to sort of buttress up against if you're down, if you're in the main core of the town

[48:04] you're looking north, is there be any impact on sort of view of forest hills, etc? I know

[48:10] it's outlined in the general plan as a concern for this. So I was just kind of curious, like,

[48:12] again, trying to picture what these things might look like from out the ablubble of our,

[48:17] the rest of downtown. And then the last one is sort of where it's a personal one. I was curious

[48:23] for the, I believe it was the faith-based change that you were proposing. In particular, one that's

[48:30] North of 24 in the Northeast corner by Oculonis High School.

[48:33] I believe as was pointed out to me earlier, it's just a parking lot right now, and I was

[48:38] just kind of curious what the plan is, like what was pictured that zoning change, what

[48:43] did we think would result from that, kind of curious.

[48:47] Thank you.

[48:48] That's all.

[48:49] I just have a question.

[48:51] Did you attend any of the G-PAC meetings?

[48:53] No.

[48:54] A little later rival.

[48:56] Okay.

[48:57] Okay.

[48:57] I mean, you're asking a lot, and it's kind of going back over years of stuff, so.

[49:04] Commissioner Mason?

[49:06] Let me just touch on a couple of the high points and the city staff can correct me.

[49:13] We have had several projects that were either stalled, not constructed, where they use the density bonus to get the fourth story.

[49:26] One was just pretty much right across the street against the corner and I felt sorry for the people across the creek because they're just looking at a affordable wall.

[49:40] The best place to get an idea of what it looks like is just go over to Walnut Creek, most of the core downtown and stuff across from Target.

[49:50] yet, that's probably around 35 dwelling use breakers.

[49:55] If you go around plus until Bart,

[49:59] that's closer to the six-year aid.

[50:02] And you can see the differences in detailing to get that high density.

[50:10] And yes, it can be block views in pre-Grecconian as far as the building height digging underground.

[50:19] Again, it's a function of land costs and other things, but as I understand that the building height as city defines it is from the lowest level to the top, even if it's underground, but the rest, I'm sure there's somebody else could stop by the city, and they could give you a little bit more.

[50:43] Thank you.

[50:45] Thank you.

[50:46] Thank you.

[50:46] Staff, if you want to.

[50:47] Mr. Deming.

[50:48] I'll quickly respond as I can.

[50:53] Are any existing buildings in town, roughly 60 feet in height, to be able to see what that

[51:01] would look like?

[51:02] I believe the only existing building is the town center phase 3, so it's 1,000 doing avenue,

[51:10] So it is behind pet food express and panda express.

[51:16] You can see that building, it's right adjacent to Barth South Parking lot.

[51:22] Others have been approved, but not built.

[51:25] So that is the one physical example, I believe.

[51:32] Why not parking below the presumption of parking below ground?

[51:36] It's a financial feasibility factor.

[51:40] not that it can't be done, but it is a significant cost increase in the

[51:46] pro forma to accommodate. And then faith-based organizations, there are half

[51:54] a dozen throughout the community, including by Aqualanas High School, in order

[52:00] to meet our mandated regional housing needs allocation. There are any

[52:08] a number of ways to do that, and ultimately, the discussion with the General Plan of

[52:17] Isaac Committee, Planning Commission, City Council arrived at including and rezoning

[52:23] some portion of faith-based organization sites, which was arguably underutilized in the

[52:30] form of parking or other open space.

[52:34] It's consistent with recent changes in state law, which allow for those entities to build residential, I believe the bill is EB4, but I can reference it and get back to you.

[52:51] Thank you.

[52:52] Good question.

[52:55] Any other public comments?

[52:56] No,

[53:01] I'm seeing no other hands raised in the room and no speaker slips submitted now turning to our online attendees and seeing no hands raised.

[53:14] Okay, no, we will now close the public comment, bring it back to the Planning Commission, I don't think they need to respond to anything.

[53:23] So I'll go back to any discussions amongst this body.

[53:28] If not, I would gladly entertain a motion.

[53:34] Where's Gary?

[53:37] I'm happy to speak.

[53:39] For a motion, or did you just want to?

[53:42] Just both.

[53:43] Okay, I didn't see, I'm sorry, I didn't know you wanted.

[53:46] I just want to say clearly a lot of effort went into

[53:51] all of these revisions.

[53:52] So, by both Lisa Weiss consulting and staff, and I think the presentations were excellent.

[54:00] The staff report as well, very concise, so I'm happy to make a motion.

[54:09] I move that we adopt, that we recommend to City Council, the adoption and the revised draft housing element, the addendum to the certified housing element EIR.

[54:22] the general plan amendment to the land use element, text, and map, and the amendments to the zoning text and parcel rezoning.

[54:33] Second.

[54:35] Paul in favor.

[54:36] Hi.

[54:37] I'll oppose motion carries.

[54:41] Is this 15-day pill period?

[54:44] You are making a recommendation, so the appeal would go to the council anyway, so thank you.

[54:51] functionally a moot point but so thank you and also thank you guys I and vice

[54:59] chair thank you for bringing that up you know for somebody just parachute it

[55:02] in it might seem like we just but we've been spending two and a half years on

[55:05] this and you know getting the fine detail on it which you guys did very much

[55:12] appreciated and so I hope it doesn't look like we're just like let's get moving

[55:16] But this is like many late nights coming back, so thank you very much.

[55:23] Appreciate your time.

[55:27] So, having done that, let me go back to the agenda.

[55:32] All right, we are now up to new public hearing, 7A.

[55:39] We have 7A and 7B and I'll just hand it over to staff.

[55:42] Another similar but different, so however you want to present.

[56:33] All right, good evening commissioners.

[56:34] Thank you for that pause while we sort ourselves out.

[56:38] Tonight I am presenting two separate power points on two properties that are adjacent to each other.

[56:43] The proposal is fairly similar for each property, but there are some differences.

[56:47] So, as noted in the two separate staff reports, the goal here is while there's a lot of similarities and a lot of overlap,

[56:54] these two parcels will probably eventually be sold to two different parties and we want to create very crisp records.

[56:59] So apologies for the redundancy, but we just want to make sure everything is very clean

[57:04] and crisp.

[57:05] So tonight, we're looking at 3,500 and 3,600 Phillips Road.

[57:11] We are reviewing a Phase 1 HDP or Hillside Development Permit, as well as in this case for

[57:17] Parcel A, a grading permit, a variance permit, and a treat permit.

[57:22] Just as a reminder, I had a lot of trouble keeping these two parcels straight, so the correspondence

[57:28] here is that parcel A, A, comes first, 3,500, comes first. It's on the right, which is not first in our minds, as we read left right.

[57:37] But all of the permit numbers for this parcel are one lower, or in a few cases a few lower, and so those also come first.

[57:46] So numerically, everything's kind of grouped.

[57:51] So looking first at context for the parcel, the parcels together, you can see both outlined in green here.

[57:58] sit along the top of a ridge that is nearly circumnavigated by the Lafayette Maraga bike trail,

[58:06] which you see kind of curving around on the larger map. This is just south of downtown. You can see

[58:11] the 24 freeway in purple in the smaller map. And there are St. Mary's Road just a little corner

[58:18] on the bottom left of that larger map. The subdivision that divided these two parcels from one

[58:24] 1, parcel into 2, I was the SB 9 1123.

[58:29] This was a ministerial review as required by state law.

[58:33] It was approved in 2023 and created the two parcels you see before you.

[58:38] Parcel A is 20,207 square feet or 0.46 acres.

[58:44] Parcel B is 17,590 square feet or 0.4 acres.

[58:49] As you can also see on this map the entirety of both parcels sits within the class 2 ridge,

[58:57] or excuse me, ridge line setback. This is measured as 250 feet from the actual ridge.

[59:03] In the case of this ridge, the setback applies only to the southern portion. It's a little

[59:11] difficult to see, but along the top of that orange color there is a kind of reddish-orange

[59:16] line that is the setback and in this case the northern portion is actually a class 3 setback

[59:23] which does not have the same development restrictions that class 1 and 2 have and it's usually

[59:29] applied where ridge lines are forested as is the case here. So where they're more open they're

[59:34] often class 1 or class 2 depending on how visible they are and how important their visibility

[59:39] is to the city, whereas a forested ridge has less clarity and visibility and so it's in this

[59:46] case designated class 3.

[59:51] The proposal here, and I should mention both of these parcels are vacant,

[59:54] which is what triggers the two-phase HDP permit, but the proposal for both parcels.

[1:00:00] Is a new single-family residence. The total square footage, gross including the garage would be 4,940 square feet. Only one story is proposed. As you remember, Lafayette measures height differently than just a ridge height. It's about an averaging of the top roof form and the average of the lower grade existing were proposed. And so we have here a maximum height of 18 feet,

[1:00:28] 8, 6, and 21, 30 seconds inches, whereas the top of the ridge is one foot higher at 19

[1:00:36] feet, 6, and 21, 30 seconds.

[1:00:41] The purpose of a phase one HDP permit is to look at the siding and the massing, looking

[1:00:48] at the broad strokes of the proposal here.

[1:00:50] While the applicant did submit some additional details such as landscaping and materials, those

[1:00:55] are typically not reviewed under this phase, and they will be reviewed if this is approved

[1:00:59] when it goes to DRC for phase two. So I've left some of those finer details out of my staff report,

[1:01:06] though some of them are attached for your review, including in the plans. So looking now at

[1:01:10] site again, massing, here is the parcel A site plan. I want to call out the main driveway here.

[1:01:20] You can see that the side on the right, the kind of T intersection, that's the fire truck turn

[1:01:26] around as required. It's obviously straddling the property line. The reason that works is because

[1:01:34] the parcel to the right or east is owned by one of the owners of the two parcels we're

[1:01:40] reviewing tonight. And so an easement has been created and recorded in the title report

[1:01:44] submitted as part of this application. So that is all kind of clear and taken care of.

[1:01:50] So the fire truck turnaround is shown as that upper T and then the driveway continues across the property to parcel B, which is on the left.

[1:02:01] The importance of this is that all of that driveway from all the way on Phillips Road, which is on the far side of the other parcel on the right here, all of that is an access easement.

[1:02:12] And so that means that parcel B has full permission to cross parcel A's property and use the fire truck turnaround if need be all the utilities are placed in that easement, the access easement is of importance because unlike a plain utility easement or other type of easement, we measure setbacks from the back of the access easement to the same as we would measure from a property line.

[1:02:36] So because we have this access easement crossing the property, it changes what the building

[1:02:41] envelope looks like.

[1:02:43] So they're a little bit faint, but the setback lines, as measured from the property

[1:02:48] lines and this access easement, are shown here, let me see if I can get my mouse to show

[1:02:53] up.

[1:02:54] No.

[1:02:55] So if you follow, if you look at the far left side, let's start there, the setback is quite close

[1:03:00] to the property line, that heavy dashed line, just a little bit inside, it's a lighter dashed

[1:03:04] And if you follow that along across the rear, it clips the top corner, if that's a terrace there, it comes parallel to the rear property.

[1:03:13] And then as it comes down on the right or east side, it comes straight down and then it curves around.

[1:03:17] And that's a radius around that access easement corner at the fire truck turn around.

[1:03:23] It continues down, it follows the curve of that T and then crosses a good portion of the front of the building as it goes across the front property line.

[1:03:34] excuse me, the front setback. So again, that front setback is measured from the rear of the

[1:03:39] access easement or driveway there because that's a requirement of Lafayette code.

[1:03:44] I just want to lay that out clearly.

[1:03:48] Now we're talking about parcel A, which again is on the right

[1:03:50] side outlined in green here. The parcel B sits on the left, but those are the two parcels together.

[1:03:57] And then as I mentioned, the two parcels both sit within the class two setback, which if you look

[1:04:05] look at the site section on the bottom, you can see those property lines, there's nowhere

[1:04:10] to go that's downhill and outside of that class 2 setback.

[1:04:16] So there's no way to avoid building or developing in that setback.

[1:04:21] In this case, you can see this is specific to parcel A, there's open hillside on the south

[1:04:28] or left side, and then a wooded hillside, that's the class 3 setback, or class 3, I should

[1:04:34] I should say, on the right or north, going down to Diablo Drive, and there are a number

[1:04:40] of homes at the bottom of the property there that sit along Diablo Drive.

[1:04:48] Looking at some renderings provided by the applicant, this, again, of course, is parcel A.

[1:04:53] This is looking really at their rear yard or set back, so it's at the northeast corner

[1:04:57] looking southwest.

[1:04:59] You can see parcel B in the beyond.

[1:05:02] And then the lower picture is the two head on.

[1:05:07] The large solid mass is the three car garage, that's the garage door.

[1:05:11] And then you're looking first at the living room, which is primarily glass on the left.

[1:05:18] Parcel B on the left has some bedrooms sticking out beyond.

[1:05:22] It's actually a similar footprint on the right, we just have a different angle here.

[1:05:30] Moving on to the floor plan.

[1:05:33] South or front is to the bottom here, and so we can see the single family residence proposed.

[1:05:39] The footprint of the interior home is approximately 4,200 square feet.

[1:05:45] There are four bedrooms, including a master on the right.

[1:05:49] The garage is about 740 square feet.

[1:05:52] It's three cars and attached, giving us a total of 4,940 square feet.

[1:05:58] All of the common rooms are in the front mass at the bottom of the picture.

[1:06:03] Joining the two main massings is a family room which has decks on either side, and then the bedroom wing at the rear or north at the top of this image.

[1:06:13] Each of these three sections has two steps down, so both of the houses step from a higher common area to a lower family room and then to the lowest bedroom wing that's going down to the north into the trees.

[1:06:29] This parcel A does also have a terrace proposed in the upper left corner.

[1:06:34] It's only briefly outlined here, but there is a separate access proposed from the bedroom on the left available there.

[1:06:46] Looking now at grading and drainage, and this is where the two parcels differ quite a bit.

[1:06:51] The proposal for parcel A has 175 cubic yards of cut, 100 cubic yards of fill.

[1:06:58] There is an additional 1,250 cubic yards proposed within the building footprint.

[1:07:05] That number does not count to how we measure the requirements for a grading permit, but

[1:07:11] is obviously grading still taking place.

[1:07:13] So the grading permit has a 50 cubic yard trigger and anything above 200 cubic yards must be reviewed by the design review commission.

[1:07:20] So this would trigger both of those requirements.

[1:07:24] The grading is obviously primarily focused within the building footprint.

[1:07:27] The goal here is sinking the house down into the hillside to reduce visibility, given that it is on a ridge.

[1:07:34] The driveway obviously does need some grading as well, and then there are some paths in the decks, etc.

[1:07:40] Retaining walls are proposed along the south side of the driveway, all the way across the adjoining

[1:07:47] parcel that is not under review. I've included both here. So that right parcel, again owned by one of the

[1:07:54] co-owners of these two properties, and easements have been provided.

[1:07:58] And then, so the entire solid line at the south edge of that driveway, that's a retaining

[1:08:03] wall.

[1:08:04] It continues into parcel A for a little bit, and then stops because it's no longer needed.

[1:08:10] You can see that the existing and proposed to be still there, grading lines below or south

[1:08:17] of the driveway are a little bit steeper there.

[1:08:20] That's why the driveway has been pushed in, so that it's not a very tall retaining wall to kind of drift into that

[1:08:27] Steeper section, so that's why the driveway is pushed in and then again the

[1:08:32] Steeper section along the north kind of curves around the house and again requires some retaining walls to the north side

[1:08:40] So that's where the house is taller. It's on that north side

[1:08:45] This also includes a drainage, so I do want to point out there are two

[1:08:49] flow through planters that are collection points, one of them on the east side of the parcel

[1:08:57] on the right dissipates out to landscaping, the one on the left is actually collected

[1:09:03] by a storm drain which does connect to go to flow off property so that reduces additional

[1:09:10] water release that would go onto the downhill properties.

[1:09:17] I do want to talk about the variance findings.

[1:09:20] There was a variance application for both properties because of the setback intrusions.

[1:09:25] So this property, as I mentioned, has the house sitting inside the front setback by quite

[1:09:31] a bit, and inside the rear setback by a few feet.

[1:09:35] Staff believes that the findings for this variance can be made, and that's primarily due to

[1:09:40] the arrangement of the parcels.

[1:09:42] The only access point that makes sense is from Philips Road, and the only way to get to

[1:09:47] parcel B is to create an access easement that crosses parcel A. So that does seem to

[1:09:52] be a unique setting for the parcel, which does give, you know, by providing the variance

[1:09:59] we're not granting an additional right that other people don't have an enjoyment of the property.

[1:10:05] And that's kind of the main goal of a variance is making sure that it's not something special.

[1:10:10] So, Seth believes those findings can be made for this parcel and primarily due to the placement

[1:10:15] of the access easement, it makes sense to keep it off the southern steeper slope, which

[1:10:20] pushes it quite a bit into the property.

[1:10:22] I will call out that the house itself is well off the 20 feet front setback from the property

[1:10:29] line.

[1:10:29] It's just not compliant with the setback as measured from the back of the access easement.

[1:10:34] And again, the house has been pushed to the north a bit, partly to keep it off the main

[1:10:39] highest point of the ridge, and pushed down into the hillside to try to reduce that visibility.

[1:10:45] But that does push it into that rear setback.

[1:10:52] And so finally, as described in the staff report

[1:10:55] in the resolution, the project does conform with general plan policies and the zoning regulations

[1:11:01] except for the setbacks, which is why the variance is required.

[1:11:06] Also complies with a majority of the residential design guidelines and staff believes findings

[1:11:11] can be made for the long list of findings required for this project, which is a hillside

[1:11:17] development permit, an exception for development within a class 2 setback, an exception for

[1:11:21] development within a 15 degree declination.

[1:11:24] Again, there's no space outside of that in this property.

[1:11:27] Findings for design review, and specifically for residential development over 17 feet in height, for grading of 50 cubic yards or more, and for the variance in the front and rear setbacks.

[1:11:42] Property owners within 300 feet of the two properties were mailed a notice, there were 26 in total.

[1:11:47] Three notices were posted, instead of kind of collecting these all on Phillips or

[1:11:53] Last Trumpist road, we spread them out to where we thought the most affected properties were.

[1:11:57] So one was at, I believe, the corner of Phillips and Last Trumpist, one on Diablo Drive and one on Santa Maria Way,

[1:12:04] which is to the south, where people might have better views of the house.

[1:12:09] At the time of publication, no comments were received.

[1:12:12] Staff has spoken to two neighbors today, both of whom plan to attend and

[1:12:16] I hope make public comment if they're available.

[1:12:18] With that, staff recommends that the commission find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt planning commission resolution 2024-17, improving the project subject to the attached conditions.

[1:12:31] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[1:12:34] Thank you. That was very good, helpful. Any questions? Up here for staff?

[1:12:43] I just had the story polls, are those the edge of the actual house?

[1:12:50] I'll let the applicant speak to those.

[1:12:52] I believe they are the corners of the roof, but I will let them confirm.

[1:12:56] Okay, sounds good.

[1:13:01] The reports mentioned that there was no feedback from PG&E, I think.

[1:13:05] The electrical power poles terminate at a neighbor's house at 32.95, Phillips.

[1:13:15] So is the plan to have the electrical underground and did?

[1:13:19] Okay, that's correct.

[1:13:21] And-

[1:13:21] If I just offer some clarity, the reason we send these referrals out is not because we require that they update their plans, but because on occasion,

[1:13:33] One of our utility reviewing partners will have a concern that does require redesign and

[1:13:40] we want to get that information as soon as possible.

[1:13:42] Typically, the review actually must take place during building permit review, but

[1:13:47] that obviously puts us back a bit if there's suddenly a redesign.

[1:13:50] So it's a courtesy to send it out on the earlier side and

[1:13:53] make sure that all of our reviewing partners have an early say and

[1:13:58] the applicant is fully informed of their requirements.

[1:14:00] Because I was thinking more of visual impact and then that also brought to mind the idea of there's no mention of solar panels, you know, and maybe that's something the applicant wants to talk about it.

[1:14:14] That would affect the height, although I know it's a relatively short, it's not very high.

[1:14:21] But I don't know if there's any concerns about that or that's just being new if there's anything I should think about.

[1:14:30] It's my understanding, and I'm not a building permit practitioner, but it's my understanding

[1:14:35] that all single-family homes at this time are required to have solar panels, so they

[1:14:39] are not shown in the renderings, and there's no discussion of them at this time.

[1:14:43] However, for visibility, the roof, and I apologize for not putting a nice section or elevation

[1:14:50] in, that was a miss on my part, but the roof is a soft butterfly, and so to the north and

[1:14:54] south, the high end of the roof is on the outside of the building, and so any solar panels

[1:14:59] with mostly-

[1:15:00] We'll be visible to someone standing on the section of green roof, which is not somewhere, someone will be. Thank you. All right, great. I guess we'll have the applicant, please. Thank you.

[1:15:18] Definitely do you like me to bring up any images or?

[1:15:23] My on. Thank you. After the Mr. DeBoss comes out the architect, I'm good. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. And I first want to thank staff.

[1:15:35] We've been working, I purchased 3,300 Philips about seven years ago.

[1:15:41] I'm the one that owns the house next to it, so grants the easements, worked on the rest of the land use through it.

[1:15:47] There was in one of my friend's own, the property was gonna build a home on it.

[1:15:51] Unfortunately, some medical things got the way and here I am doing more development in Lafayette from a single family standpoint.

[1:15:58] So first, I love building in Lafayette, we're almost done at Lucas Ranch.

[1:16:02] I'm excited to move on to a few more single family projects.

[1:16:06] I'll start with, I can't really remember anyone doing such a great job as Arlee on a staff report, and

[1:16:13] to work through what she's worked through, her thoroughness, and to really start my speech is quite difficult.

[1:16:20] How good of a job, I think she presented the project as it is, so I'll go back to the land itself.

[1:16:25] It is open, it's very vacant.

[1:16:28] answer your first question, yes, those are the high points after on the story polls, so that will be the height after you cut down in this, as Arley said, you'll cut and then that will be the tall point of the project.

[1:16:40] I met with the two closest, contiguous neighbors to go over that exact issue to just talk about satin massing.

[1:16:46] So as I look at satin and massing from a red line standpoint, my first goal is to build homes that no one can see.

[1:16:53] And the reality is, I've really began to understand what the sophistication of architecture really is.

[1:17:02] It's about actually hiding the actual house itself and then using landscape and

[1:17:05] then using the structure itself so that it disappears from the offside impacts because we all know as we drive home,

[1:17:11] you see all the white houses up on the hillsides.

[1:17:13] You don't see the houses that are flat roof that don't have huge pitch roofs that actually blend into the surrounding.

[1:17:18] So, main goal here was to find someone and I'm going to introduce Charles Davos who we brought, he will be mad at me for saying he was a professor of architecture at Stanford still is and was someone that just inspired me to really do something that was great and I wanted to find a way that we could create the twins of the two buildings next to each other so that they they created their own identity within them but there wasn't an offensive nature to actually live next to your neighbor that has

[1:17:48] the same house, and although they'll be lived in differently, I thought it was a charming way of

[1:17:53] actually hiding the two homes in a way that reduce the sighting and masking, reduce the offside

[1:17:57] impacts. We tried to step the house down the side that has all of the trees so that we wouldn't

[1:18:03] affect any of the neighbors as much as possible. And then to really try to bring the houses into the

[1:18:09] calm of really what that hillside means to me. So, I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

[1:18:14] Two questions, the PG&E will be undergrounded.

[1:18:17] Everything in California, I believe, has to be undergrounded starting in single family from this point forward.

[1:18:23] So that will be underground and for the subdivision.

[1:18:26] And the second question, which is now not coming to me.

[1:18:30] Solar will be included, title 24 requirements, the state of California.

[1:18:34] Pretty much, I don't think it's a requirement of single family, but

[1:18:38] But you can't get compliance with any of the R values, the U values that are the solar, heat gain, co-efficiency, et cetera, unless you're putting solar.

[1:18:45] With that said, I would have done it anyhow, I've done it on every home at Lucas Ranch in my building sustainably.

[1:18:50] With that said, I'll turn it over to Mr. Charles-Dabos, and I appreciate the opportunity again, thank you.

[1:19:03] Good evening.

[1:19:06] Thanks for your time, thanks for listening, and Arlee, I mean, you did my job for me.

[1:19:13] I'm just going to go over some of the attributes of the houses and why we came up with the design.

[1:19:19] Like every project I initiate, I try to look at context as this starting point.

[1:19:25] So the site is so spectacular, we wanted to fit something in there, a house that would be complementary to the site.

[1:19:31] like it's attributes, the oak trees, the views, and not impose anything that isn't discrete

[1:19:38] and minimal, basically.

[1:19:42] In approaching the design, a few things that I fold into all my work is to use as much

[1:19:53] as the natural surrounding is possible and make that part of the design and the house.

[1:19:57] So it's an indoor, outdoor house.

[1:19:59] The massing is really very minimal, like I said,

[1:20:02] and the important thing was to weave landscape

[1:20:06] and architecture into one.

[1:20:08] And so this indoor, outdoor sort of living sort

[1:20:14] of arrangement allows for using some of the spaces

[1:20:18] between the homes as well as part of the program.

[1:20:25] Like Jeff said, we initially looked at this design and the butterfly roofs, and I kept

[1:20:32] it to a one-level massing to try to not impose anything on top of this hill.

[1:20:40] And in homage, obviously, to the side, the neighbors, and creating something very sort

[1:20:47] of, like I said, discrete and minimal.

[1:20:51] When ever you do something minimal, and I try to try to do that in all my work, you create something a bit timeless.

[1:20:58] It's sort of trend-free. And that was the goal here, is to create something so unique, but so simple at the same time that hopefully won't age.

[1:21:07] And hopefully set the bar on our next projects as well in terms of where we're going.

[1:21:13] Like every project also that I assume, and Jeff and Ryan were so receptive to this, which is, you know, I'm very grateful to that.

[1:21:22] I'm an old school architect that believes in passive solar, so natural lighting, natural ventilation.

[1:21:28] So all of that is folded into this house.

[1:21:31] What I tell people is our least expensive and most valuable building material is natural light.

[1:21:37] And so that is folded into the DNA of those two homes.

[1:21:41] So are the materials, the materials are natural and hopefully blend in with the surrounding

[1:21:48] oaks.

[1:21:49] The butterfly roofs, as you saw, sort of taper up on both ends, on the south side it opens

[1:21:56] up the views, on the back side it opens up to the oak grove that we have.

[1:22:01] And I wanted to soak in both of these things on the bedroom side, you know, having a discreet

[1:22:07] with and more private with the Oaks and on the view side having this expansive views as well.

[1:22:18] Basically, you know, I think the main point in this is to create a work of architecture that

[1:22:24] harmonizes well with the site. And I try to do that with all my all my work. And I never start with

[1:22:31] a preconceived design or approach. I look at all the things that are assets and attributes of each

[1:22:38] site, the program, and orientation, and then come up with something very unique to that

[1:22:44] site. And that's what I'm hoping we did over here. So I'm not gonna sort of go over, you know,

[1:22:52] describing this, but the whole idea here is to create something that I think everybody would be

[1:22:57] proud of, neighbors, the city of Lafayette, and obviously create something that sort of defies the

[1:23:04] typical developer, Staco, you know, pitch-true homes that you see everywhere. I think we're

[1:23:11] finally veering away from that. I think people are starting to appreciate minimalism and

[1:23:16] that kind of architecture more that's happened over the past I think 10 years. So I think hopefully

[1:23:23] this will sort of encourage others and ourselves to do more of this in Lafayette.

[1:23:38] If you have

[1:23:38] And we are, you know, we're looking at site massing right now, but it is, I mean, I'm going to speak for myself.

[1:23:45] It's nice to see the detailed fine detail, and that'll come back later through design review, but you've clearly already thought about that.

[1:23:52] So, does anyone up here have any questions for the applicant?

[1:23:56] Mr. Mason?

[1:23:58] Yes, one is, I sound the site Sunday, believe I met your cousin, Jeff?

[1:24:08] Yeah, we walked aside. He was very gracious. One of the little things we appreciate you did is you left the gate halfway open for so many times.

[1:24:17] We can't get out there.

[1:24:20] I grew up in the neighborhood. I had a friend who lived on Phillips. I've known that houses were going to go there sooner or later.

[1:24:29] I appreciate the job you did.

[1:24:32] We walked around the property, yes, it's fairly private.

[1:24:36] I wasn't really too worried about that because you're not going to put a house that has all

[1:24:42] glass if avers can begin.

[1:24:44] I have no trouble making the variance, it's the only way it could be done.

[1:24:50] A little side note is I appreciated that you did advance work and included your geotechnical

[1:24:58] report with the plans.

[1:24:59] I'm a structural engineer, there's a lot of unstable hillsides there, things that require a lot more foundation work than most people would assume.

[1:25:10] So, I very happy with it, I think you did an excellent job, I really like, I always liked the minimalists looking at it.

[1:25:18] Thank you very much.

[1:25:19] Well, thank you.

[1:25:21] I just want to add one more thing if I could, in this house and almost every house that

[1:25:29] I now take on sustainability, not in the trendy kind of way, but in the more existential

[1:25:36] way comes into play.

[1:25:38] So a lot of the choices of materials are meant to be low maintenance and very durable.

[1:25:46] So, and of course, you know, I helped us contribute in our own way, basically, to preventing further pollution on our planet.

[1:26:01] It's something that is very dear to me, and I think to Jeff as well.

[1:26:06] And we're not doing it in a very flashy or way, but we're doing in a very discrete way and folding all of this into the design as well.

[1:26:16] Any questions?

[1:26:19] The only thing, when I went out there, I was struggling to see that the road fit, but I realized that there's a certain amount that's going to be removed for the foundation and the story pole.

[1:26:30] So, I guess what I'm asking is anecdotally, like if I'm out of the story pole as you first walk up, how much farther down is it going to start when it's actually removed?

[1:26:41] just to get it jokingly.

[1:26:43] Yeah, you're shaving about from where the top of that story

[1:26:46] follows. First, human designs the civil engineer on it, so they went and surveyed it and then,

[1:26:51] and then that's where we put the polls up. On the bottom, the first poll that you see on the right

[1:26:56] side on this property, I'd say maybe six or seven feet. So you're cutting about six or seven,

[1:27:01] and then you're flattening, that's all fill too. Someone took that and flipped it on that hillside

[1:27:06] I think kind of created that bold effect.

[1:27:09] So after we remove that fill, you'll probably go down another three feet from there.

[1:27:13] And then for the roadway side, effectively, you have the small retaining wall.

[1:27:19] I think it's three feet or less, I think carries on, and then you're carrying it onto the other side.

[1:27:23] Great, yeah.

[1:27:25] All right, thank you.

[1:27:26] I think we're good with questions.

[1:27:28] Appreciate that.

[1:27:29] Thank you very much.

[1:27:32] All right, we'll open it up for public comment.

[1:27:35] If we have any public comments, take those now.

[1:27:40] It looks like we do have a speaker in the audience.

[1:27:42] Go ahead and approach the podium and then you can turn in your speaker slip after you speak.

[1:27:50] Certainly, that would be fine.

[1:27:54] You're right here.

[1:27:58] Thank you.

[1:28:03] I'll let the speaker introduce himself.

[1:28:06] Am I on now?

[1:28:07] Yes.

[1:28:08] My name is Fred Timler.

[1:28:10] I live at 3250 Phillips Road, here in La Viet.

[1:28:14] And interesting to listen to all this production this evening and I have to admit it looks like a nice project and because I'm on the road providing essentially the access to this property.

[1:28:31] I haven't heard any mention in these discussions this evening about whether the owner even has a proper easement.

[1:28:43] a recorded advertisement to be able to access its property in the bag and looking at my own title report, which is something Ms. Cassidy asked me to do, I can't determine myself.

[1:28:59] There's no exception for those properties in the back because it didn't exist.

[1:29:03] And my wife and I have lived there for 54 years, and I've never signed a deed offering access to the back.

[1:29:13] And one of our joining neighbors is here, and I'm not sure how he feels about the project.

[1:29:20] I don't have a particular problem with the project that I do.

[1:29:24] One third to be proper legitimate access, legal access.

[1:29:31] And one of the things that would probably help that is the developers would be willing to upgrade our Phillips road because it's some kind of tough shape.

[1:29:40] And I don't know why he would want to try to sell homes on our road.

[1:29:46] It's just could definitely use some work.

[1:29:54] And I would like to see as a condition of their approvals that they provide some.

[1:29:59] you

[1:30:01] Means of upgrading the road as exists today. That's my presentation. All right. Thank you, sir. So just a couple things. There might be some questions. I believe it's a private road. It is a private road. Okay. And we'll let the applicant, the applicant will get a chance to kind of respond back to that. So we'll do that. Anyone else have questions for the applicant? Just nice to see you again, Fred. I didn't recognize you. I didn't recognize you at first.

[1:30:30] I've known him while he's lived here 54 years, and I've probably known him 50 of those years.

[1:30:35] I coached your brother in soccer, LMW, he's probably 40 years ago.

[1:30:41] If there's anybody here who's a Cal fan, his office is a Cal shrine.

[1:30:45] That's true, go bears.

[1:30:50] So anything, do you win?

[1:30:53] Well, we'll let the applicant respond to that and hope that I'll let him.

[1:30:58] It doesn't answer to your satisfaction, maybe after the meeting you guys can meet up and talk, I'm sure.

[1:31:02] Well, I think we met up on the ground right the other day.

[1:31:06] And he seemed amenable to my idea of that they really needed to, if they're going to sell those homes, they're going to have to upgrade the Phillips road.

[1:31:16] Yeah, and I seem to agree to that, but I would like to make it a provision of the.

[1:31:21] Well, I'll let staff speak to that.

[1:31:22] I don't think we normally will put that in, but maybe you can help me on staff.

[1:31:26] I mean especially on a private road we put in a condition on that we do not we we have no jurisdiction over private roads and typically

[1:31:38] Well best practice would would be for the residents who are served by the road to have a road maintenance

[1:31:46] agreement an association if need be and

[1:31:50] provisions for

[1:31:51] We're repair of damage, should that occur during construction and just long-term maintenance.

[1:32:03] Okay.

[1:32:04] And I don't know if you already have that with the existing owner.

[1:32:06] We do not.

[1:32:06] Okay.

[1:32:07] It's been an issue.

[1:32:08] Okay.

[1:32:09] Well, then we'll let the applicant answer and then I would appreciate that.

[1:32:11] Okay.

[1:32:11] They appreciate that.

[1:32:12] Thank you for bringing that up, though.

[1:32:15] Well, there's a private road and we're all paying taxes on it.

[1:32:19] We'll help do the best we can to maintain it.

[1:32:23] Thank you.

[1:32:23] We're going to put a bunch of trucks on and heavy equipment, be hauling logs out over it.

[1:32:29] I think you do have some jurisdiction, I don't think, that you can approve this without

[1:32:34] allowing for the fact it felt through and needs to be taken care of.

[1:32:37] Thank you.

[1:32:38] All right.

[1:32:38] And before the applicant, do we have any other public comments?

[1:32:41] We have no additional speakers in the room.

[1:32:45] We do have three raised hands in the virtual attendees.

[1:32:53] The first will be Bob MC and

[1:33:00] you now have been enabled audibly.

[1:33:05] So please take up to three minutes for your comments.

[1:33:08] All right.

[1:33:09] Am I on?

[1:33:11] Yes, you're on.

[1:33:11] Awesome. Thank you. So Bob McLean, Lafayette, I've built some places here in Lafayette myself.

[1:33:18] Out of the gate, I'm not opposed to the project. It looks good. I guess what I am opposed to

[1:33:23] or I'm wondering about is the variance on the A lot because it looks to me that it actually is

[1:33:31] granting special privilege for at least two reasons. Basically, the B lot is a flag lot.

[1:33:39] And, you know, the city of Lafayette is littered with flag lots.

[1:33:45] And so they're saying, well, gosh, we have this driveway going across parts of A that's

[1:33:50] impacting our setbacks, you know, this driveway to a flag lot.

[1:33:54] Therefore, we need an easement where we need a variance, sorry, we need a variance.

[1:34:01] And, you know, I think if you ask Mr. Wolf, hey, does the city of Lafayette, a standard practice

[1:34:07] offer variances to parcels adjacent to flag-life driveways, simply because that

[1:34:13] parcel is adjacent to a flag-life driveway, you'd probably say no. You know, so

[1:34:18] this would be definitely, you know, granting special privilege. Second one,

[1:34:24] second reason is they can reduce the size of the house to a 4,000-square-foot

[1:34:31] footprint problem-solve. You know, over there on Muraga Boulevard, you know, you've got

[1:34:37] a smaller loss with the setbacks you've got. Maybe you've got a 2,000 square foot buildable pad.

[1:34:43] So you do a 2,000 square foot footprint. You know you do the same thing here just because the

[1:34:49] applicant wants to build 4,900 square feet. That's not a reasonable reason for a variance. You know

[1:34:59] you build within your setbacks. If someone over in Morocco Boulevard said well I want to build 3,000

[1:35:03] square feet on my 2,000 square foot space, the city would I think would say no.

[1:35:10] So again simply because the applicant wants to build bigger is not, you know, that's

[1:35:16] not why variances exist and again that would be granting a special privilege.

[1:35:21] The third reason, actually the third one's a comment unfortunately because the camera's

[1:35:26] not on, I can't show it to you.

[1:35:27] But if you look at the site plan parcel A, page 5 of 11 on the staff report, there's

[1:35:36] parcel B. The reason parcel B got variance was denied is because you could slide the house

[1:35:44] over.

[1:35:44] Basically, hey, there's room.

[1:35:47] There's room on parcel A on the, I guess it's the west side.

[1:35:52] There's space for the footprint to be expanded and also on the east side.

[1:35:57] So there's room to build a 4,900 square foot house within the existing setbacks.

[1:36:03] So again, if that's the logic used to say no on B,

[1:36:10] the similar logic applies also to A. That's my time, those are my comments, thank you.

[1:36:17] Thank you, and I think applicant may speak to some of those and then I would ask staff too.

[1:36:24] But do you do you want to wait to the end before we respond to any of these because I think the flag lock question

[1:36:34] I just like to make sure I'm clear on that so I

[1:36:40] don't I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I just want to know if you want to wait till now or or after the

[1:36:46] applicant's spoken to kind of maybe there's anything you would address to that.

[1:36:50] If you'll state your question, I'm happy to respond.

[1:36:55] If the question is, I'm not aware of any blanket policy with respect to variances and flaglots.

[1:37:08] Each application for variance is assessed based on the circumstances of that lot and the state and

[1:37:16] findings that are in our municode.

[1:37:20] Okay. And not just trying to be thorough on this. So if it,

[1:37:30] well, I'm going to let the applicant

[1:37:32] speak and then I might have some more comments on it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker.

[1:37:36] We're going to move on to the next one. The next speaker with the raised hand is Derek Butts.

[1:37:43] Go ahead and take up to three minutes for you're now allowed. Audible.

[1:37:48] Hi there and thank you for having me. I am a neighbor at the end of Philips Road at the corner of

[1:37:57] Los Trampus and Philips and have only recently learned about the project just through the neighbor.

[1:38:02] I have a feeling I'm outside of the radius of the notifications. First, I appreciate the presentation

[1:38:08] of all the materials, the plans, and I have no particular issue one way or the other.

[1:38:15] I, like many, have probably assumed that at some point there would be development.

[1:38:21] Like Fred, as a part owner of Philip's Road, I just wasn't sure about if there was an

[1:38:29] easement that needed to be granted.

[1:38:32] I also like Fred, read my deed and found myself scratching my head at some of it, but didn't

[1:38:37] find exceptions.

[1:38:38] and while I've only been there a dozen years,

[1:38:44] just wanna make sure that whatever process

[1:38:48] that's gone through that, I guess I'll just echo Fred

[1:38:52] that we comply with the letter of how it's documented

[1:38:58] in Jeff and Napkin's happy to get together and meet.

[1:39:04] I just don't know how it's supposed to work

[1:39:07] given it's a private road and there's not necessarily easement granted. So maybe Fred,

[1:39:15] you and I can catch up and connect with the applicant or Jeff or whatever the commission

[1:39:22] recommends. It's more education, doing things properly. I also have, you know, we can see if the road

[1:39:29] can bear the construction trucks, but I defer that to experts. Fred, you have a lot more experience

[1:39:35] with things like that than I do.

[1:39:40] That was it.

[1:39:41] I'm new to the project and more just had questions about how the easement worked through a private

[1:39:46] road and make sure we do things, you know, get things signed the right way.

[1:39:53] Thank you.

[1:39:54] Thank you.

[1:39:54] Sorry, Derek.

[1:39:56] Any questions for this?

[1:39:58] Okay.

[1:39:58] And the only thing I add is, and I think I'm remembering from ones we've done in past years,

[1:40:03] you know, and if I'm out of school, please give me a signal.

[1:40:07] So, private roads and easements are something that I believe the city is going to stay out of and not advise on, it's not a city road.

[1:40:17] Okay, thanks, I appreciate it.

[1:40:19] But, dear earlier point, you know, you have a willing applicant, my understanding, you have a willing applicant and you have someone who's, I'm not going to speak for them, but I just would say if you guys get together, I think that's the best first start.

[1:40:32] So, thank you for that, and I think the applicant will answer some of that when they get up to it.

[1:40:39] I think we have one more.

[1:40:42] Correct, Chair. The third and final speaker is Brian, and you are now enabled for audio comment.

[1:40:50] Hi, can you hear me?

[1:40:52] Could you speak up a little, please?

[1:40:54] Yeah, can you hear me now?

[1:40:56] Yes.

[1:40:57] Okay, hi. Yeah, Dean Farley here.

[1:40:59] I just had a few quick questions. First off, appreciate the presentation. Both

[1:41:04] those houses look beautiful. I am the property directly below these two houses

[1:41:11] being built. I can see the flags up there. I've got a, are the flags that I'm

[1:41:18] looking out at my back window? Is that the height of the house that I'm going to be

[1:41:22] looking at. Once these things are built, I've got that as far as drainage. I know there

[1:41:30] was drainage included in the presentation. It seems like that's taken care of because

[1:41:37] I know erosion and dirt moving around in Lafayette tends to be an issue a lot of the time.

[1:41:45] Will there be a fence built between on our property line, between my property line and the other property line, or will it just remain open?

[1:41:58] And then I guess the last thing is the public hearing notice I got, it says the max ridge height was 16 foot 11 inches and I think during the presentation I heard something about 19 feet.

[1:42:13] I just want to kind of clarify or go back to that and see is it 19 feet or is it 16 feet 11 or

[1:42:23] That's all I got other than that. I just want to see yeah, just basic stuff

[1:42:28] I mean, is there gonna be a fence like what's my privacy gonna look like now if I'm gonna have to somebody staring into my back window now

[1:42:37] and yeah, just

[1:42:39] Yeah, just that's all I got basically

[1:42:43] Thank you, Dean. Any questions?

[1:42:46] Hi, Brian. Would you clarify, are you a resident on a

[1:42:51] Diablo Drive or you on Phillips Road?

[1:42:54] I'm on Diablo Drive.

[1:43:01] All right. Thank you. That's sure if it's Brian or Dean.

[1:43:04] But whoever you are.

[1:43:04] Well, Dean's my, Brian's my first name, Dean's my middle name.

[1:43:08] I go by Dean.

[1:43:09] Okay.

[1:43:10] My parents like to keep things confusing.

[1:43:14] Thank you.

[1:43:14] Thank you, Brian Dean.

[1:43:16] All right, we will bring it back, no more questions,

[1:43:20] any more public comments?

[1:43:22] No further public comments.

[1:43:24] All right, so we'll bring it back to the applicant.

[1:43:26] Please, if you could, I think you know what was asked,

[1:43:29] anything you could shed light on would be greatly appreciated.

[1:43:31] You have up to five minutes for your rebuttal.

[1:43:34] Can I have six?

[1:43:36] But yeah, thank you for all the comments.

[1:43:38] I appreciate all of them and empathize with all of the questions.

[1:43:43] I will happily meet you actually met my cousin who looks a lot like me that lives at 3,300.

[1:43:50] So we haven't met, but it's a pleasure to meet you as well.

[1:43:53] A roadway and access easement was actually created in 1939 between five families on the

[1:43:59] lost trumpet and full of properties.

[1:44:01] So when it was broken up, they basically put a roadway access easement so that all of

[1:44:07] the properties when there are 95 acre properties would work together so that there's split drainage,

[1:44:12] to retainage and other sorts of fees.

[1:44:15] It took me about six hours of my own legal research

[1:44:18] to find that agreement myself.

[1:44:19] I'm happy to circulate it so that the different Phillips

[1:44:22] families have access to it as well.

[1:44:25] Second, the easements are secure.

[1:44:27] I sent to staff earlier today because I got a question

[1:44:29] about it from First American Title.

[1:44:31] On my title report, both the color coded easement map

[1:44:34] as well as my easement rights to access the property.

[1:44:38] During diligence, some of the land use attorney as well.

[1:44:40] I did quite a bit of research on this item because the roadway maintenance agreement on Phyllis Road is one of the more confusing things that I've ever seen in my career as well

[1:44:49] So I'll happily Dean meet with you or any other any other Philips owners to go over the matter

[1:44:55] Third, I think a private roadway maintenance agreement on phyllis is a great idea. I am

[1:45:00] For improvement, I don't want to bear the entire cost, which is typically required of me because the financially it becomes infeasible, but I'm happy to be a party at that table. And I'll be willing to work on my part if not more. The variance versus more offsite impact was, I think it was Mr. McLean was the speaker who was speaking about that. I guess you need to ask yourself, first, the findings are made which are most critical and important.

[1:45:29] I don't see any favoritism to me, Jeff Stone, for requiring the variance.

[1:45:35] The variance was a matter of, do you want to see a two-story building there, or a story

[1:45:39] and a half building there, with the square footage that makes sense for, unfortunately,

[1:45:44] the world works in development where it has to be financially feasible.

[1:45:47] So the square footage, to me, is should I put the actual property in the property

[1:45:51] lines and make it 4,500 or 5,500 square feet and two stories, or can I do a better

[1:45:56] job of trying to limit the off-site impacts from all.

[1:46:01] So the question I ask myself, and I think you should ask yourself, is with the variance,

[1:46:06] would you prefer more off-site impacts from the side that actually has visibility to the site,

[1:46:12] or is granting a variance based off of staff's findings adequate?

[1:46:16] I personally think the staff's findings are adequate, and I think that the thoughtfulness of going

[1:46:20] with a one-story building flat roof butterfly, so that the off-site impacts are minimized

[1:46:26] is adequate.

[1:46:32] I also don't see this as a flag pull lot. I don't get that. You're on a single

[1:46:38] roadway that already goes through, so I just disagree with that logic, but it doesn't matter.

[1:46:43] I think it was Dean Farley was the last. Yes, that is the height of the roof that you're looking

[1:46:49] out at the top of the flags. The idea is to keep it and remain open. I'm happy to meet

[1:46:55] you out there and discuss the fancy ideas to keep it open but I'm always open as a developer

[1:47:00] to put landscape screening if you're worried about particular reviews or privacy. I'm happy

[1:47:05] to meet you on site to review it and to really work together so that any of the impacts that

[1:47:11] are created by the new development minimizes the impacts for your existing home and I don't

[1:47:19] don't want anyone staring in your back window and I don't want anyone staring in their

[1:47:22] back window.

[1:47:23] So there's a mutual benefit to that.

[1:47:25] Side with the with offenses to that is once I sell the properties, obviously can't control

[1:47:31] whether or not someone else in the future builds a fence.

[1:47:35] The only other item is matter of conditions of approval.

[1:47:39] I don't believe you can legally speaking put it on a private roadway maintenance or private

[1:47:45] agreement, but as a matter of reputation which I hope I've always come through with mine,

[1:47:51] I will meet with any and all neighbors and hopefully come to a solution that people feel

[1:47:56] is very fair.

[1:47:57] So, thank you very much for everything.

[1:48:00] Okay.

[1:48:01] Any questions?

[1:48:02] All right.

[1:48:04] Commissioner Mason?

[1:48:08] All right.

[1:48:10] So, we will now close public comment and we'll bring it back to the Planning Commission

[1:48:16] and to discuss.

[1:48:18] Thank you.

[1:48:20] Okay.

[1:48:22] First of all, I don't consider a flag lie.

[1:48:28] I think it's the best way to cite those houses.

[1:48:31] I do sympathize with the issues on Phillips Road.

[1:48:34] It's not in good condition.

[1:48:37] I actually live on the lower half of lost trampus road.

[1:48:41] So, you know what we've been through.

[1:48:44] We have flag loss.

[1:48:45] We have a road that's only 12 feet wide in some places, we just repaved it.

[1:48:50] We had to get without a maintenance agreement, we had to get 23 families who to agree.

[1:48:58] We had at one point somebody wanted the only way they would contribute if we had 22 speed bumps in that narrow little place,

[1:49:07] which of course the Amazon trucks would go over at 35 miles an hour.

[1:49:11] And it's one of the, I think only three private roads in Lafayette that's actually a thoroughfare because we don't dead end.

[1:49:23] But, you know, you want to make sure that it has access for fire and life safety and I'm sure you can talk to anybody who lives on that lower half and they can kind of give you some of the tips of negotiating that I think the houses look nice.

[1:49:40] I think they fit with the neighborhood.

[1:49:45] I think there will be an asset to the neighborhood.

[1:49:48] They're appropriately sized for that contingency.

[1:49:52] I'm glad to see they didn't do a little one of these

[1:49:55] McMansions, which we have plenty of them in law yet.

[1:49:58] So I fully support this project.

[1:50:02] Thank you.

[1:50:03] Any other comments?

[1:50:07] I have a cup of water.

[1:50:08] Please.

[1:50:10] I do appreciate the presentation by the applicant, I appreciate the presentation by staff.

[1:50:16] I wish I would have thought Arleigh to ask you earlier, one thing that's helpful because our charge tonight is massive and inciting.

[1:50:24] So while everything else is beautiful, and I would love to live in one of these homes and own them, that's not what we're looking at tonight.

[1:50:32] So I just want the commission to be mindful and the public of what our charge is tonight.

[1:50:37] It's the massing and sighting. So, Arlee, I wish I would have asked you something that's in staff reports.

[1:50:43] Other times when we're looking at massing and sighting is the square footages of homes surrounding.

[1:50:51] From my best estimate looking on Google Earth, it does seem to me that the massing of these homes,

[1:51:00] the square footages of the homes, I should say the square footages seem similar

[1:51:06] to the surrounding area may be slightly bigger than some of the other homes.

[1:51:14] So in the future, I will ask you ahead of time to maybe pull up some of that information.

[1:51:20] It didn't dawn on me until the presentation tonight.

[1:51:23] For the commission, I, for this property, I do think a variance is to the applicant's point.

[1:51:34] I think a variance is the better of the two options.

[1:51:39] You know, versus not granting a variance, I like the siding of this home.

[1:51:45] And I think siding it into the setback from the rear side of the access makes more sense

[1:51:54] because it minimizes the impacts to the surrounding neighbors, the visual impacts.

[1:52:01] I personally can make the findings for the variance, but in terms of the massing and

[1:52:06] citing, I support the project.

[1:52:13] Do you have anything?

[1:52:17] I hadn't really, I'm going through the findings because I like to check everyone that says

[1:52:22] I can support it.

[1:52:24] And so I'm just trying to, and there were actually none that I couldn't check.

[1:52:30] When a part about the flag lot came up, it just got me thinking a little, but I, in hearing the vice chair, I think I'm of similar

[1:52:39] mind because the setbacks, and when we look at relative sizes of houses, it's typically in a neighborhood where a house would look out of

[1:52:47] character. And to me, the beauty of this one is, it's kind of hidden, so I don't think it's, you know, so having, having the

[1:52:57] I struggle to see how the driveway would fit, but I think now I understand what the cut and the foundation lower, it's going to be tucked up so if anything that's going to diminish the value of the house by having a driveway right next to it, but that's for the developer, that's, you know, that's how that that's how it works, you know, I'm sure if the driveway was 100 yards away would be nicer, but that's not the property.

[1:53:20] So I too can make all the findings, I'm glad it's nice when neighbors come out and I really like when neighbors you know if they haven't met they meet here and then they go away and they become good neighbors and you know we never hear from them again because there's no issue so I'm hoping you know that's going to happen here so I'm satisfied and if anyone wants to make a motion I'm ready to make my vote.

[1:53:46] So if

[1:53:53] I could borrow your, my computer, I'd,

[1:53:57] oh yeah,

[1:54:10] it's here, we're getting there, almost there.

[1:54:13] This is a circle.

[1:54:19] Come on.

[1:54:20] Oh.

[1:54:22] Okay, I move that we adopt PC resolution 2024-17,

[1:54:28] approving the project's subject to conditions.

[1:54:32] I apologize.

[1:54:34] Similar to the item before us, the motion written,

[1:54:38] The recommendation written in the staff report did not include find the project exempt from sequel so if you and find the project exempt from sequel

[1:54:50] Second all in favor

[1:54:54] Opposed none motion carries

[1:55:08] Yes, there's a 14 day appeal period because you're taking final action on the setting and massing

[1:55:16] So there's 14 calendar day period where any party can appeal and file the necessary paperwork and the appeal period starts tomorrow.

[1:55:31] So make sure everyone heard that there is a 14 day appeal period, but this has now been approved.

[1:55:35] So with that, we'll move on to the parcel B.

[1:55:38] Thank you.

[1:55:40] Thank you.

[1:55:41] Back to staff.

[1:55:45] Okay.

[1:55:45] So a lot of the information we already shared is redundant or overlap, so I will focus on

[1:55:51] where this parcel differs from parcel A, but I'll point out that this is HDP 1424, also includes

[1:55:59] a grading permit and tree permit.

[1:56:01] The applicant did apply for a variance for this project as well.

[1:56:05] However, staff is recommending denial of the variance, or simply withdrawal of it.

[1:56:10] And we don't believe that it is necessary and instead suggest a shifting of the house.

[1:56:15] So I will get to that.

[1:56:16] And so that's why it's a variance that's not listed here as we look at parcel B.

[1:56:21] Again, the two parcels are in the class two original setback.

[1:56:26] This parcel B is smaller than parcel A, 17,590 square feet of 0.4 acres.

[1:56:34] The footprint of the home is nearly identical.

[1:56:38] the decks on the outside are the only thing that are different.

[1:56:41] The one-story height of the house, in this case, is a little taller.

[1:56:46] It's 19 6 inches to the maximum height, which again is a little bit taller here for the

[1:56:54] top of the ridge, 20 feet 6 inches, and actually, I apologize, the 21 30 seconds is carryover,

[1:57:01] that's not true.

[1:57:02] So 20 feet 6 inches.

[1:57:04] And again, this is a rendering of parcel B, and this is from the southwest corner looking

[1:57:10] northeast.

[1:57:10] So the living room is there with the garage just beyond.

[1:57:15] Very similar sighting and massing, I'll focus on the key differences.

[1:57:21] The driveway here, not an access easement.

[1:57:24] This land would be controlled solely by parcel B. Partially, I would not have any rights or

[1:57:30] access to it.

[1:57:31] So the driveway is fully under control, and you can see at the top or rear, which is the north side,

[1:57:38] that rear setback does cut into the rear of the bedroom,

[1:57:42] massing at the back there, the decks, again, on either side, and the front facing south onto the drive.

[1:57:52] Looking again, this is the left parcel, so crossing through parcel A, which is on the right.

[1:57:58] The site section is, in fact, a different one, it's just very similar looking.

[1:58:03] So, we have, again, the house on Diablo Drive below onto the right, the wooded hillside

[1:58:09] on the north, and then the open hillside on the south, which is the left.

[1:58:13] And, again, you can see in the site section the small step-downs of the three main masses

[1:58:18] of the house going to the north.

[1:58:22] These are renderings, primarily of parcel B. You can see the corner of parcel A in the right

[1:58:29] right side or the upper right corner of both of these, so it's a different perspective.

[1:58:35] We can see the bedroom massing on the right of the lower image here.

[1:58:43] Again, the floor plan is exactly the same, so no difference in the square footage proposed.

[1:58:49] The main difference here, again, that terrace in the upper left corner is not present, and

[1:58:53] the decks are different shapes.

[1:58:55] There's a larger deck on the right side, which is a little more uphill, but they still have

[1:59:00] the two flow through planters, those are the hollow or white boxes of oblongs at the edges of the decks.

[1:59:10] For grading and drainage, again, this is the main difference here.

[1:59:14] This property has a proposed 700 cubic yards of cut.

[1:59:18] This is because the high point of the hill, if you look at the image, you can see the circles getting larger as they go to the left.

[1:59:25] That high point on the right is the peak of the hillside there.

[1:59:31] And so that's really where the grading is coming from, is pushing that south-east corner

[1:59:36] of the house where the garage is further down into the hill.

[1:59:40] And then, of course, the driveway is also crossing near the high point.

[1:59:44] And so that grading to bring it down is where that's coming from.

[1:59:47] In this case, there's no proposed fill, and there's 250 cubic yards within the building footprint,

[1:59:53] which, again, does not count towards the grading permit itself.

[1:59:58] So the drainage.

[2:00:00] That is similar in that it has two collection points there in different sections. So, the upper left or northwest is dissipated in this case across the landscaping. And then on the southeast that's connected directly from the flow through planter and will go to the storm drain. So not distributed across the site or to other properties. And I'll note to mention earlier,

[2:00:28] where the entirety of the proposed driveway is permeable, not impervious surface, and that's how they're keeping those numbers down.

[2:00:38] So as mentioned before, staff does not believe that the findings for the variance proposed on parcel B can be made.

[2:00:46] And this is primarily due to the differences in the sighting as well as the lack of a necessary access easement.

[2:00:53] So, again, the location of the driveway can be in a different place and the access easement does not change how the front setback sits across the parcel.

[2:01:04] So, I've circled three areas to call out. The two bottom ones on the south are showing the difference in slope south of the driveway.

[2:01:12] As I mentioned earlier, parcel A on the right has quite a steep slope to the south below that driveway in fact even requiring a retaining wall along part of it.

[2:01:20] In contrast, parcel B on the left, you can see no topo lines, no steepness below the driveway to the south, and that indicates to me that there's a much flatter surface there, and it could hold the driveway without requiring any kind of large retaining wall.

[2:01:38] We have, I measured it, it's just, let me think, I think it's just below five feet, seven inches of protrusion into the rear setback.

[2:01:49] where that circle is on the top, and approximately I did not have a measurement, but approximately the same size of unpaved area south of the driveway circled on the left side.

[2:02:02] And so the suggestion here is that the entire footprint of both the driveway and the house be shifted that five feet seven inches to get out of the rear setback and move the entire proposal towards that south property line.

[2:02:17] the front property line has no intrusion, it's only the rear, and there's room there for the house to come into that 20-foot front setback or come towards it without coming into it.

[2:02:28] So the slight redesign and shifting of this layout would allow the property to not require a setback, which, again, staff does not believe the findings can be made in this case due to the lack of that access easement.

[2:02:43] Again, SAF has reviewed the project against the general plan zoning regulations and the residential design guidelines and finds it substantially in compliance.

[2:02:52] Again, the current proposal shows it intruding into the rear setback, however, if it's shifted, no variance would be required.

[2:03:01] Findings can be made for the Hillside Development Permit, the exception for development within a class two-bridge line setback,

[2:03:07] the exception for development within a 15-degree declination, and design review as well as design review over 17 feet in height, and finally the grading permit.

[2:03:20] Again, property owners were contacted and postings were placed and there were no public comments received at time of publication.

[2:03:29] With that, staff recommends that the commission find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt

[2:03:34] a commission resolution in 2024-18, approving the application subject to the attached conditions.

[2:03:41] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:03:46] Thank you.

[2:03:47] Any clarifying questions for staff?

[2:03:50] Vice Chair.

[2:03:52] Thank you.

[2:03:53] The one question I do have is for the, can you please go back to the image with the red boxes

[2:04:00] for shifting. I guess one, have you talked, is the applicant aware of that option? And then two,

[2:04:09] is there any type of preliminary geotech that has been done that would, because we see it just

[2:04:15] cuts off right there. So what's beyond that, so down on the screen, and would it have any impacts

[2:04:24] is that even feasible basically to move the driveway there and to shift the house?

[2:04:30] So, either a question for you or for the applicant when appropriate?

[2:04:35] I can't speak to the feasibility from a geotechnical standpoint.

[2:04:39] I don't know how much of a buffer the analysis is given.

[2:04:45] Typically a geotech report looks at preliminary plans and analyzes the proposal.

[2:04:49] In this case, they suggested a certain kind of foundation type.

[2:04:53] My understanding from looking at it in Google Earth is that the, again, the slope is much

[2:05:00] gentler on that west side.

[2:05:03] It does slope downwards, for sure.

[2:05:06] This steepness is mostly constrained to the right or east side, but there could potentially

[2:05:12] be impacts that would need to be analyzed.

[2:05:14] And if that's something that you're concerned about, you could provide a condition that allows

[2:05:20] for leeway in that case, or maybe it returns if the deotech does not support that recommendation.

[2:05:27] Okay, thanks. And then my other question which also might be for the applicant's team is

[2:05:36] for fire access, excuse me, would there be any issue with the driveway kind of jogging?

[2:05:48] I would want fire to speak to that.

[2:05:51] My understanding is that their requirements are, they have a maximum amount of distance

[2:05:56] that they will back up.

[2:05:58] And so if there was that jog, they would need to look at it, make sure they were okay with

[2:06:04] it.

[2:06:05] It's possible that they would need to smooth the jog that's already present on the south

[2:06:10] end of the driveway, and they need to be some redesign.

[2:06:13] It doesn't jump out to me as something that wouldn't work, but there might be some redesign required.

[2:06:19] Okay, thanks.

[2:06:20] So when we come back, my concern would be that if we, that we leave enough potential,

[2:06:27] but for in whatever our recommendation is in case, let's just say we make staff's recommendations for shifting.

[2:06:37] If those don't actually end up being feasible, that's why I was getting that in my question.

[2:06:43] So I'm going to talk about one to where I get the commission.

[2:06:45] Okay.

[2:06:46] Thanks.

[2:06:47] Mr. Mason?

[2:06:49] Yes.

[2:06:50] To follow up on an earlier comment, in addition to, so to follow up on an earlier

[2:06:58] comment, in addition to neighboring house sizes, we're also sighting messy.

[2:07:04] Used to seeing sight line distances to the nearest neighbors.

[2:07:08] And I think this house here is a good example.

[2:07:12] Back to back house, five feet out of the rear yard setback is a big deal.

[2:07:17] Here it's probably a hundred feet or so to the nearest neighbor in heavy tree cover.

[2:07:24] So I'm not so sure that five feet would make as much of a difference here.

[2:07:34] because the people below aren't going to be able to see the house regardless of, you know, whether it's within the setback or not within the setback.

[2:07:45] And so looking at it like that there, I'm not, I don't have as much concern about that as staff, but you know, a little bit more information would help us make a more informed consent.

[2:08:01] I apologize, this was provided by the applicant and not included in my staff report so that

[2:08:05] was my oversight.

[2:08:06] But it's in the packet, yeah.

[2:08:08] It's in the packet and I did use the linear feet measurements as descriptions of how

[2:08:15] far away neighboring buildings were.

[2:08:18] So that's the one for A. There's probably another one for B.

[2:08:21] Yes, you're right.

[2:08:23] If you don't mind just pulling it up, I think it's helpful.

[2:08:26] No, give me a moment, it's hard to find my mouse when I'm spread across two screens.

[2:09:20] So we've got 232 feet from the southeast corner, downslope to 3295 Phillips road in the bottom right corner.

[2:09:32] That's most likely the most visible line of sight for parcel B, mostly because parcel A

[2:09:41] They blocked the line of sight to 3,300, but as mentioned before, one of the owners of this project owns that property as well.

[2:09:51] And there are some trees that come onto the east side of Parcelay that block it.

[2:09:56] The homes below on Diabla Drive aren't completely blocked, but there is good for a station there, so it would be some peak of views through the trees.

[2:10:08] When standing on the site, I could definitely see down to the properties, but again nicely broken up and blocked by a lot of the trees and the houses to the left.

[2:10:21] Sorry, I forget what that street is.

[2:10:25] Something view circle apologies.

[2:10:28] Those are a little bit actually uphill of the proposed properties or the proceeds and don't have any view windows to them.

[2:10:36] All

[2:10:42] right, so I guess we will hand over to the applicant now if you would like to and I think, you know, given that it's very similar, I would just, unless you want to, let's just focus on this issue, but if you want to talk about anything else, by all means.

[2:10:59] It's nice to meet you guys, I do think I want to at least bring up, I want to read an email because unfortunately it didn't get to the staff prior to 12 o'clock cut off from Dan Fishbein.

[2:11:15] And he owns the property below the property if it moved the five feet.

[2:11:19] I met with him and the property at 32.95, Phillips, Saturday, to just walk the site and

[2:11:28] understand how the house is, because they're the ones most impacted by the side.

[2:11:33] Dear Arlie, thank you for your time on the phone this afternoon.

[2:11:36] As I mentioned, I'm the property owner of 888 Santa Maria Way.

[2:11:40] Lafayette, the vacant parcel located directly to the south of the proposed project.

[2:11:44] I'm very concerned that the two homes being contemplated for construction on the ridge line will be visible for my property below as well as for my neighbor's properties.

[2:11:52] I met with Jeff Stone over the weekend and I urged the planning commission to approve the developer's plans as proposed for tonight's hearings.

[2:11:59] I strongly protest any plan to move the structure five feet closer to my property to the south.

[2:12:04] I'm in the South Bay today, but we'll do my best to be at tonight's hearing.

[2:12:07] If I'm unable to attend, please feel free to call me.

[2:12:10] I won't say his number on the public hearing.

[2:12:14] If you or any other members of the Planning Commission have questions or further input

[2:12:18] of needed kind regards, stand, fish bond.

[2:12:21] I read that, again, we don't need to spend the time going through the application.

[2:12:27] First, I appreciate all the comments.

[2:12:30] The issue for us first fire, there might be an issue there because you have to have 150 feet.

[2:12:37] I think it's 150 feet back up prior to the turnaround, which I located between the other two parcels.

[2:12:43] An offset is can be an issue.

[2:12:46] So I do need to find out from conscious cost of fire protection district whether or not there is a problem.

[2:12:52] The other thing, if you can bring up the site plan, please, Arlee, the reason why I wanted to hold it side is two points.

[2:12:58] First, from 32.95 as well as from Dan Fish Mine's property, which as well as the valley looking back,

[2:13:07] as you know, I built Lucas Ranch, that's really where these properties are visible from,

[2:13:12] and my goal was, is landscape plans were provided, is to provide some landscaping between the property line

[2:13:20] and the roadway to also minimize some of the impact. So to the left side of the driveway,

[2:13:25] way we left it open with a planting plan with some trees, and frankly, I want to, and it's

[2:13:32] only to be seen with a geotechnical to answer the other question.

[2:13:36] Rockridge builders did a full geotechnical evaluation on the property, so I don't think there's

[2:13:42] probably a geotechnical issue of moving it.

[2:13:44] I would obviously have to get into the structural and geotechnical engineering, but by providing

[2:13:49] that sliver of space, it does two things. First, it provides a buffer between the property

[2:13:56] line second. It gives me an opportunity to screen the wall, as well as provide a little

[2:14:01] bit of vertical and vertical from the properties down below. And the reason I would tell you

[2:14:07] that it's important is, from the visual context of looking down to up, a four foot to five

[2:14:12] foot tree looks much larger than it actually is, because you're looking from the context

[2:14:17] of a valley looking up and through, which has a higher ability to disguise some of the

[2:14:22] side in a massing.

[2:14:23] So, I'm, I'm, unfortunately, I don't have my variance findings in front of me now.

[2:14:28] I'm going to reserve that for rebuttal just so I can go through it.

[2:14:31] I appreciate staff's comments.

[2:14:34] I understand at the end of the day if it is a matter of shifting the home five feet and

[2:14:40] figuring out how to make that work while also addressing Dan Fishvine's concerns.

[2:14:46] concerns. I think there's always ways to try to make something work. I think the plan

[2:14:52] works as drawn. It has gone to Contra Costa Fire Protection District already. They did

[2:14:57] approve the turnaround as drawn.

[2:15:00] I still have to provide development applications, et cetera, but I would caution the more that I do push it to that area. It limits my ability to take the hardscape and turn it back into vertical landscape, which from a standpoint of planning commission, speaking to citing a massing, citing a massing is also about disguising and disguising is completed through vertical landscaping, which I think we could complete as drawn. If we keep pushing that roadway over

[2:15:29] My root structure as well as my ability to mitigate any of the offside impacts from below in that valley are mitigated

[2:15:36] So thank you for for your questions or for my presentation. Happy to answer your questions. All

[2:15:44] right. Thank you

[2:15:47] Now we'll open it for public comment. We have any

[2:15:51] Here online

[2:15:55] Seeing no commenters in the room. So now turning to our attendees

[2:16:01] He's online and if you'll see no hands raised in the online audience.

[2:16:13] All right, we will now close the item for public comment.

[2:16:17] Bring it back to the planning commission to deliberate.

[2:16:22] Are you sure?

[2:16:23] I actually prefer the house cited the way it is.

[2:16:29] It's out the back and extra 3% setback isn't going to mention amount to much for the downhill neighbors.

[2:16:43] The only person that are going to be impacted by the view or the people across the front, across the driveway, and anything we can do to

[2:16:53] to shade that with landscaping, trees shrubs, I think, would benefit that especially since most of the tight, it's covered with oaks.

[2:17:08] Oaks grow very slowly, so any slow growth tree isn't going to grow very fast.

[2:17:13] And I think that would give it a better project.

[2:17:19] I also was worried about the kink in the driveway with the fire.

[2:17:26] So I am fine with the way it is if the Russes members feel it, you know, it should be shifted.

[2:17:33] I'd support that also, but I prefer the way it is.

[2:17:38] Thank you.

[2:17:41] I just wanted to say I appreciated the details and the designs that were shown to us.

[2:17:49] I had noticed that the driveway ended right in line with the entrance and I was curious

[2:17:55] about why it was designed that way.

[2:17:57] It's not me part of what our purview is, and I understand from your comments that it's because

[2:18:03] you're placing trees and bushes in the front and I think that's really great in terms

[2:18:07] of hiding the front of the house from the potential neighbors to the south.

[2:18:13] So I appreciate your comments,

[2:18:18] Vice Chair.

[2:18:21] So again, I think we need to be able to make the findings for a variance.

[2:18:25] So I think that's something that the Planning Commission should maybe just talk through

[2:18:31] quickly, not that we have to go finding by finding, but just something for us to keep in mind.

[2:18:39] because I do agree with Commissioner Mason that I don't have a problem with where it is currently being proposed to be cited, but I think we should be mindful of what the findings are that we need to make if we want to run through those quickly.

[2:18:56] Yeah, yeah, I think it's in the findings, I was looking at those right now and it's section 3A, the very first one.

[2:19:05] Develop is consistent with the application, applicable goals and policies of the general plan, and it's in form, and is in conformance with applicable zoning regulation.

[2:19:15] And I want to reiterate that I like how it is, but I also want it to see what we prescribe.

[2:19:24] And parcel A, when we reviewed it, and understood that an access easement didn't require that, it answered that question, so it fit what we prescribed.

[2:19:35] So we said, okay, here it doesn't, so there are other ways to do it, the house could be designed differently.

[2:19:41] I mean, you could keep the square footage, and I'm not suggesting any of this, but there are many ways to skin this.

[2:19:46] And the one thing I would like to see sitting up here is that it conforms with what's required.

[2:19:52] and it doesn't as shown right now.

[2:19:55] So that's kind of where I am on it.

[2:19:56] So I'll share that with you guys.

[2:19:58] But please, anyone else?

[2:20:00] I mean, you said, but specifically to the,

[2:20:03] yeah, first of all, let me say for,

[2:20:06] I did go through the geotechnical port

[2:20:08] as part and parcel of what I do.

[2:20:10] There's no geotechnical reason why you couldn't

[2:20:15] shift the driveway.

[2:20:18] I live just down the hill from that.

[2:20:20] the soil is lousy there, but it's on the ridge, it's going to have the 24 inch diameter

[2:20:30] caselines drilled into bedrock, you know, it's not going anywhere.

[2:20:37] I did look at the same

[2:20:39] conditions it's you know I have no trouble with it because rules and reg I seem to be dealt

[2:20:51] with the worst case scenario if you were to say that hey you know there's houses of the concern

[2:20:57] of 242 feet away and you know we have to follow the rules and make sure it's 247 feet away you know

[2:21:05] The end result, it's not going to matter that much.

[2:21:09] The only ones that are close are the front downhill, but that's more from parcel A and parcel B.

[2:21:19] So, I have no trouble going against granting the variance, I guess that, but

[2:21:33] But that's just my personal feelings.

[2:21:37] We do get concerned with views looking down,

[2:21:42] Lord, I think you use the term once Lord of the Manor House.

[2:21:46] And this isn't one of them.

[2:21:49] So anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter.

[2:21:53] Just for me, I think I would like us to keep in mind, too,

[2:21:56] the thought of special privileges, because I don't want to be accused and

[2:22:01] no one is, but we heard from an earlier caller who may or may not so be on, you know.

[2:22:07] So I want to be able, whatever we decide, that if someone later says, well, you did it

[2:22:11] there, why can't you do it here?

[2:22:14] And because there are other alternatives here, it's not, sometimes we end up doing it because

[2:22:19] there are no other alternatives and it's not, you know, you have to allow someone to have

[2:22:23] economic viability to develop a lot.

[2:22:26] I'm not trying to persuade, I just want to make sure we can all sit here and say if we go

[2:22:30] that way that no, it's not that, and with the next time someone asks us, so just make sure

[2:22:35] we're all prepared to answer that because that's what we're here for, so I'll be quiet, but other

[2:22:44] people, please.

[2:22:48] I think I do understand what everyone in the commission is saying.

[2:22:55] I do think though that shifting the location of the house towards the south,

[2:23:01] to reduce the impact, or to reduce the portion of the house that would be in the rear setback.

[2:23:13] I think it creates an impact to a neighbor that's at a greater impact than where it's currently being proposed.

[2:23:29] That's what I'm struggling with.

[2:23:31] Okay, and I don't disagree, but devil's advocate, there are other ways to solve this.

[2:23:36] You don't have to shift the road, you just don't build over that line.

[2:23:41] Now, there's reasons why you want to do that.

[2:23:44] You have two designs that, you know, it's much easier, I do CDs.

[2:23:48] I'm not exactly positive, but I think they're almost identical, so you could do one set of CDs.

[2:23:53] You save money.

[2:23:54] But that's a special privilege, you know?

[2:23:58] That's potentially.

[2:23:59] There are other ways to say, there are other ways to do this without adjusting the driveway

[2:24:06] south. Just don't build over that line. Design it, definitely. Stay within the boundary.

[2:24:13] So while I agree with what you're saying, it could satisfy that and still stay within the line.

[2:24:20] So one last thing, then, all set up.

[2:24:26] I also think, well, since the ADU state passed the ADU ordinance, to me, it seems a little bit hypocritical when we're arguing about five feet into the setback when they can put an ADU four feet from the rear property line, just administratively and nobody's going to do anything.

[2:24:45] So, they're not, the states are not taking our setbacks seriously and, you know, walking

[2:24:55] up there, the only one that is the neighborhood I was concerned with was one is the original

[2:24:59] property owner, but, you know, hey, they're the ones here, and the downhill neighbor.

[2:25:07] But you know, it's, we have our own opinions on it.

[2:25:12] I don't think it makes that big of a difference one way or the other.

[2:25:17] I think you can still do it either way, and I guess that whatever the council decides,

[2:25:26] I'd like to get as much planning to protect the downhill neighborhood as possible.

[2:25:34] So this is going to be planning commission and then DRC for the, for the follow on.

[2:25:42] So, when you met the Planning Commission, when you were saying that, or did you mean City Council?

[2:25:47] What, meaning what, when you said I'll let the Council decide?

[2:25:50] No, I met Planning Commission.

[2:25:51] Okay, gotcha, gotcha.

[2:25:52] I mean, yeah, I mean, we could vote on it, and I do understand that, and I'm not generally a stickler on little arbitrary things,

[2:26:04] but I just don't, because there are other ways to do this without, without moving the house, there are other ways to solve this, and your idea about an ADU is an interesting one, but that's increasing to the housing supply.

[2:26:20] So that has a net benefit, I wouldn't say this is increasing the housing supply by button house, but you could also put a house and still stay with the boundary.

[2:26:30] So, that's where I am.

[2:26:33] So, I've said it.

[2:26:35] Everyone's spoken.

[2:26:36] If you want to speak, speak otherwise.

[2:26:37] Let's make a motion and we'll go see what's your spot.

[2:26:44] Well, can, would staff.

[2:26:46] So, can staff please pull up the recommendation for tonight on the screen?

[2:26:58] It's to adopt the resolution and find the project exam from Sequa.

[2:27:02] But I just want to be clear on what we are.

[2:27:10] So the resolution as attached to the staff report does not include any findings for a variance.

[2:27:19] And so no variance would be approved if this resolution were approved.

[2:27:23] If the commission wanted to approve a variance, we would need to continue the item and I could return with a modified resolution that included the findings for the variance.

[2:27:37] that could be simply placed on the consent calendar if the commission felt ready to approve that.

[2:27:44] Does that mean without the variance, if we approved it as written as recommended,

[2:27:48] then the massing, even though it goes over the line, how would that practically work?

[2:27:54] Then it's citing and massing, so the sighting's showing it going over the line, but they don't have a variance.

[2:28:00] So I would suggest if the goal is to approve the resolution as attached with no variance that an additional condition be added requiring that the phase two plans reflect that and I actually, I have to double check, I believe it's actually there.

[2:28:16] In that way, the time between now and the middle of the HTTP phase two, which goes to

[2:28:26] DRC, would be time for the applicant to confirm that it works.

[2:28:31] Now if it doesn't work, we could modify the condition to say that it can come back.

[2:28:37] There's other ways to handle it.

[2:28:40] It could be a modified phase one, something like that.

[2:28:46] Or if you wanted to, you could continue it to a date uncertain and just allow the applicant

[2:28:54] to research if this is possible from a fire and geotechnical standpoint.

[2:29:06] Well, let's just do a straw poll.

[2:29:08] Well, this is the question of either commissioners or staff.

[2:29:13] The, on the, on this portion of the driveway, it's much wider than right in front of the law A.

[2:29:23] And so is that, you know, conceivably you could just shrink, you could move the house over and

[2:29:30] just shrink the driveway, isn't that correct?

[2:29:33] I don't have the exact measurements for turnaround, but that is what it appears to.

[2:29:38] If, if parcel A can back out as a kind of three point turn and be facing to the right and exit,

[2:29:44] then it seems that the same amount of space would be necessary to do the same movement on part of the.

[2:29:50] That's good point.

[2:29:51] Well, one of my concerns was, you're now to make a transition since the-

[2:30:00] As defined, everything with a property line over on parcel B is a driveway. If there needs to be a transition, we are now transitioning on parcel A. Now push into the retaining wall and then downhill slope because you're not going to be able to go like this. You're going to have to have some sort of. That's if we have a job. That's if you have a job. Correct. But if to what?

[2:30:26] but Councilman George was saying just basically make it the same with all the way through, I think that's what you're saying.

[2:30:34] That's the same question.

[2:30:40] I don't necessarily, oh because you don't think that's long enough?

[2:30:44] Well, it would go through A, and then the...

[2:30:49] I don't think this made the street cut off that.

[2:30:50] See how it jogs down?

[2:30:52] The red box on the lower left?

[2:30:53] That just went straight across?

[2:30:54] No, but the idea would be, I heard that as you would keep that shift the house down towards it and out of the, because we're looking at the setback up on the top, but we also don't know what those footages are and if, like, I don't know how to say it, but how far, I guess, the staff, how far currently is the rear, which is the north?

[2:31:24] into the setback. Five feet seven inches. Five feet seven inches.

[2:31:28] I'm rounding slightly but it's pretty close to that.

[2:31:30] Okay. So do we even know that five feet seven inches can be

[2:31:38] accommodated to the on within the driveway jog to even get it out

[2:31:45] because if we're denying a variance it's in my mind you're if you're

[2:31:51] If you're denying it at five feet seven inches or seven inches, you're still needing a variant, like if you're in the setback, you're in the setback.

[2:32:00] So I don't know, is it appropriate?

[2:32:02] I know we've closed the back and forth with the applicant, is it appropriate to get clarification from the applicant at this point if that's even an option, like if there's enough room to shift the house south.

[2:32:20] 5 feet, 7 inches?

[2:32:24] In just looking at the diagram that's on screen, there is more than 5 foot, 7 inches

[2:32:32] between the south face of building and the setback line, so it could certainly be shifted.

[2:32:38] If the question is, could the driveway be narrowed, I think we've seen affirmative head nod

[2:32:49] not from the developer indicating, yes, that could be narrowed, a shift of 5 feet, I don't

[2:32:58] believe would be problematic for the fire district apparatus to accommodate, provided that

[2:33:06] the radii is gentle enough, which seems perfectly feasible here.

[2:33:13] The stricter adherence is on the eastern parcel and with respect to the hammerhead to turn around.

[2:33:25] So I'm not seeing anything that would make it infeasible to shift or design around through another modification.

[2:33:43] Okay. That makes sense. I can add, I did just learn from the applicant that they are hoping for an approval tonight if at all possible, as opposed to a continuance.

[2:33:53] Okay. For me, that's helpful hearing staff's explanation. I'm happy to make.

[2:34:03] I guess what I can, what I will throw out there is, with the understanding that, yes,

[2:34:11] Yes, the applicant cited the house where they did, that was their original preference.

[2:34:17] But it sounds like the applicant can or is willing is open to shifting the house

[2:34:25] generally towards the south, to move it out of the rear setback.

[2:34:33] I then would be happy to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation and

[2:34:40] and find the project exempt from CEQA as well.

[2:34:46] With no variance.

[2:34:47] Correct, because staff's recommendation

[2:34:50] does not include approval of our variance.

[2:34:54] And then the project would also be subject to conditions.

[2:34:58] Basically I can make staff's recommendation

[2:35:00] and I'm happy to make a motion if we want to.

[2:35:03] I would love to hear that motion.

[2:35:05] So we'll die, go ahead, Anna.

[2:35:07] Okay, I recommend that we adopt PC resolution 2024-18,

[2:35:13] approving the project's subject to conditions and finding the project exempt from CEQA.

[2:35:19] Second.

[2:35:20] All in favor?

[2:35:21] Aye.

[2:35:22] All opposed?

[2:35:24] None.

[2:35:26] So 14-day appeal period, right?

[2:35:29] Same thing.

[2:35:30] Correct.

[2:35:30] Motion approved with a 14-day appeal period.

[2:35:33] Thank you all for being here, President.

[2:35:37] With that, we will move on to our next item,

[2:35:43] which is other business.

[2:35:50] Can I ask a question?

[2:35:51] I think it's other business, or maybe it's afterwards, I'll do it afterwards, I don't

[2:35:56] want to.

[2:35:57] Commissioners report?

[2:36:00] Anything?

[2:36:01] Commissioners report?

[2:36:02] None.

[2:36:02] Planning directors report?

[2:36:05] I'm happy to report that last Monday night on the 25th, the Council appointed a 7th Planning Commissioner.

[2:36:17] Because of the Thanksgiving holiday, we were not able to have that commissioner sworn in and take the oath of office and do orientation, but

[2:36:30] that you did hear from that individual tonight.

[2:36:34] He was in attendance and did offer some public comments.

[2:36:38] So Roger Deming will be joining you for your next planning commission meeting, which

[2:36:44] will mitigate the possibility of not having a quorum.

[2:36:49] So we do have seven chairs, but only six name plates.

[2:36:54] It will be cozy.

[2:36:55] It'll be back to your full seven.

[2:36:57] So we should be okay.

[2:37:00] So happy to report that and nothing further.

[2:37:04] All righty, with that, we are.

[2:37:08] So when is our next regularly scheduled planning commission?

[2:37:13] What day, we're on the second?

[2:37:14] It would be the 16th.

[2:37:16] Yeah, I was off on my way, so I was trying to figure out

[2:37:19] which week it was, so yeah, the 16th, okay.

[2:37:23] Correct. So, the 16th would be your next regularly scheduled meeting and we have no items currently scheduled for that tentative items.

[2:37:37] So, the likelihood that items will appear in the next few days is low. So, the likelihood is that we will not need to have be meeting on the 60th.

[2:37:52] All right, we're adjourned.

[2:37:56] Thank you.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript