Page 1 of 4 City of Lafayette Staff Report Design Review Commission Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 Staff: Jonathan Fox, Assistant Planner Subject: DR12-18CC Alan Guy (Owner/Applicant), R-40 Zoning: Request for a Change of Conditions to the approved application: DR12-18 for the construction of a new 5,083 sq. ft. one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24'-10" on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road, APN: 244-180-056. Change of Conditions is for increases in floor area, architectural modifications, color/material selection, and rear yard improvements. SUMMARY On September 21, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 2.4-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40,000 sq. ft. lot to 35,560 sq. ft., located at 3654 Happy Valley Road. The subject property is designated as Parcel A o the 2 reconfigured lots. On November 26, 2018 after two public hearings the Design Review Commission approved DR12-18 for the construction of a single-story single-family residence at the subject property. The minutes and staff reports from the October 9, 2018 and November 26, 2018 meetings are attached. The new property owner is returning to the Design Review Commission with a Change of Conditions application for revisions to the previously approved application. Staff finds the revisions are consistent with the Commission’s 2018 approval and that the same findings can be made. Staff recommends the Commission review the project, conduct a public hearing, and adopt Resolution 2020-12 approving the Change of Conditions. LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS Location: 3654 Happy Valley Road (APN 244-180-056) General Plan: Low Density Single-Family Residential (up to two dwelling units/acre) Zoning: Single-Family Residential District-40 (R-40) Existing Use: Vacant – Approved Single-Family Residence Lot Size: 1.01-acres (43,996 sq. ft.)
54
Embed
C ity of Lafayette Staff Report Design Review Commission
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1 of 4
City of Lafayette Staff Report Design Review Commission
Meeting Date Wednesday October 28 2020
Staff Jonathan Fox Assistant Planner
Subject DR12-18CC Alan Guy (OwnerApplicant) R-40 Zoning Request for a Change of Conditions to the approved application DR12-18 for the construction of a new 5083 sq ft one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24-10 on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 Change of Conditions is for increases in floor area architectural modifications colormaterial selection and rear yard improvements
SUMMARY
On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000 sq ft lot to 35560 sq ft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subject property is designated as Parcel A o the 2 reconfigured lots On November 26 2018 after two public hearings the Design Review Commission approved DR12-18 for the construction of a single-story single-family residence at the subject property The minutes and staff reports from the October 9 2018 and November 26 2018 meetings are attached The new property owner is returning to the Design Review Commission with a Change of Conditions application for revisions to the previously approved application Staff finds the revisions are consistent with the Commissionrsquos 2018 approval and that the same findings can be made Staff recommends the Commission review the project conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2020-12 approving the Change of Conditions LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS
Location 3654 Happy Valley Road (APN 244-180-056)
General Plan Low Density Single-Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Existing Use Vacant ndash Approved Single-Family Residence
Lot Size 101-acres (43996 sq ft)
Page 2 of 4
TRIGGERS FOR REVIEW
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sqft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Land Use Permit required STAFF ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS General Plan and Zoning Code Consistency The General Plan land use designation for the property is Low Density Single Family Residential which allows up to two dwelling units per acre The proposed single-family dwelling on this 101 acre lot is consistent with this designation The project continues to comply with the development standards of the Single-Family Residential District-40 (R-40) The projectrsquos consistency with these standards is outlined in the following table R-40 Development Standards 2018 Approval Current Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo 24rsquo-10rdquo Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo 70rsquo-25rdquo Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo 57rsquo-35rdquo Parking min two spaces two spaces Two spaces Design Changes DR12-18 Approved Color and Materials DR12-18CC Proposed Color and Materials Horizontal Wood Siding ndash Benjamin Moore ldquoGrenadier Pondrdquo
Vertical Wood Siding ndash Benjamin Moore ldquoWhite Doverdquo
Trim - Benjamin Moore ldquoWhite Heronrdquo No Trim Composite Roof Shingles - Charcoal Composite Roof Shingles ndash Charcoal amp Black Standing Seam
Metal Roof
Page 3 of 4
Figure 1 DR12-18 Approved Color and Materials
Figure 2 DR12-18CC Proposed Color and Materials
Architectural Modifications
bull Removal of white railings at front porch bull Removal of bay windows at front (west) and rear elevations bull Conversion of sliding door at right (south) elevation to single door bull Removal of window shutters at front (west) and right (south) elevations bull Addition of approximately 400 sq ft in floor area to accommodate additional bedroom and
expansion to master bedroom Landscaping and Rear Yard Improvements
bull Retention of Tree 488 Black Walnut (Approved for Removal under DR12-18) bull Addition of four Arbutus Marina eight Western Redbud and three Toyon bull Expansion of gravel walkway at northern property line to connect to pervious driveway bull Removal of solid 6-foot fence at western (rear) property line
Vehicular Circulation ndash No Change Grading and Drainage ndash No Change View and Privacy Preservation - No Change
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT All property owners within 300 feet of the subject property (26 in total) were mailed a notice of public hearing No comments have been received for inclusion in this report All comments received by noon on Wednesday October 28th will be emailed to the Commission for review ahead of the public hearing and posted to the Cityrsquos website ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal is to construct a new single-family residence in an area that is currently zoned for residential use and is adequately served by public services STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Design Review Commission review the proposed project conduct a public hearing and adopt DRC Resolution 2020-12 finding the project exempt from CEQA and approving the project subject to conditions ATTACHMENTS 1 DRC Resolution 2020-12 approving DR12-18CC [DRAFT]
a Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval [DRAFT] 2 Maps amp Aerial Photos 3 DRC Resolution 2018-22 approving DR12-18
a Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval 4 Excerpt Minutes of DRC meeting October 9 2020 5 Staff Report of DRC meeting October 9 2020 6 Excerpt Minutes of DRC meeting November 26 2020 7 Staff Report of DRC meeting November 26 2020 8 Referral Agency Comments 9 DR12-18 Public Comment (2018) 10 DR12-18 Approved Plans 11 DR12-18CC Project Plans dated October 14 2020 12 Color and Material Board received October 21 2020
RESOLUTION 2020-12
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18CC Alan Guy (OwnerApplicant) R-40 Zoning Request for a Change of Conditions to the approved application DR12-18 for the construction of a new 5083 sq ft one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24-10 on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 Change of Conditions is for increases in floor area architectural modifications colormaterial selection and rear yard improvements
WHEREAS on October 14 2020 Alan Guy filed an application requesting a Change of Conditions to the previous application DR12-18 for the construction of a single-family residence on an undeveloped parcel at APN 244-180-056 WHEREAS on October 16 2020 the application was deemed complete WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of small Structures
WHEREAS on October 16 2020 a notice for the October 28 2020 meeting date for this item was posted within 300 feet of the Project Site and mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the Project Site
WHEREAS on October 28 2020 the Design Review Commission conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a written staff report and approved the revised project subject to conditions NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1 The Design Review Commission hereby finds that the recitals set forth above are true and corrected and are incorporated herein
2 All the facts contained in the staff report of October 28 2020 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by reference
3 The required findings to grant a Design Review Permit have been evaluated by the Design Review Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings In granting approval for projects which occur in single-family and multiple-family residential zoning districts as outlined in Section 6-271(A)(1 and 3-6) the hearing authority shall make all the following findings
a) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 2 of 4
anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
b) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography
orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
c) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the
design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be appropriate within this non-hillside property located in a valley of Lafayette
d) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and
coverage of plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height In addition to the findings required in Section 6-275(A) the hearing authority shall make the following findings for projects which occur in single-family residential zoning districts and exceeds 17 feet in height as outlined in Section 6-272(A)(4)
a) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
b) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 3 of 4
deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
c) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
d) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal
bull Involves the development of one single-family residence on a vacant lot in a residential zone
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves DR12-
18CC for a Design Review Permit 6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of October 2020 by the following vote to wit AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT APPROVED ________________________ Glenn Cass Vice Chair
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST ________________________ Greg Wolff Planning and Building Services Director ATTACHMENT(S) Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2020-12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18CC Guy
Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
bull Site plans elevations amp details received October 14 2020 bull Colors amp Materials Board received on October 24 2020
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 28 2020 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 28 2021 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Page 2 of 4
TRIGGERS FOR REVIEW
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sqft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Land Use Permit required STAFF ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS General Plan and Zoning Code Consistency The General Plan land use designation for the property is Low Density Single Family Residential which allows up to two dwelling units per acre The proposed single-family dwelling on this 101 acre lot is consistent with this designation The project continues to comply with the development standards of the Single-Family Residential District-40 (R-40) The projectrsquos consistency with these standards is outlined in the following table R-40 Development Standards 2018 Approval Current Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo 24rsquo-10rdquo Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo 70rsquo-25rdquo Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo 57rsquo-35rdquo Parking min two spaces two spaces Two spaces Design Changes DR12-18 Approved Color and Materials DR12-18CC Proposed Color and Materials Horizontal Wood Siding ndash Benjamin Moore ldquoGrenadier Pondrdquo
Vertical Wood Siding ndash Benjamin Moore ldquoWhite Doverdquo
Trim - Benjamin Moore ldquoWhite Heronrdquo No Trim Composite Roof Shingles - Charcoal Composite Roof Shingles ndash Charcoal amp Black Standing Seam
Metal Roof
Page 3 of 4
Figure 1 DR12-18 Approved Color and Materials
Figure 2 DR12-18CC Proposed Color and Materials
Architectural Modifications
bull Removal of white railings at front porch bull Removal of bay windows at front (west) and rear elevations bull Conversion of sliding door at right (south) elevation to single door bull Removal of window shutters at front (west) and right (south) elevations bull Addition of approximately 400 sq ft in floor area to accommodate additional bedroom and
expansion to master bedroom Landscaping and Rear Yard Improvements
bull Retention of Tree 488 Black Walnut (Approved for Removal under DR12-18) bull Addition of four Arbutus Marina eight Western Redbud and three Toyon bull Expansion of gravel walkway at northern property line to connect to pervious driveway bull Removal of solid 6-foot fence at western (rear) property line
Vehicular Circulation ndash No Change Grading and Drainage ndash No Change View and Privacy Preservation - No Change
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT All property owners within 300 feet of the subject property (26 in total) were mailed a notice of public hearing No comments have been received for inclusion in this report All comments received by noon on Wednesday October 28th will be emailed to the Commission for review ahead of the public hearing and posted to the Cityrsquos website ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal is to construct a new single-family residence in an area that is currently zoned for residential use and is adequately served by public services STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Design Review Commission review the proposed project conduct a public hearing and adopt DRC Resolution 2020-12 finding the project exempt from CEQA and approving the project subject to conditions ATTACHMENTS 1 DRC Resolution 2020-12 approving DR12-18CC [DRAFT]
a Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval [DRAFT] 2 Maps amp Aerial Photos 3 DRC Resolution 2018-22 approving DR12-18
a Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval 4 Excerpt Minutes of DRC meeting October 9 2020 5 Staff Report of DRC meeting October 9 2020 6 Excerpt Minutes of DRC meeting November 26 2020 7 Staff Report of DRC meeting November 26 2020 8 Referral Agency Comments 9 DR12-18 Public Comment (2018) 10 DR12-18 Approved Plans 11 DR12-18CC Project Plans dated October 14 2020 12 Color and Material Board received October 21 2020
RESOLUTION 2020-12
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18CC Alan Guy (OwnerApplicant) R-40 Zoning Request for a Change of Conditions to the approved application DR12-18 for the construction of a new 5083 sq ft one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24-10 on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 Change of Conditions is for increases in floor area architectural modifications colormaterial selection and rear yard improvements
WHEREAS on October 14 2020 Alan Guy filed an application requesting a Change of Conditions to the previous application DR12-18 for the construction of a single-family residence on an undeveloped parcel at APN 244-180-056 WHEREAS on October 16 2020 the application was deemed complete WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of small Structures
WHEREAS on October 16 2020 a notice for the October 28 2020 meeting date for this item was posted within 300 feet of the Project Site and mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the Project Site
WHEREAS on October 28 2020 the Design Review Commission conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a written staff report and approved the revised project subject to conditions NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1 The Design Review Commission hereby finds that the recitals set forth above are true and corrected and are incorporated herein
2 All the facts contained in the staff report of October 28 2020 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by reference
3 The required findings to grant a Design Review Permit have been evaluated by the Design Review Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings In granting approval for projects which occur in single-family and multiple-family residential zoning districts as outlined in Section 6-271(A)(1 and 3-6) the hearing authority shall make all the following findings
a) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 2 of 4
anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
b) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography
orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
c) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the
design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be appropriate within this non-hillside property located in a valley of Lafayette
d) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and
coverage of plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height In addition to the findings required in Section 6-275(A) the hearing authority shall make the following findings for projects which occur in single-family residential zoning districts and exceeds 17 feet in height as outlined in Section 6-272(A)(4)
a) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
b) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 3 of 4
deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
c) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
d) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal
bull Involves the development of one single-family residence on a vacant lot in a residential zone
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves DR12-
18CC for a Design Review Permit 6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of October 2020 by the following vote to wit AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT APPROVED ________________________ Glenn Cass Vice Chair
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST ________________________ Greg Wolff Planning and Building Services Director ATTACHMENT(S) Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2020-12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18CC Guy
Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
bull Site plans elevations amp details received October 14 2020 bull Colors amp Materials Board received on October 24 2020
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 28 2020 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 28 2021 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Page 3 of 4
Figure 1 DR12-18 Approved Color and Materials
Figure 2 DR12-18CC Proposed Color and Materials
Architectural Modifications
bull Removal of white railings at front porch bull Removal of bay windows at front (west) and rear elevations bull Conversion of sliding door at right (south) elevation to single door bull Removal of window shutters at front (west) and right (south) elevations bull Addition of approximately 400 sq ft in floor area to accommodate additional bedroom and
expansion to master bedroom Landscaping and Rear Yard Improvements
bull Retention of Tree 488 Black Walnut (Approved for Removal under DR12-18) bull Addition of four Arbutus Marina eight Western Redbud and three Toyon bull Expansion of gravel walkway at northern property line to connect to pervious driveway bull Removal of solid 6-foot fence at western (rear) property line
Vehicular Circulation ndash No Change Grading and Drainage ndash No Change View and Privacy Preservation - No Change
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT All property owners within 300 feet of the subject property (26 in total) were mailed a notice of public hearing No comments have been received for inclusion in this report All comments received by noon on Wednesday October 28th will be emailed to the Commission for review ahead of the public hearing and posted to the Cityrsquos website ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal is to construct a new single-family residence in an area that is currently zoned for residential use and is adequately served by public services STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Design Review Commission review the proposed project conduct a public hearing and adopt DRC Resolution 2020-12 finding the project exempt from CEQA and approving the project subject to conditions ATTACHMENTS 1 DRC Resolution 2020-12 approving DR12-18CC [DRAFT]
a Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval [DRAFT] 2 Maps amp Aerial Photos 3 DRC Resolution 2018-22 approving DR12-18
a Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval 4 Excerpt Minutes of DRC meeting October 9 2020 5 Staff Report of DRC meeting October 9 2020 6 Excerpt Minutes of DRC meeting November 26 2020 7 Staff Report of DRC meeting November 26 2020 8 Referral Agency Comments 9 DR12-18 Public Comment (2018) 10 DR12-18 Approved Plans 11 DR12-18CC Project Plans dated October 14 2020 12 Color and Material Board received October 21 2020
RESOLUTION 2020-12
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18CC Alan Guy (OwnerApplicant) R-40 Zoning Request for a Change of Conditions to the approved application DR12-18 for the construction of a new 5083 sq ft one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24-10 on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 Change of Conditions is for increases in floor area architectural modifications colormaterial selection and rear yard improvements
WHEREAS on October 14 2020 Alan Guy filed an application requesting a Change of Conditions to the previous application DR12-18 for the construction of a single-family residence on an undeveloped parcel at APN 244-180-056 WHEREAS on October 16 2020 the application was deemed complete WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of small Structures
WHEREAS on October 16 2020 a notice for the October 28 2020 meeting date for this item was posted within 300 feet of the Project Site and mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the Project Site
WHEREAS on October 28 2020 the Design Review Commission conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a written staff report and approved the revised project subject to conditions NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1 The Design Review Commission hereby finds that the recitals set forth above are true and corrected and are incorporated herein
2 All the facts contained in the staff report of October 28 2020 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by reference
3 The required findings to grant a Design Review Permit have been evaluated by the Design Review Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings In granting approval for projects which occur in single-family and multiple-family residential zoning districts as outlined in Section 6-271(A)(1 and 3-6) the hearing authority shall make all the following findings
a) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 2 of 4
anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
b) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography
orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
c) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the
design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be appropriate within this non-hillside property located in a valley of Lafayette
d) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and
coverage of plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height In addition to the findings required in Section 6-275(A) the hearing authority shall make the following findings for projects which occur in single-family residential zoning districts and exceeds 17 feet in height as outlined in Section 6-272(A)(4)
a) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
b) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 3 of 4
deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
c) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
d) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal
bull Involves the development of one single-family residence on a vacant lot in a residential zone
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves DR12-
18CC for a Design Review Permit 6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of October 2020 by the following vote to wit AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT APPROVED ________________________ Glenn Cass Vice Chair
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST ________________________ Greg Wolff Planning and Building Services Director ATTACHMENT(S) Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2020-12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18CC Guy
Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
bull Site plans elevations amp details received October 14 2020 bull Colors amp Materials Board received on October 24 2020
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 28 2020 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 28 2021 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT All property owners within 300 feet of the subject property (26 in total) were mailed a notice of public hearing No comments have been received for inclusion in this report All comments received by noon on Wednesday October 28th will be emailed to the Commission for review ahead of the public hearing and posted to the Cityrsquos website ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal is to construct a new single-family residence in an area that is currently zoned for residential use and is adequately served by public services STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Design Review Commission review the proposed project conduct a public hearing and adopt DRC Resolution 2020-12 finding the project exempt from CEQA and approving the project subject to conditions ATTACHMENTS 1 DRC Resolution 2020-12 approving DR12-18CC [DRAFT]
a Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval [DRAFT] 2 Maps amp Aerial Photos 3 DRC Resolution 2018-22 approving DR12-18
a Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval 4 Excerpt Minutes of DRC meeting October 9 2020 5 Staff Report of DRC meeting October 9 2020 6 Excerpt Minutes of DRC meeting November 26 2020 7 Staff Report of DRC meeting November 26 2020 8 Referral Agency Comments 9 DR12-18 Public Comment (2018) 10 DR12-18 Approved Plans 11 DR12-18CC Project Plans dated October 14 2020 12 Color and Material Board received October 21 2020
RESOLUTION 2020-12
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18CC Alan Guy (OwnerApplicant) R-40 Zoning Request for a Change of Conditions to the approved application DR12-18 for the construction of a new 5083 sq ft one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24-10 on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 Change of Conditions is for increases in floor area architectural modifications colormaterial selection and rear yard improvements
WHEREAS on October 14 2020 Alan Guy filed an application requesting a Change of Conditions to the previous application DR12-18 for the construction of a single-family residence on an undeveloped parcel at APN 244-180-056 WHEREAS on October 16 2020 the application was deemed complete WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of small Structures
WHEREAS on October 16 2020 a notice for the October 28 2020 meeting date for this item was posted within 300 feet of the Project Site and mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the Project Site
WHEREAS on October 28 2020 the Design Review Commission conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a written staff report and approved the revised project subject to conditions NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1 The Design Review Commission hereby finds that the recitals set forth above are true and corrected and are incorporated herein
2 All the facts contained in the staff report of October 28 2020 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by reference
3 The required findings to grant a Design Review Permit have been evaluated by the Design Review Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings In granting approval for projects which occur in single-family and multiple-family residential zoning districts as outlined in Section 6-271(A)(1 and 3-6) the hearing authority shall make all the following findings
a) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 2 of 4
anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
b) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography
orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
c) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the
design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be appropriate within this non-hillside property located in a valley of Lafayette
d) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and
coverage of plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height In addition to the findings required in Section 6-275(A) the hearing authority shall make the following findings for projects which occur in single-family residential zoning districts and exceeds 17 feet in height as outlined in Section 6-272(A)(4)
a) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
b) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 3 of 4
deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
c) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
d) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal
bull Involves the development of one single-family residence on a vacant lot in a residential zone
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves DR12-
18CC for a Design Review Permit 6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of October 2020 by the following vote to wit AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT APPROVED ________________________ Glenn Cass Vice Chair
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST ________________________ Greg Wolff Planning and Building Services Director ATTACHMENT(S) Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2020-12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18CC Guy
Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
bull Site plans elevations amp details received October 14 2020 bull Colors amp Materials Board received on October 24 2020
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 28 2020 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 28 2021 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
RESOLUTION 2020-12
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18CC Alan Guy (OwnerApplicant) R-40 Zoning Request for a Change of Conditions to the approved application DR12-18 for the construction of a new 5083 sq ft one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24-10 on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 Change of Conditions is for increases in floor area architectural modifications colormaterial selection and rear yard improvements
WHEREAS on October 14 2020 Alan Guy filed an application requesting a Change of Conditions to the previous application DR12-18 for the construction of a single-family residence on an undeveloped parcel at APN 244-180-056 WHEREAS on October 16 2020 the application was deemed complete WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of small Structures
WHEREAS on October 16 2020 a notice for the October 28 2020 meeting date for this item was posted within 300 feet of the Project Site and mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the Project Site
WHEREAS on October 28 2020 the Design Review Commission conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a written staff report and approved the revised project subject to conditions NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1 The Design Review Commission hereby finds that the recitals set forth above are true and corrected and are incorporated herein
2 All the facts contained in the staff report of October 28 2020 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by reference
3 The required findings to grant a Design Review Permit have been evaluated by the Design Review Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings In granting approval for projects which occur in single-family and multiple-family residential zoning districts as outlined in Section 6-271(A)(1 and 3-6) the hearing authority shall make all the following findings
a) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 2 of 4
anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
b) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography
orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
c) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the
design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be appropriate within this non-hillside property located in a valley of Lafayette
d) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and
coverage of plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height In addition to the findings required in Section 6-275(A) the hearing authority shall make the following findings for projects which occur in single-family residential zoning districts and exceeds 17 feet in height as outlined in Section 6-272(A)(4)
a) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
b) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 3 of 4
deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
c) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
d) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal
bull Involves the development of one single-family residence on a vacant lot in a residential zone
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves DR12-
18CC for a Design Review Permit 6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of October 2020 by the following vote to wit AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT APPROVED ________________________ Glenn Cass Vice Chair
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST ________________________ Greg Wolff Planning and Building Services Director ATTACHMENT(S) Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2020-12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18CC Guy
Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
bull Site plans elevations amp details received October 14 2020 bull Colors amp Materials Board received on October 24 2020
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 28 2020 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 28 2021 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 2 of 4
anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
b) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography
orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
c) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the
design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be appropriate within this non-hillside property located in a valley of Lafayette
d) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and
coverage of plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height In addition to the findings required in Section 6-275(A) the hearing authority shall make the following findings for projects which occur in single-family residential zoning districts and exceeds 17 feet in height as outlined in Section 6-272(A)(4)
a) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
b) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 3 of 4
deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
c) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
d) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal
bull Involves the development of one single-family residence on a vacant lot in a residential zone
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves DR12-
18CC for a Design Review Permit 6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of October 2020 by the following vote to wit AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT APPROVED ________________________ Glenn Cass Vice Chair
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST ________________________ Greg Wolff Planning and Building Services Director ATTACHMENT(S) Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2020-12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18CC Guy
Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
bull Site plans elevations amp details received October 14 2020 bull Colors amp Materials Board received on October 24 2020
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 28 2020 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 28 2021 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 3 of 4
deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
c) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
d) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because the proposal
bull Involves the development of one single-family residence on a vacant lot in a residential zone
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves DR12-
18CC for a Design Review Permit 6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of October 2020 by the following vote to wit AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT APPROVED ________________________ Glenn Cass Vice Chair
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST ________________________ Greg Wolff Planning and Building Services Director ATTACHMENT(S) Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2020-12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18CC Guy
Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
bull Site plans elevations amp details received October 14 2020 bull Colors amp Materials Board received on October 24 2020
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 28 2020 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 28 2021 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Design Review Commission DR12-18CC Guy Resolution 2020-12 October 28 2020
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST ________________________ Greg Wolff Planning and Building Services Director ATTACHMENT(S) Exhibit ldquoArdquo ndash Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2020-12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18CC Guy
Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
bull Site plans elevations amp details received October 14 2020 bull Colors amp Materials Board received on October 24 2020
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 28 2020 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 28 2021 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2020-12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18CC Guy
Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
bull Site plans elevations amp details received October 14 2020 bull Colors amp Materials Board received on October 24 2020
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 28 2020 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 28 2021 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
16 The applicant shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
17 The applicant shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
18 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
19 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18CC Page 4 of 4
20 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
21 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
22 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
23 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied DATE
STAFF -
- end -
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
copy 2012-2017 Digital Map Products All rights reserved 1
184 feet
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
DR12-18 Fire Comments
DR12-18 CCSD Comments
DR12-18 Engineering Comments
11 DR12-18CC Applicant Narrative
12 DR12-18 Public Comments
DR12-18_Brian amp Lori Doyle_2018930
DR12-18_Steven F Kubitschek_2018930
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Commission Resolution No 2018-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a
new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
TP20-18 Matthew Pease R-40 Zoning Request for a Category II Tree Permit to remove three protected trees (an English Walnut measuring 29 dbh Deodar Cedar 24 dbh and a London Plane 6 dbh) on a
vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
RECITALS
WHEREAS on July 5 2018 the applicant submitted a request for a Design Review to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056 and
WHEREAS on July 26 2018 the application was deemed incomplete and
WHEREAS staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
WHEREAS on September 12 2018 the application was deemed complete and
WHEREAS on October 9 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the
public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission provided feedback to the applicant and continued the matter to November 13 2018 in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project
WHEREAS November 13 2018 the matter was continued to November 26 2018 due to the
length of the November 13 agenda WHEREAS on October 17 2018 the applicant and the City of Lafayette mutually agreed to extend
the time to consider the subject application by 90-days from November 11 2018 to February 9 2018 pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act
WHEREAS on November 26 2018 the Design Review Commission following notification to the public in the prescribed manner conducted a public hearing where it received written and oral testimony including a staff report After consideration and deliberation the Commission adopted Resolution No 2018-22 approving application DR12-18 based on the required findings and subject to conditions of approval NOW THEREFORE the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California finds and determines as follows
1 All the facts contained in the staff report of November 13 2018 and October 9 2018 are hereby adopted as the Commissionrsquos own findings of fact and incorporated into this resolution by
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 2 of 4
reference
2 This project is categorically exempt under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures - Section 15303 as the project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zone property
3 The required findings including the findings required for design review general findings for
structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal have been evaluated by the Commission as follows
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
(1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health safety and general welfare in that the project is designed to comply with the development standards applicable to the project site including but not limited to height setbacks and permitted use The project was referred to referral agencies who have not expressed any concerns regarding the proposal The project provides appropriate ingress and egress and is not anticipated to adversely impact the health welfare and safety of the neighborhood and broader community
(2) General site considerations including site layout open space and topography orientation and location of buildings vehicular access circulation and parking setbacks height walls fences public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development in that the project provides appropriate setbacks allowing the project to maintain privacy of the existing neighbors while providing sufficient private open space for its residents The project provides sufficient driveway access to the proposed garage and fire-truck turn-around area for safety purposes The proposed driveway has been submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department where the department had no objections to the proposed driveway configuration The project meets the required height setback and other development standards of the underlying zoning district and is consistent with the general plan
(3) General architectural considerations including the character scale and quality of the design the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings building materials colors screening of exterior appurtenances exterior lighting and signing and similar elements have been incorporated in order to ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings in that the project design contains a one-story pitched roof thatrsquos designed with farmhouse architectural design Staff finds the proposed color profile to be consistent with the natural features of the land the green toned colors contribute to reducing visibility and blending the development into the existing natural environment of the site and the existing and proposed vegetation
(4) General landscape considerations including the location type size color texture and coverage of
plant materials provisions for irrigation maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public in that the project provides a landscape plan that demonstrates the screening of the proposed residence with screening trees and drought tolerant plants providing privacy and visual relief to the subject property The project is conditioned to require tree protection fencing around existing trees to remain in order to reduce construction impacts to existing vegetation
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 3 of 4
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the proposed
residence provides faccedilade articulation at the front and rear elevation to offer shadows and break up massing Application of materials color and roof design minimize impacts of mass and bulk and appropriately sets the building on-site Staff anticipates minimal visibility impacts due to the existing vegetation and proposed landscape plan
(2) The structure is so designed that it will appear compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood and will not significantly detract from the established character of the neighborhood in that the proposed project provides articulation outdoor patio deck and ranch style architectural design The design is compatible with the scale and style of the existing neighborhood
(3) The structure is so designed that it does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding
structures or topography when viewed from off-site in that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a variety of one-story and two-story residences The proposed residence is one-story and is similar design and size as the existing adjacent homes The design of the structure does not appear too tall or massive in relation to surrounding structures or topography when viewed from off-site given the significant front setback separation for adjacent buildings as well as existing and proposed vegetation and
(4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties in that the proposed house is one story screened by the proposed landscaping and is located on a relatively flat parcel that limits privacy impacts to adjacent properties
sect6-1707 Permit category II Protected tree on developed or undeveloped property associated with a development application
(1) Necessity for the pruning or removal in order to construct a required improvement on public property or within a public right-of-way or to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property in that the removal of the proposed walnut trees is to construct the proposed residence and driveway entrance The removal of the walnut trees supports the development of the single-family residence and the driveway and the project is conditioned to provide the minimum amount of mitigation trees therefore staff believes this is a reasonable improvement
(2) Extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that the removal of the proposed trees were evaluated by the Cityrsquos consulting arborist and verified that the improvements will impact the proposed trees to be removed Proposed disturbance of any other existing trees are required to be mitigated by adding tree protection fencing around the trees to be saved
(3) Extent to which a proposed change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to preserve and maintain a protected tree in that developing the property with a home and driveway will require some form of tree removal Adjusting the grades would not prevent the trees from being removed Staff has conditioned the project to work with the Cityrsquos consulting Arborist to submit a revised landscape plan to incorporate appropriate mitigation trees to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
4 Based on the review of the entire record before the Design Review Commission the Commission
finds and determines the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Design Review Commission November 26 2018 Resolution 2018-22 DR12-18 Pease
Page 4 of 4
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures) as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property that is located in an urbanized area
5 Based on the above findings the Design Review Commission hereby approves the Design Review Permit subject to conditions contained in Exhibit ldquoArdquo attached to this resolution
6 This resolution becomes effective upon its adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Commission of the City of Lafayette California at a meeting held on November 26 2018 by the following vote AYES Cass Collins Fu Keppel Sim (5-0) NOES None ABSENT NA RECUSED NA ATTEST
___________________________ ________________________________ Niroop K Srivatsa Patrick Collins Planning amp Building Manager Design Review Commission Chair
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT ldquoArdquo OF DRC RESOLUTION 2018-22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL bull DR12-18 amp TP20-18 Project specific conditions of approval are shaded
ONGOING CONDITIONS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
1 Development shall conform to the following approved plans on file at the City Offices as modified by these conditions
Site plans elevations amp details received November 15 2018
Colors amp Materials Board received on October 30 2018
Ongoing condition
2 Pursuant to sect6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code this approval shall expire one year from the approval date October 9 2018 unless a building permit has been issued for the project The Planning amp Building Department Director may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year October 9 2019 upon a showing of good cause if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date
Ongoing condition
3 No changes shall be made to the approved plans or color and materials board without review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department andor appropriate commissions as determined by the Planning amp Building Department Director If changes are approved by the City the property owner shall prepare three sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning amp Building Department Once the revised plans are stamped ldquoapprovedrdquo the property owner shall submit the revised plans to the Lamorinda Building Inspection Office for their review and approval
Ongoing condition
4 Construction plans shall conform to the approved design drawings The property owner shall indicate to staff at the time of submittal for building permit plan check any and all modifications clarifications or changes on the construction drawings from the approved design drawings
Ongoing condition
5 Storage of construction materials portable toilets and debris must be stored and staged on the subject property for this project Temporary storage of construction boxes or construction materials must be kept on the property and out of any private easement or public right-of-way to permit emergency vehicle access during the construction project
Ongoing condition
6 Site improvement and construction work including set-up loading or unloading of materials or equipment or the maintenance refueling or tune-up of any equipment performed as part of this project is restricted to the hours between 800 am and 600 pm Monday through Saturday No noise-generating construction work shall be performed on Sundays or national holidays Violation of this condition may result in issuance of a Stop Work Order or administrative citations
Ongoing condition
7 The property owner shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lafayette its agents officers officials and employees from all claims demands law suits writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings (collectively ldquoActionsrdquo) brought against the City or its agents officers officials or employees to challenge attack seek to modify set aside void or annul this approval In the event the City becomes aware of any such action the City shall promptly notify the property owner and shall cooperate fully in the defense It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld the legal counsel providing the Cityrsquos defense and the property owner shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses
Ongoing condition
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 2 of 4
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the Course of the defense
8 These conditions of Project Approval include certain fees dedication requirements reservation requirements and other exactions Under Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedication reservations and other exactions which are imposed upon you Under Government Code Sections 66020(a) amp (d)(1) there is a 90-day period within which you may file and administrative protest of these fees dedications reservations and other exactions This 90-day period begins with the approval of the project If you fail to file a protest with the City Clerk within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020 you will be legally barred from later challenging such exaction
Ongoing condition
9 If the Planning amp Building Department either independently or as a result of complaints from the public becomes aware that these conditions of approval are being violated and Planning amp Building Department staff is unable to obtain compliance or abatement the City may issue a Stop Work Order andor pursue administrative remedies pursuant to chapters 1-3 and 1-9 of the Lafayette Municipal Code Administrative citations and fines may be issued for each day a violation occurs
Ongoing condition
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT WHICHEVER IS FIRST
10 The property owner shall duplicate these conditions of approval set forth in this document ldquoExhibit Ardquo in the construction drawing plan sets for the benefit of the contractor(s) subcontractor(s) and inspector(s) All sheets in the construction drawings shall be the same size (eg 24rdquo by 36rdquo)
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
11 The property owner(s) shall enter into a standard landscape maintenance agreement with the City to install new and maintain existing landscaping and preserve and protect the trees on the property as indicated on the plans The project planner will prepare a standard landscape maintenance agreement and send it to the property owner(s) The agreement shall be signed and notarized and submitted to the Planning amp Building Department to be recorded against the property The agreement shall run with the property to ensure that future property owner(s) are aware of the requirement for ongoing maintenance of the existing and approved landscaping
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
12 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if the project is determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the Planning amp Building Department on greenhalosystemscom The WMP packet may be downloaded from the City of Lafayette website wwwlovelafayetteorg gt Planning amp Permits gt Waste Management Plan
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
13 The property owner shall install a sign stating the allowed days and hours for construction which shall be posted in a conspicuous place along the front property line where it can be viewed by all contractors subcontractors and the general public The sign shall be 4 square feet and state the message below Lettering shall be at least three inches except for ldquoNo noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidaysrdquo which shall be at least 15 inches
HOURS OF
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 3 of 4
CONSTRUCTION Mon ndash Sat
800 AM ndash 600 PM No noise-generating construction on Sundays or national holidays
14 The property owner shall obtain review and approval by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which is located at 40005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250 Concord CA 94520 Construction drawings shall have the Fire Protection District stamp and signature prior to submitting to the Lafayette Planning amp Building department
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
15 The property owner shall obtain review and approval from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Construction plans shall be stamped with the departmentrsquos approval The Central Sanitary District is located at 5019 Imhoff Place in Martinez and can be reached at (925) 229-7371 for requirements and permits
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
16 The property owner shall submit a revised landscape plan that reduces the number of moderate water usage plants listed on sheet L-40 ldquoLandscape Planrdquo to more drought tolerant species The result should be a cumulative reduction of the WELO calculation from 1000 gallons of water to a maximum of 750 gallons of water The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval by one Design Review Commissioner (Commissioner Cass) and the Planning Director
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
17 The property owner shall provide a site plan and grading plan showing the proposed tree protection measures per the City standard tree fencing detail A copy of this detail is available from Planning amp Building Department staff or by visiting wwwlovelafayetteorg gt City Departments gt Planning gt Planning Handouts gt Tree Protection Guidelines
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
18 The property owner shall plant 46 (15-gallon) mitigation trees or will be required to pay the in-lieu fee for the approved Tree Permit (TP20-18) authorizing removal of three protected trees A mitigation planting plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to verify that the proposed planting locations and species are suitable for maintaining the new trees and preserving of the existing trees to the satisfaction of the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
19 The property owner shall provide drawings and specifications including planting details necessary for appropriate compliance with the C3 provisions as described in the Stormwater C3 Guidebook available at wwwcccleanwaterorgconstructionndphp Final plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FRAMINGrdquo STATUS
20 The property owner shall comply with the following
Review the project file and obtain copies as needed of the following Approved external light fixtures and locations Approved colors and materials Approved landscape plans Conditions of approval
Submit photos of the landscaping to verify that all proposed landscaping is still in place
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
Conditions of Approval bull DR12-18 Page 4 of 4
Sign the approved plans indicating that the above items were completed and that the property owner understands that the project will be completed in accordance to the approved plans
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF ldquoHOLD-ON-FINALrdquo STATUS AND FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
21 The property owner shall install approved landscaping according to the approved landscape plans prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection Species identification tags shall remain on trees plants and shrubs for the benefit of the planner conducting the final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
22 The applicant shall submit a certification letter from the Landscape Architect or the representative that prepared the approved landscape plan(s) which verifies that installed landscaping complies with the approved landscape plan(s) prior to contacting the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department to schedule an inspection The certification letter shall verify that the species size quantity and location of approved trees shrubs and groundcover comply with the approved landscape plan(s) The certification letter shall also verify landscape lighting fencing irrigation and other details as applicable Once the certification letter has been submitted the project planner will also confirm the installation of the landscaping during the scheduled final inspection
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
23 The applicant shall submit a copy of the invoice listing the landscaping plants ordered for the project
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
24 The property owner shall contact the Lafayette Planning amp Building Department at least 72 hours prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The property owner shall request an inspection of the project by Planning amp Building Department staff to confirm that all conditions of approval have been met and that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans Planning amp Building Department staff will release the ldquoHoldrdquo on the final building inspection when all conditions of approval have been met and a site inspection finds that the project was constructed in accordance with approved plans including but not limited to siting grading retaining walls tree protection measures location of windows amp doors and building color
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
25 The property owner and applicant shall comply with Chapter 5-6 Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling if this project was determined to be a covered project as defined in Section 5-603 LMC Prior to final inspection of a grading demolition andor building permit and within 30 days after project completion the applicant shall submit the WMP to the City through Green Halo Systems for final review
Satisfied
DATE
STAFF -
- end -
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins referred to photo 4 commenting that the shot should have been banked a bit 1 more to the left in order to show the proposed house site Mr Swatt asked about significant view 2 locations and where the Commission would like to see the views from Commission Chair Collins stated 3 that if the house cannot be seen from the major roads and does not loom over a neighboring home 4 there should not be much issue with visibility Commissioner Keppel indicated that he would actually 5 like to see this house at least partially Commission Chair Collins indicated that the scale and colors 6 were more of an issue if the house has greater visibility 7 8 Mr Swatt explained that the colors are not white and they can go deeper in tone as well Commissioner 9 Keppel commented that photographs of materials are not helpful to the Commission real samples are 10 preferred 11 12 Mr Evans viewed the house size a relatively smaller in that the footprint of the living area is only 4600-13 4700-sf with everything else tucked in under it including the 4-car garage Commission Chair Collins 14 said that the Commission considered a 4600 to 4700-sf home a relatively large house particularly on 15 a hillside site with a lot of paving and as the footprint grows so does the amount of water runoff 16 Commissioner Keppel agreed that at 7500 or 4600-sf it is a large house that is approvable as long as 17 built within the requirements However he reiterated that sustainability would be a key issue 18 19 Mr Evans assured that he wishes the home to be as energy efficient as possible using as little water as 20 possible 21 22 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS None 23 24 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 27 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 28 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-29 056 30 Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2018-22 approving the Design Review Permit subject to 31 conditions 32 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 33 34 Ms Reyes reported the applicant requests approval for a Design Review Permit Grading Permit and 35 Tree Permit to construct a new 5083-sf one-story single family residence with a maximum ridge height 36 of 24rsquo10rdquo requiring grading of 51-cy and the removal of three protected trees on a vacant lot The 37 subject property is located north of Happy ValleyGlen Road and 870 feet north of the Lafayette BART 38 station 39 40 Planning staff found the project conforms with the Residential Design Guidelines with the addition of a 41 few project specific conditions of approval 42
bull Submittal of a revised landscape plan to provide screening trees to screen the adjacent 43 neighbors to the east and south of the property 44
bull Review and approval of the proposed driveway configuration by the Fire Department for 45 emergency vehicle access 46
bull Revise the rear elevation to break up the mass of the proposed residence 47 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins was concerned the proposed driveway circle would not be approved by the 1 Fire Department and asked if it needed anything more than a hammerhead turnaround at the street 2 Ms Reyes said the application was submitted to the Fire Department and Planning staff had not 3 received comments at this time Mr Wolff advised that a driveway in excess of 150-feet requires a fire 4 turnaround The measurement is taken from the point where an apparatus is staged with a 150rsquo hose 5 pull 6 7 Matt Pease property owner and applicant was present with his wife Leslie They are 30-year Lafayette 8 residents and Leslie is a local business owner Mr and Mrs Pease are building the house as their 9 residence Their current home is on a hillside on St Maryrsquos Road and they desire a level home on a flat 10 lot They have met with almost all of their future neighbors Mr Pease noted that in Planning staffrsquos 11 report there was a public comment letter from one neighbor (Doyle) who had privacy concerns They 12 have since met with the neighbors and addressed their concerns The neighbors were present at the 13 meeting and have submitted a letter indicating their approval of the project as proposed Mr Pease 14 stated the feedback from other neighbors has also been very positive 15 16 Commission Chair Collins asked if Mr Pease was amenable to the proposed condition of approval to add 17 the dormers on the west side Mr Pease said their plan was to have solar on the rear facing roof His 18 concern about the dormers was they would inhibit their ability to place solar panels there 19 20 Commission Chair Collins commented that the 1212 roof pitch is very steep for a solar panel Mr Pease 21 indicated they have not yet done the engineering for the solar system Commission Chair Collins advised 22 that in general the more vertical the roof the less efficient the solar system 23 24 John Newton project designer was aware that solar panels are less efficient at steeper angles however 25 the property owners liked the farmhouse style The main design element was the front wraparound 26 porch but Mr Newton felt it was important to get the steep attic that frames the house He felt they 27 had been successful in the orientation of the porch and front door with the side garage Mr Newton 28 was open to adding dormers to the rear roof elevation but preferred not to as they felt unnecessary as 29 they would be going into the attic space They planned to vault some of the major interior ceilings into 30 that attic space with the rest of the space for mechanical purposes Mr Newton did not think adding 31 dormers was critical to the design of the home 32 33 Commissioner Keppel asked about the proposed material for the driveway David Thorne landscape 34 architect referred to images of materials submitted and stated it is a permeable driveway paver 35 (Belgard) 36 37 Commissioner Sim asked if Mr Newton was a licensed architect for the State of California Mr Newton 38 said he was not Commissioner Sim noted the cover sheet for the submittal listed him as architect and 39 requested a correction of it 40 41 Commissioner Sim asked how Mr Newton would mask the rear roof area to articulate the roofline 42 Commissioner Sim agreed with Planning staffrsquos recommendation Mr Newton thought they could 43 mimic what was done on the front to add articulation 44 45 Commission Chair Collins noted the house runs northsouth and the applicant planned to put solar 46 panels on a 45-degree angle on the east side of the house He indicated an eastern placement on a 47 vertical was not a good solution The best location would west or south and tilted no more than 22-48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11 October 9 2018
degrees Mr Newton thought they could look at the right side at the rear where the panels would not 1 be as visual when approaching the house Commissioner Sim said he does a lot of solar panels for 2 school districts and other places and supported Commission Chair Collinsrsquo recommendation in order to 3 maximize the return 4 5 Mr Thorne offered the following information in support of the application 6
bull Driveway ndash the purpose of the circular drive was due to the lack of on street parking and a 7 desire to create a functional driveway with extra guest parking There is also a small turnaround 8 for cars to back into 9
bull Landscape lighting is minimal with only path lights and a few down lights 10 bull Design vocabulary ndash the materials package is very indicative of the farmhouse style seen in this 11
area of Lafayette 12 bull Replacement tree calculation ndash There are two trees (London plane and deodar cedar) that are 13
totally deformed and being removed They will be replaced with native plants They are also 14 removing three walnut trees 15
bull Planting plan ndash all California natives are shaded in light green The area fronting Happy Valley is 16 predominantly native species 17
bull The City Landscape Consultantlsquos report indicated that some of the proposed trees would not be 18 of stature The applicant will bring in a 48-inch Live oak and will provide sufficient screening for 19 the house The applicant will address the condition of approval to add more screen trees 20 however the applicant has done a pretty good job to screen the project without over-planting 21 it 22
23 Mr Wolff asked for clarification of existing and new fences Mr Thorne advised there is a proposed 24 white picket fence 4 feet high around the vegetable garden The fence at the front of the property will 25 be the white frame with hog wire The north side fence will be a 6 foot high white picket fence 26 paralleling the neighborrsquos driveway and makes closure with an existing fence in the rear The south 27 fence is existing The rear fence is a new 6 foot good neighbor fence 28 29 Mr Wolff questioned the ability of a car to turn into the turnaround space and asked if there was a 30 template that illustrates that move can be made Mr Thorne thought the issue needed further study 31 32 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment 33 34 Brian Vesce a Happy Valley Road resident was present with his wife Ali Mr and Mrs Vesce are the 35 rear neighbors of the subject property Mr and Mrs Pease met with them early in the process and got 36 them up to speed on the plans After reviewing the plans and seeing the design they are very happy 37 with the style of the home Mr Vesce said the property owners were very receptive in working with 38 them in preserving their privacy 39 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about Mr Vescersquos feelings regarding the roof he will see from his home 41 Mr Vesce felt there are things that can be done to preserve his privacy and the aesthetics of the design 42 which he was confident they will figure out Mr Vesce commented that the subject property owners 43 are good people and they were excited to have them as neighbors 44 45 Mr Pease thanked the neighbor for his comments 46 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11 October 9 2018
Commission Chair Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 1 2 Commissioner Cass was concerned about the roof and solar system He did not see a good practical 3 solution for the solar and indicated if a pool is installed Commissioner Cass will want solar heating He 4 commented that the service turnout did not appear to be workable as shown and suggested they need 5 to move the fence up to accommodate it Commissioner Cass did not like the idea of so much 6 pavement even though it would be permeable He also disliked the circular driveway due to the 7 amount of pavement and did not see that a fire truck would be able to negotiate it Commissioner Cass 8 commented that the three-car garage and turnaround area behind was sufficient area for guests to park 9 on Looking at the landscape plan Commissioner Cass did not think it was a very good water-saving 10 plan with 33 of the shrubs being moderate water users He thought that percentage was too high 11 Commissioner Cass commented that the shrubs on the north end near the neighborsrsquo Valley oak appear 12 to be a little close to those trees At his house the space required between the tree trunk and plantings 13 was 10 feet Given the density of the proposed plantings Commissioner Cass thought it looked like 14 instant landscaping He felt the plant density was too high noting that some of the plants have a radius 15 of up to 30 feet and are being planted 4 feet apart As a result Commissioner Cass found it to be over-16 landscaped with too much water consumption Commissioner Cass liked the blue stone at the rear of 17 the house but commented that the back patio area off the swimming pool needs to be broken up so 18 that it will not all be impermeable Commissioner Cass added that the groundcover and lawn will use 19 too much water He thought the landscape plan should be scaled back and use a lot more California 20 natives 21 22 Commissioner Sim shared Planning staffrsquos concern about the rear elevation and the solar panels He 23 thought the rear elevation deserved a lot more effort to break up the roof mass with dormers or some 24 other solution Commissioner Sim concurred that the circular drive could be eliminated or made really 25 stealthy Overall he thought it was a nice project 26 27 Commissioner Keppel commented that the driveway is excessive in both the roundabout and the area in 28 front of the garage He did not think the Fire Department would approve that configuration and 29 requested the Fire Departmentrsquos comments be requested as a condition of approval Commissioner 30 Keppel said the solar solution needed to be thought out and drawn He suggested a condition of 31 approval would be submittal of a plan how the solar would work Commissioner Keppel noted the 32 elevations on L301 were mislabeled and should be corrected He commented that the rear elevation 33 was missing something with way too much roof going on there Commissioner Keppel suggested the 34 simple answer would be to take the area over the porch and somehow articulate it 35 36 Commissioner Fu echoed his fellow Commissionersrsquo comments indicating that all of their points were 37 key Commissioner Fu asked if the applicant had actual material samples He commented their 38 submittal was simulated copies and the Design Review Commission preferred to see actual materials 39 Submittal of material samples could be a condition of approval Commissioner Fu had no issue with the 40 color palette submitted He also had no issue with the light fixture selections and confirmed with the 41 applicant they are all dark sky compliant He reiterated Commission Chair Collinsrsquos comment that the 42 impervious surface back by the pool is extensive Added to the impervious footprint of the home it will 43 create a large mass of impervious land He suggested considering how to break up some of that 44 material Commissioner Fu was also concerned about the potentially excessive amount of water usage 45 for the lawn and meadow area 46 47 Commission Chair Collins supported the previous comments He recommended the following 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11 October 9 2018
bull Driveway revision 1 bull Review of the landscaping to reduce impervious surfaces 2 bull The rear east side of the house needs review and revision (dormers or something else) 3 bull It appears there is quite a bit of landscape lighting and it seems excessive 4 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish instead of painted 5
6 Commission Chair Collins moved to continue DR12-18 to Tuesday November 13 2018 to allow the 7 applicant time to address the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Commission as 8 follows 9
bull Review and revise the driveway and service turnaround 10 bull Revise the landscape plan per the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments 11 bull Review the amount of landscape lighting and reduce it 12 bull Reduce the amount of impervious surface by the pool 13 bull The hog fence should have a natural redwood finish 14 bull Review and revise the east elevation to add articulation to the roof area 15 bull Show how they will address the solar panels 16 bull Provide additional tree screening along the rear property edge 17 bull Submit material samples 18
19 Commissioner Keppel seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 20 21 9 OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A House Size Discussion Mr Wolff advised that the issue was discussed at a prior 24 meeting and the Design Review Commissionrsquos thinking was to have the ability to have a fee or other 25 financial requirement tied to larger homes that could go towards affordability Planning staff has posed 26 that idea to the City Attorneyrsquos office who is researching it As a result discussion of this plan is on hold 27 pending that review 28 29 Commissioner Cass commented the only other thing to discuss was whether anything exists that can 30 regulate water usage Commission Chair Collins understood that development applications needed 31 review by EBMUD He indicated he would research this issue 32 33 Mr Wolff advised the Planning Department is bringing forward at the instigation of the Environmental 34 Task Force a water efficient landscape ordinance which has been in effect at the state level for some 35 time The recommendation is to adopt the state ordinance by reference and implement it locally 36 Under the ordinance there will be calculation sheet of water usage and an annual water budget to be 37 complied with Commission Chair Collins asked what the calculation would be based upon and Mr 38 Wolff explained it is a function of area and intensity of the water demand The proposed ordinance is 39 targeted to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council this fall 40 Commission Chair Collins asked about progress on the objective design standards Mr Wolff said a 41 consultant has been retained with an internal launch meeting scheduled for next week Commission 42 Chair Collins hoped that an objective house size would be considered in that review 43 Commissioner Cass commented that his biggest concern in establishing house size fees is that it seems 44 that if someone was willing to pay the price it would indicate pre-approval Commission Chair Collins 45 hoped that the Residential Design Guidelines would still have some control over siting massing and 46 design in relation to the surrounding area 47
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date October 9 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline November 11 2018 (without PSA extension)
Summary The project involves constructing a new 5083-sq ft (including 854-sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo and various outdoor living spacesimprovements Staff finds the project can be approved based on the findings and recommends approval of the subject application subject to conditions
History On September 21 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a request for a minor subdivision (MS501-00) that consisted of merging 3 parcels totaling 24-acres into 2 reconfigured parcels and variance request to reduce the required 40000-sq ft lot to 35560-sqft located at 3654 Happy Valley Road The subejct property is designated as Parcel A of the 2 reconfigured lots Project specific conditions of the minor subdivision include a requirement that plans proposed for a new home on either new lot must be reviewed and approved by Design Review Commisison The review includes siting colors and materials replacement trees lost due to development landscaping and irrigtation plans etc A detailed conditions of approval and vesting tentative tract map are included as Attachment 4 to this report for reference
Proposal The applicant proposes to construct a new 5-083-sq ft single-story single family residence with various outdoor living areas requiring removal of three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading equivalent to 51 cubic yards on a vacant parcel The site has limited off-site visibility due to the relatively flat site and proposed landscape plan The interior of the proposed residence consists of four bedrooms three bathrooms and common living areas such as kitchen dining room living room and family room The maximum ridge height is proposed to be 24rsquo-10 The garage is 854 sq ft and additional parking is provided in the circular driveway entrance located in the front yard Access to the site is proposed to remain at the northwest corner of the parcel and a security keypad is available for access to the driveway entrance The driveway round-about and area in front of the garage is proposed as a fire truck turn-around to support emergency vehicular access The outdoor living areas include a pool pool deck outdoor patio area with BBQ set vegetable garden and trellis
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 2 of 7
Triggers
Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cuyds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Site Conditions and Location The subject property is located north of Happy Valley Glen Road and east of Happy Valley Road The property is approximately 870-feet north of the Lafayette BART station The parcel is very gently sloped to the southwest but overall relatively flat The subject property contains 13 trees and 2 protected trees are proposed to be removed Additional details of the site conditions are summarized in the table below
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The project proposes to be designed to meet the following policies of the General Plan
Policy LU-13 Privacy Development shall respect the privacy of neighbors The proposed residence is developed as a one-story and substantially screened with trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy
Policy LU-11 Scale Development shall be compatible with the scale and pattern of existing neighborhoods The residence is proposed to be developed as a one-story with natural warm colors to match the environmental setting
The zoning for the subject property is Single-Family Residential-40 (R-40) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft which is the minimum lot size for this zoning district Additional project consistency items are evaluated below with the prescribed zoning standards outlined in the following table
General Plan Designation Low Density Single Family Residential (up to two dwelling unitsacre)
Topography Gently sloping to the southwest overall flat parcel
Existing Use Vacant land
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 3 of 7
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces Two spaces
SitingVisual Impacts The new one-story single-family residence is proposed to be 5083-sq ft with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo developed on a vacant 101-acre parcel The proposed residence is designed to be parallel to the street frontage and is considered a valleyinfill site The surrounding environment consists of a variety of one- and two-story residences and the subject parcel is a vacant lot with associated trees The proposed residence would be located on the southeast portion of the site and situated 73rsquo from the street frontage on Happy Valley Road Staff is in support of the siting of the building as this meets the Residential Design Guidelines for new homes within valley and infill areas for the following reasons
1 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(d) - Site buildings to preserve visually established front and side yard setbacks The proposed residence is set back from the street and establishes a front yard setback that reduces massing of the structure The proposed residence does not loom over the street thus preserving the visually established front yard setback
2 Residential Design Guideline II(A)(1)(c) ndash When siting buildings and their associated outdoor living and service areas respect the privacy and views of existing adjacent residences The rear yard of the proposed residence abuts the front yard of the adjacent existing residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road (Lot B) The proposed landscape plan would sufficiently screen the associated outdoor living areas and residence The landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and screening trees including multiple purple leaf plum and a coast live oak The existing walnut tree would be preserved and screen the master bedroom windows that face the adjacent property Therefore staff anticipates minimal privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor
Story poles were erected 14-calendar days prior to the public hearing scheduled for October 9 2018 Staff conducted a site visit to evaluate the siting and massing of the residence and found that the proposed residence is situated away from the street frontage and closest to the rear yard neighbor The proposed landscape plan with the incorporated recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant would sufficiently screen the new residence and privacy impacts of the adjacent neighbor would be minimal Recommendations from the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant include one or two additional Arbutus Marina along the southeastern property line or as an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Additional recommendations are discussed in the Landscape section below Story pole photos are included as Attachment 6 for reference
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 4 of 7
Privacy and Neighborhood Impacts Staff evaluated the proposed development and anticipates minimal privacy impacts of the adjacent property owners because of the proposed landscape plan and the relatively flat topography of the site The neighbor (3654 Happy Valley Road) that is closest to the proposed residence is at a slightly higher elevation and 62rsquo from the nearest proposed trellis The rear yard of the proposed residence is facing the front yard of the closest residence at 3654 Happy Valley Road The outdoor living spaces that are near this neighbor would be the pool and vegetable garden The pool is outside of the required rear yard setback and is considered a more active outdoor use but would be screened by the proposed trees and shrubs to protect neighbor privacy The vegetable garden is within the required 20rsquo rear yard setback but is considered a passive outdoor use and would not pose an impact to the adjacent residences The floor plan that is facing the 3654 Happy Valley Road residence shows the closest room to be a master bedbathroom Staff anticipates minimal privacy to the adjacent neighbors because the proposed room is a passive living space where residents would usually go for privacy rather to gather in large groups During the initial review of the application staff found the rear roofline lacked design and articulation as required in the Residential Design Guidelines and recommended a design revision to break up massing The applicant indicated a desire to install a roof-mounted PV system (solar array) and that the roof design is required to support the proposed panels Staff recommends a condition to revise the rear elevation to add two dormers to project vertically beyond the plane of the roof pitch and break up massing of this elevation The rear elevation is provided as reference below
Rear Elevation
Circulation amp Parking Access to the site is available from Happy Valley Road and the driveway entrance is proposed to be gated with a security keypad The driveway is shown to be constructed as pervious pavers with thick stone bedding and base to allow for permeability The circular driveway leads to the the front door of the residence and loops around to allow vehicles to exit or access the garage on the northeast corner of the site The garage is 854-sq ft and would provide a minimum of two parking spaces The circular driveway is located outside of the required 25rsquo front yard setback and may also be used as parking for the residence or visitors if the Fire Department does not require this as emergency vehicle access If the Fire Department reviews the proposed circular driveway and does not require this design for emergency access then parking is permitted However if not required for fire Engineering may request additional vegetation rather than paving for this driveway As a condition of approval the proposed driveway configuration will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to verify sufficient fire-truck turnaround space and emergency vehicle access
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 5 of 7
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping The proposed single-story single-family residence outdoor living spaces and on-site improvements such as driveway entrance and storm water treatment areas require removal of trees The project site is scattered with 14 trees which include 6 Valley Oaks 3 Black Walnuts 3 English Walnuts 1 Deodar Cedar and 1 London Plane tree A total of five trees are proposed to be removed to support the construction of the proposed residence and driveway Three of those five trees are considered protected (native) species to the City of Lafayette which include 2 English Walnuts and 1 black walnut The removal of any protected tree that is over 6rdquo in diameter requires planting of either two 15-gallon trees of native species or an acceptable equivalent The applicant proposes to provide 27 trees as mitigation trees to compensate for the removal of the three protected trees The applicant is required to plant a minimum of forty-six (46) 15-gallon trees to meet the code-required mitigation requirement The project is conditioned to provide the appropriate mitigation trees or pay an in-lieu fee The Cityrsquos consulting arborist provided recommendations to provide additional screening of the proposed residence Staff has included a condition to direct the applicant to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the recommendations made by the Cityrsquos Landscape Consultant to be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that requires a total of 51 CY of cut and fill The applicant provides a Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set that demonstrates the reasoning for cut and fill on the property The majority of the cut and fill would occur to support the driveway by the garage and the driveway gate Drainage of the site will be evaluated by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit and the proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer to further demonstrate compliance of drainage on site
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Public Comment Outreach and Notice Property owners (26) within 300rsquo of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to this scheduled public hearing Two public
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report October 9 2018
Page 6 of 7
comments were received during the preparation of this staff report The two comments raised concerns of the design of the home in regard to the height and the windows on the south elevation The figure below provides the location of the two public commenters
Agency Response The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) At the time of preparation of this staff report four comments were received and are attached to this report as attachment 5 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height permit category II tree removal and grading of gt50 cubic yards The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Page 7 of 7
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the proposed development conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2018-22 approved the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 November 26 2018
Design Review Commission to enforce those conditions for an area under 1000-sf and letting large 1 masses go 2 3 Commission Chair Collins disagreed strongly with the applicantrsquos comment that to do what was 4 approved would be punitive at this juncture 5 6 Mr Wolff stated with regard to the comments about the County Inspector that it was his understanding 7 that no inspection had been called for yet He noted that when the County Inspector finds a deviation 8 from approved plans that an applicant is referred back to the City and the City is obliged to consider it 9 Mr Wolff further stated there are one or more Residential Design Guidelines that speak specifically to 10 minimizing impervious surface He advised that the Design Review Commission had the option to 11 approve the applicantrsquos change of condition request to approve with conditions to continue the 12 matter or to deny the request 13 14 Commission Chair Collins moved to deny DR25-14CCDR14-16CC Commissioner Cass seconded the 15 motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 16 17 6 STUDY SESSIONS None 18 19 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 20 21 A DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review 22 Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence 23 with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-24 056 25 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 26 2018-22 approving the project subject to conditions 27 Project Planner Brianne Reyes 28 29 Ms Allen presented the Planning staff report for project planner Brianne Reyes Ms Allen reported the 30 application is for a new family residence on a vacant parcel The application is subject to design review 31 for structures over 17 feet in height The Design Review Commission reviewed the application at the 32 October 9 2018 meeting and provided comments to the applicant as outlined in Planning staffrsquos report 33 which included 34
bull Driveway reconfiguration - The original proposed circular driveway has been modified to 35 remove the circular component The Design Review Commission also requested that the 36 driveway configuration be reviewed by the Contra Costa Fire District and the Fire District has 37 approved the revisions Ms Allen noted that the driveway and turnaround areas are proposed 38 as permeable pavers 39
bull Revisions to the rear (east) elevation to articulate the expanse of the roof massing - The 40 applicant has added a dormer to that elevation to break up the expanse of the roofline 41
bull Submittal of a solar plan ndash The applicant has removed solar from the project 42 bull Service turnout ndash The applicant was requested to demonstrate that service vehicles could 43
access the site given the proposed entrance gate and the applicant has provided that 44 information 45
bull Submittal of a physical colors and material board ndash The applicant has provided that information 46 at this meeting No changes have been made 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 November 26 2018
bull Landscaping ndash The Design Review Commission requested a reduction in the planting plan as 1 well as additional native plants plan revision to space out the shrubs and trees and keeping 2 irrigation 10-ft from existing oaks and clear of mulch Reduced planting plan to decrease 3 density of plants and included more low water use plants Submitted WELO calculation 4
bull Reduce the amount of exterior lighting ndash The applicant reduced the quantity of exterior lighting 5 from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes 6
bull Fencing color change ndash The applicant has changed the color from a white color to a natural 7 stained redwood 8
bull Reduce or eliminate rear yard impervious surface by adding permeable pavers ndash The applicant 9 has reduced the total impervious surface outside of building footprint from 2097-sf to 983-sf 10
11 Planning staff could make the required findings and found the applicantrsquos plan modifications responsive 12 to the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments Recommendation was made for approval of the 13 application subject to conditions of approval 14 15 Matt Pease property owner was present at the meeting with his wife Leslie Mr Pease said they took 16 the Design Review Commissionrsquos comments very seriously met with staff regarding different ways to 17 approach it and made modifications as noted in terms of reduced vegetation hardscape and lighting 18 They modified the rear architectural detail the driveway configuration and the fencing detail Mr Pease 19 hoped the changes made met with the Design Review Commissionrsquos expectations 20 21 John Newton project designer stated that a shed dormer was added to the rear elevation which he felt 22 had the right scale for the project Referring to the colors and materials board Mr Newton said that 23 the artisan siding is thicker that allows all the exterior corners to be mitered 24 25 David Thorne project landscape architect added with regard to the exterior materials that the Loon 26 Lake stone will be a vertical wall around the rear terrace that works well in terms of color with the 27 Bluestone He highlighted the following modifications 28
bull The newly configured driveway has been reviewed and approved by the Fire District The result 29 of this modification is a smaller driveway with less permeable pavement 30
bull Water usage ndash A preliminary WELO plan was prepared that shows compliance with the water 31 budget that would be assigned for the project (Sheet L41) 32 33
Commissioner Keppel asked about the reason for the solar being removed Mr Pease responded that 34 after some preliminary work they were not 100 certain they could make solar economically feasible 35 due to the position of the house and the trees While not ruled out Mr Pease said it was borderline 36 unlikely at this time 37 38 Commissioner Sim asked about the detailing at the front porch and how it transitions outward Mr 39 Thorne said there will be a peninsula of impermeable pavers moving to a splayed out section in the 40 Bluestone 41 42 Commission Chair Collins opened the hearing to public comment Hearing none Commission Chair 43 Collins closed the public hearing and called for Commission comment and action 44 45 Commissioner Cass liked the change in architecture that serves to break up the roof mass Based on the 46 Fire Districtrsquos review and approval he was satisfied with the driveway design However Commissioner 47
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 November 26 2018
Cass did not think the turnaround at the gate would be very functional He was happy with the 1 reduction in the lighting fixtures Commissioner Cass acknowledged the changes in the landscape plan 2 but still had concerns He noted that the WELO calculations show use of almost 1000-gal per day and 3 he could not make the finding that it is a drought tolerant plan at that level Commissioner Cass thought 4 the irrigation levels needed further reduction and pointed out there are still a lot of proposed plants in 5 the moderate water category He saw little to no change in that plant category While the plants have 6 been spread out and moved away from the trees as requested Commissioner Cass still found an 7 overabundance of more water intensive plants He suggested a level closer to 750-gal per day or 8 alternatively introduction of a gray water system for irrigation With regard to the elimination of the 9 solar Commissioner Cass could not approve a plan with a pool without solar He suggested that either 10 the solar needed to be worked out or the pool needs to be eliminated 11 12 Commissioner Sim supported Commissioner Cassrsquos comments He felt that the front area showed very 13 difficult maneuvering still at the gate area He assumed that guest parking was desired at the front 14 porch area Commissioner Sim would rather see more landscape in that area unless it is needed for fire 15 turnaround Architecturally Commissioner Sim commented that the additional dormer does break up 16 the mass in a very simple way 17 18 Commissioner Keppel appreciated the applicantrsquos response to Commission comments He thought the 19 architectural modification was appropriate Commissioner Keppel was also concerned about the water 20 usage and implored the applicant to try and make the solar work He found the driveway 21 reconfiguration a big improvement but felt that the area by the front porch probably didnrsquot need to be 22 that big but thought the proposal was very close 23 24 Commissioner Fu supported the previous comments He asked and the applicant confirmed that all of 25 the exterior light fixtures are dark sky compliant Commissioner Fu was confused about Fixture C 26 (garden light fixture) and Mr Thorne explained that the fixture is an under-mount fixture that fits under 27 the cap of a 2rdquox6rdquo and points down Commissioner Fu asked whether all the fixturersquos calculations abide 28 with Title 24 for energy use for the whole project Mr Thorne indicated that all of the fixtures are LED 29 and on timersswitches The Title 24 calculations for the house have not yet been done Commissioner 30 Fu cautioned that there may be some adjustments necessary when all is completed 31 32 Mr Wolff referred to the question about the turnaround movement at the front gate and asked the 33 applicant to address it Mr Thorne stated that the hammerhead was a direct result of the fire 34 turnaround and they would not be pushing the pavement any closer to the porch to gain any extra 35 parking Mr Newton confirmed that the Fire District provides the dimensions for the size of the 36 hammerhead He added that the turnaround area in front of the gate is intended as a turnaround for 37 vehicles coming to the house that are not able to enter the gate They have moved the entry gate 38 further up the driveway by approximately 6 feet to allow for more room 39 40 Mr Pease addressed the issue of solar stating that the City does not currently require solar for a home 41 He said they were not sure that solar work out economically and was concerned about a requirement 42 being placed on the project Commissioner Keppel acknowledged that solar is not a requirement but 43 rather a recommendation as the Design Review Commission is looking for more energy efficiency as 44 house sizes grow 45 46 Commission Chair Collins was happy with the changes made commenting that the driveway 47 configuration is improved as well as the architecture He agreed that the landscape is a little robust and 48
Design Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 November 26 2018
felt the guidance provided by Commissioner Cass was appropriate Commission Chair Collins would also 1 like to see solar used because the proposal includes a pool if feasible 2 3 Commissioner Cass could not justify in this day and age an overabundance of energy consumption 4 Understanding that solar is not required under Title 24 at this point in time there is an allowance to 5 request conservation efforts 6 7 Commission Chair Collins asking the applicant to look at the possibility of solar and to provide evidence 8 of why it does not work He did not feel the Design Review Commission should be telling applicants to 9 do something that does not make economic sense Commissioner Cass agreed but felt the solution 10 would be to remove the pool 11 12 Ms Allen directed the Design Review Commission to the required findings indicating that any approval 13 with conditions or denial would need to relate specifically to the required findings Commissioner Cass 14 asked whether there was a basis to deny the application because it does not have solar Ms Allen 15 replied that under current regulations there was no basis to deny because of no solar but she advised 16 that the Environmental Task Force has been considering such regulations 17 18 Commissioner Cass stated that while in principal he was opposed to approving a plan including a pool 19 without solar he acknowledged that solar would not feasibly work for this project based on the 20 proposed roof plan 21 22 Commissioner Cass moved to approve DR12-18 subject to the conditions of approval with further a 23 further condition of approval as follows 24
bull Submittal of a modified landscape plan that reduces water usage to approximately 750-gal per 25 day or alternatively includes a gray water system to be reviewed and approved by Commissioner 26 Cass This condition of approval was based on sect6-275(A) (4) with regard to providing a sufficient 27 number of drought tolerant plants 28
29 Commissioner Sim seconded the motion which carried by unanimous consent (5-0-0) 30 31 Commission Chair Collins advised of the 14-day appeal period 32 33 8 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 34 35 A HDP29-18 amp TP37-18 Miramar Homebuilders (OwnerApplicant) R-20 Zoning Request 36 for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for the construction of a new 4800 sq ft single-family 37 residence that will require a Tree Permit for the removal of 11 protected trees and a Grading Permit for 38 1800 CY of earth movement (1200 cut 600 fill) on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay 39 District on Kim Road APN 167-040-023 40 Recommendation Consider the matter find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt Resolution 41 2018-26 approving the project subject to conditions 42 Project Planner Eric Singer 43 44 Mr Wolff presented the Planning staff report for project planner Eric Singer Mr Wolff reported the 45 application is for a Phase II Hillside Development Permit The Phase I siting and massing determination 46 was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this year Planning staff found that the Phase II 47 application complies with the Phase I approval for siting massing and building envelope There were 48
City of Lafayette
Design Review Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date November 26 2018
Staff Brianne Reyes Contract Planner
Subject DR12-18 Mathew amp Leslie Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Request for Design Review Permit to construct a new 5083-sq ft (including 854 sq ft garage) one-story single-family residence with a maximum ridge height of 24rsquo-10rdquo on a vacant parcel at 3654 Happy Valley Road APN 244-180-056
Statutory Deadline February 9 2018 (with PSA extension)
Summary The project as desribed above was reviewed by the Design Review Commission on October 9 2018 and feedback was provided to the applicant This report provides an overview of the modifications made to the project since the last hearing Staff finds the applicant has responded to the Commissionrsquos concerns and is able to make the required findings for approval
Proposal The revised plans propose to construct the same size single-family residence with similar outdoor living areas requiring removal of the same three protected trees (TP20-18) and grading reduced to 482 cubic yards from the plan reviewed at the Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 The revisions to the plan set requested by the Commission were mainly site design and circulation improvements Details of the revised plans are further analyzed in this staff report
Triggers Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No
Within a protected ridgeline setback Grading gt 50 cu yds
Within 100-ft of a ridgeline setback DR required as condition of approval
In the Hillside Overlay District In a commercial or MFR zone
Over 17-ft in height to ridge Variance requested
Development gt 6000 sq ft Tree Permit Requested
Creek Setback required Subject to Public Art Ordinance
Stormwater Control Plan required Second Unit Permit required
Design Review Commission Comments On October 9 2018 the project was presented to the Design Review Commission where the Commission recommended that the project be continued to November 13 2018 directing the applicant to address several concerns The table below outlines the Commissionrsquos comments and the applicantrsquos response
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 2 of 6
DRC Comment Applicant Response
Driveway Configuration Reducerevise the design layout of the circular driveway to reduce the extent of paving and provide for adequate emergency vehicle access resident and guest parking Submit revised drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to DRCrsquos review
Revised the design of the driveway to include a reduction of paving and removed circular configuration Submitted the revised drawings and the previous drawings to the Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval
Architectural Elevations Revise the rear (east) elevation to break up and articulate the roof and reduce roof massing
Revised rear (east) elevation to include one dormer
Solar Submit a conceptual solar panel installation plan that demonstrates how the panels would lay out on the roof
Solar has been removed from proposal
Service Turnout Submit a turning template diagram to show how vehicles which are denied access at entry gate would successfully and safely use the service turnout
Revised entrance to show turnout availability while parked in front of the gate
Colors Submit a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Submitted a revised colors amp materials board with physical materials and colors for the home
Landscaping Reduce planting plan and include more low
water use and California Native plants in plan Some proposed plants are too close to the
existing Oaks revise the plan to space out the shrubs and trees
Irrigation should be kept to 10-ft from existing oaks and the base of the trunk should be kept clear of mulch
Reduced planting plan to decrease density of plants and includes more low water use plants
Includes WELO calculation
Lighting Revise exterior lighting plan to reduce the amount of proposed lighting Keep the exterior lighting to a minimal amount and only for safety purposes
Reduced quantity of exterior lighting from 42 path lights to 24 path lights and located in areas for safety purposes
Fencing Keep the natural wood color of the proposed fencing at the entrance gate and around the perimeter
Color of fencing is proposed to be a stained redwood
Rear Yard Pavement Reduce or eliminate rear yards impervious surface by adding permeable pavers
Total impervious surface outside of building footprint has been reduced from 2097 sq ft to 983 sq ft
Staffs Analysis and Comments General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Single-Family Residential that allows up to two dwelling units per acre The development proposal is consistent with the underlying land use designation as single family residence which is a permitted use The zoning for the subject property is R-40 (Single-Family Residential- minimum lot size ndash 40000 sq ft) The existing parcel is approximately 43000 sq ft The development standards are outlined in the table below
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 3 of 6
R-40 Development Standards Proposal
Maximum Height max 35rsquo 24rsquo-10rdquo
Side yard setback min 20rsquo aggregate 40rsquo 20rsquo-3rdquo amp 32rsquo-9rdquo53rsquo aggregate
Front yard setback min 25rsquo 85rsquo-15rdquo
Rear yard setback min 15rsquo 59rsquo
Parking min two spaces (10rsquo x 20rsquo) two spaces
Building Articulation The applicant revised the rear (east) elevation to provide a dormer to break up massing and articulate the roof As shown in the figures below the October elevation shows an expansive roofline increasing the massing at rear elevation The November elevation has been modified to include a dormer in between the two chimneys The figures below demonstrate the previous proposal and the modification to the the rear elevation Staff finds that the applicant considered the commisions recommendation to add a dormer to break up roof massing and the proposed dormer would provide building articulation to increase the visual appearance when viewed from the adjacent neighbors at the rear yard This revision increases consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines specifically Section II(B)(2)(a) as follows
RDG II(B)(2)(a) Building forms on infill sites shall not contrast sharply with the existing visual environment Attention should be given to predominant roof slopes and roof design amount of faccedilade articulation orientation of entries and garages etc
Rear Elevation-October
Rear Elevation-November
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 4 of 6
Rear Elevation Rendering-November
Circulation amp Parking The applicant revised the proposed driveway configuration which includes removing the circular driveway reducing driveway proposed near the garage entrance and provides a diagram showing sufficient turnaround space at the entry gate As shown in the figure below portions of the driveway that were of concern have been reduced and the circular driveway has been modified In addition the applicant submitted the plans to Contra Costa County Fire Department for review and approval prior to the Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 The Fire Department reviewed and approved the proposed driveway configuration and copies of the stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Staff finds that the reduction of driveway would provide a safe and supportive use for the proposed residence and increases the conformance of Section II(A)(2)(h) of the Residential Design Guideline which requires the following
RDG II(A)(2)(h) Adequate parking and safe automobile ingress and egress should be provided
The revision to the driveway configuration provides a clear and safe path of travel for visitors and emergency vehicles Staff finds that these revisions increase consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and that the applicant revised according to the Design Review Commissionrsquos Comments
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 5 of 6
Colors amp Materials The colors and materials are applied on all elevations and include the following
Siding James Hardie lap siding and shingles ndash Artichoke green color known as Grenedier Pond
Roof Charcoal color Asphalt Comp Shingle
Windows Marvin Aluminum clad wood
Trim White Heron
Shutters Dark green color known as Dakota Shadow
Entry Door Brick Red The proposed colors and materials have not been modified from the previous proposal but the applicant has included a colors and materials board with physical materials as requested by the Commission on October 9th Staff finds that the proposed colors are similar to the ones within the surrounding environment and compatible to the existing homes in the neighborhood The proposed green shades blend with the existing and proposed trees on-site The colors and materials meet the Residential Design Guideline that encourages colors to be similar with the surrounding environment and blend with the environmental back drop
Landscaping amp Outdoor Living Spaces The applicant has revised the landscape plan to reduce the amount of vegetation and include low water use plants As shown in the landscape plan the applicant has included a Preliminary Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Worksheet on sheet L-41 to present the estimated total water use and the maximum water allowance The estimated total water use is approximately 28768 gallons per year which shall be regulated by East Bay Municipal Utility District The irrigation plan includes a hydrozone chart that shows the plants to be grouped according to their water needs and then organized by irrigation zones and will be included in the irrigation schedules to match the plant groupings The applicant has prepared a landscape reduction calculation and is included in Attachment 4 The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the amount of proposed path lights throughout the site The quantity was reduced from 42 path lights to 24 path lights that are located in areas that will provide sufficient lighting for safety purposes The proposed fence color will be stained a heart redwood to keep the natural wood color of the fencing material The total impervious surface has been reduced to 8865 square feet approximately 1114 less than the first proposal The reduction of impervious surface occurs primarily around the pool and spa area which now permeable paving is proposed
Drainage amp Grading The proposed project involves construction of a new single-story single family residence with outdoor living areas and driveway access that was revised to reduce permeable surfaces and grading The proposed grading required for the project is 482 CY of cut and fill The applicant would not be required to obtain a grading permit for the proposed grading The applicant provides the Landscape cut and fill calculation table on Sheet 60 Conceptual Drainage Plan of the plan set demonstrating the cut and fill associated with the project The proposed project will be required to address any comments provided by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit
CEQA The project has been evaluated in accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (ldquoCEQArdquo) and determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as the proposed project would result in the development of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned property
Design Review Commission DR12-18 Pease Staff Report November 26 2018
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice A notice was mailed and posted for the original hearing date of October 9 2018 The application was continued to a date certain therefore no further public noticing was required for this project Staff did not receive public comment
Agency Response The project plan set submitted for Design Review Commission meeting on October 9 2018 was referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (ldquoCCCSDrdquo) City Engineer Contra Costa County Planning Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department (ldquoCCCBIDrdquo) and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ldquoCCCFPDrdquo) The project plan set submitted in preparation for Design Review Commission meeting on November 26 2018 was not routed to the referral agencies due to very minimal changes in scope of work The four comments received from the previous plan set would still apply to this project and are attached to this report as Attachment 4 In addition the applicant submitted the proposed driveway configuration to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and approval The approved stamped plans are included in Attachment 4 Recommendations made by the CCCFPD CCCSD Cityrsquos consulting arborist and City Engineer have been included as project specific conditions of approval which are shaded in grey and included as an attachment CCCBID had no comments at this time The comments made by the agencies would not prevent the development and would not materially change the site layout or design of the structure as proposed
Final Action The Design Review Commission is the hearing authority for the subject application Decisions of the Design Review Commission can be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 6-280 of the Lafayette Municipal code within 14-calendar days of the action
Findings The approval of this application requires the Design Review Commission to make findings for Design Review structures over 17rsquo in height and permit category II tree removal The detailed findings are included in Resolution 2018-22 as Attachment 1
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission review the revisions to the project conduct the public hearing and adopt Design Review Commission Resolution 2018-22 approving the requested Design Review Permit subject to conditions attached herein as Exhibit ldquoArdquo
a Contra Costa County Fire Department Approval 5 Landscape Reduction Calculations 6 DRC Meeting Minutes for October 9 2018 7 DR12-18 Project Plans 20180918 (85rdquo x 11rdquo) 8 DR12-18 Project Plans 20181115 (11rdquo x 17rdquo)
Inside Out Design Inc 6000 Harwood Avenue Oakland CA 94618 51065576674 T 5106557673 F aboutinsideoutcom
September 25 2018 Ms Brianne Reyes Assistant Contract Planner City of Lafayette 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 210 Lafayette California 94549 Re Landscape Review DR12-18 Leslie amp Matthew Pease (Owners) R-40 Zoning Account 2734 Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
A site visit was made on September 21 2018 Story poles were erected at the time of the site visit
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (mostly located along the perimeter of the lot) The property is bordered by an adjacent neighborrsquos driveway to the north Happy Valley Glen Road (a small access lane connecting Happy Valley Road and Glenn Road) to the south and an existing residence to the east
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
bull Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
bull Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
bull Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
bull Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
2
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (except in special circumstances) The proposed mitigation trees toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) dogwood (Cornus lsquoEddiersquos wonderrsquo) and Pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) are significantly smaller in stature and would not provide the level of habitat of the existing trees deemed for removal
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residences south of the site at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
The Landscape Plan utilizes appropriate plantings for the semi-rural site with thought given to providing screening for the adjacent residences and privacy for the homeowner
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations
Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information Sincerely INSIDEOUT DESIGN INC
From Leach TedTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Tuesday September 25 2018 92243 AMAttachments image001png
The home will require fire sprinklers Regards Ted Leach - Fire InspectorContra Costa CountyFire Protection District4005 Port Chicago Highway Suite 250Concord CA 94520(925) 941-3300 x 1539
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andor confidential information only for use by
the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose
or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject to civil action andor
criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received this transmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or
by telephone and delete the transmission Thank you
From Reyes Brianne ltbreyescilafayettecausgt Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire ltfirecccfpdorggt Luttropp Matt ltMLuttroppcilafayettecausgt PennltpennaboutinsideoutcomgtSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg
How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged andorconfidential information only for use by the intended recipients Unless you are the addressee (orauthorized to receive messages for the addressee) you may not use copy disclose or distributethis message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone You may be subject tocivil action andor criminal penalties for violation of this restriction If you received thistransmission in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete thetransmission Thank you
From Russ LeavittTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project Review 3654A Happy Valley Road LafayetteDate Monday September 24 2018 50326 PMAttachments RUSSELL B LEAVITTvcf
According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records the project
site is within Central Sanrsquos service area Sanitary sewer service is available to the
west side of the project site via an ten-inch diameter public main sewer on Happy
Valley Road The proposed residence would not be expected to produce an
unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system nor interfere with
existing facilities The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central
San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees For sewer connection and
fee information the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925)
229-7371 Thanks
From Reyes Brianne [mailtobreyescilafayettecaus] Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 143 PMTo _Referral lt_ReferralcilafayettecausgtSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract Planner
City of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Luttropp MattTo Reyes BrianneSubject RE DR12-18 Pease New Project ReviewDate Thursday September 27 2018 40736 PM
Brianne Sorry for the delayed response on this project I have the following comments
1 The applicant has done a good job trying to lessen impermeable surfacing as part of thisproject If possible he should consider additional permeable surfacing in the large patio andpool surround area If this is not possible perhaps the grassy swale can be enlarged as itnears the overflow drain that carries water to the City storm drain system
Matt Luttropp
Engineering Manager
Engineering Services Division
City of Lafayette
Ph 9252993247 Fx 9252843169
mluttroppcilafayettecaus
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From Reyes Brianne Sent Monday September 24 2018 507 PMTo Fire District Luttropp Matt PennSubject FW DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Just a friendly reminder to please provide any comments on the new Design Review Permit projectby no later than Tuesday September 25 2018 Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Reyes Brianne Sent Wednesday September 19 2018 148 PMTo _ReferralSubject DR12-18 Pease New Project Review Hi All Please review the materials for DR12-18 Pease in the download link belowProvide comments to Brianne Reyes as soon as possible but no later than Tuesday September 252018This application will be tentatively heard at the Design Review Commission Meeting on October 92018 httpseftpmbakerintlcommessageHjQIB6BtrKAq41BxcXkUC6
If you have troubles with the link please let me know Thanks Ms Brianne ReyesAssistant Planner ndash Contract PlannerCity of LafayetteDirect (925) 299-3207 | Main (925) 284-1976wwwlovelafayetteorg How are we doing Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form hereWeekly Schedule Monday through Thursday from 800AM-500PM
From Alan GuyTo Fox JonathanSubject narrativeDate Thursday October 15 2020 101258 AM
My wife Johanna and our baby girl Madeline currently live in downtown San
Francisco We always thought we would stay in the city a few more years before we
moved to the East Bay and when that time came we always dreamed of moving to
Lafayette Madeline was born in early April just as COVID was taking hold As the
shutdowns continued so did the decline of the city and as a result we accelerated our
timeline to move out of the city
We quickly found this property and fell in love ndash and it was an added bonus that it
came with ldquoshovel readyrdquo plans After carefully reviewing the existing plans we
decided that this was our opportunity to build our dream family home and found that
some minor updates were needed to achieve that goal
The property was wonderfully designed for a couple in their 60rsquos nearing retirement
age however the layout included some features that were not necessary for a young
family (formal living and dining rooms access ramps) Additionally it was important to
us for all bedrooms to have en suite bathrooms After many studies our design team
figured the easiest way to accommodate this was to push the bedroom wing towards
the front and rear property lines to add the ~400sf This would keep the front and rear
elevation view almost unchanged
We also want to modify the exterior aesthetic from a traditional craftsman to a
transitionalmodern farmhouse style that more aligns with current architectural design
trends Alan Guy | PresidentANVILBUILDERS1475 Donner Ave | San Francisco California 94124o 4152855000 | c 4155187911 | f 4152855005alananvilbuilderscom |wwwanvilbuilderscom
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privilegedby law If you received this e-mail in error any review use dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibitedPlease notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system Thank you in advance foryour cooperation
From Lori DoyleTo Reyes BrianneCc Brian Doyle Lori DoyleSubject DR12-18 Mathey amp Leslie PeaseDate Sunday September 30 2018 92118 AM
Brianne
We are the residents of 3650 Happy Valley Road the property adjacent to the abovereferenced property
Our house is situated so that the back of our house faces the referenced propertyand the back of our house has various windows that allow us to enjoy the view ofour back yard Based on the outline of the house that was erected this past weekwe will be seeing a lot of the house from our back yard
I dont want to object to the house in general but I would like to confirm that thehouse is situated such that windows on the house are not facing our propertyparticularly our backyard I know the design says it is a single story home but theoutline of the house looks taller in areas and I cant tell from the information on thewebsite what the exterior of the house that would face our property looks like
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated
RegardsBrian and Lori Doyle
From Steven KubitschekTo Reyes BrianneSubject DR12-18 Pease ResidenceDate Sunday September 30 2018 50135 PM
Dear Ms Reyes I am a neighbor of the future Pease Residence and I am not available to attend the DRC meeting on9Oct I live at 3626 Happy Valley Glen Rd in Lafayette 2 properties away from The Pease Residence Iam happy to learn that a new home is coming into our neighborhood and that the property is beingdeveloped in a responsible way The two attached pictures are views of the Story Poles of The Pease Residence from my back yardpatio Considering that the home is a single story the visual impact seems excessive at 24rsquo10rdquo Manyvery successful single story homes are designed at 21rsquo and under in Lafayette This home appears tobe taller than the 2-story home The Vesce Residence (which can be seen in the two photosprovided) that stands between me and The Pease Residence It might be appropriate to have the DRC request that the architect for the Pease Residence lowerthe pitch of the main ridge of the home Thanks Steven F KubitschekResidential DesignOffice 925-254-2167Cell 925-348-3182BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY NEW WEBSITEwwwkubitschekdesigncomkubihouscomcastnet Please note The electronic file if supplied is being done so as a courtesy and convenience and is subordinate tothe signed hard copy with respect to content accuracy and quality No warranty or guarantee is made expressedor implied for any copies of the drawings or for the work associated with the electronic file by others
00 DR12-18CC DRC Staff Report 20201028
PUBLIC NOTICE amp COMMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
01 DR12-18CC DRC Resolution 2020-12 DRAFT
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPROVING
sect6-275(A) Residential Design Review Findings
sect6-275(C) Single-Family Residential Findings ndash Exceeding 17-Feet in Height
02 DR12-18CC COA DRAFT
03 Aerial
04 DR12-18 Pease DRC Resolution 2018-22-FINAL
05 DR12-18 Pease COA-FINAL
06 Excerpt Minutes 20181009
20181009
07 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 2018109 FINAL
08 Excerpt Minutes 20181126
20181126
09 DR12-18 Pease SR DRC 20181126 DRAFT
10 DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
DR12-18 Referral Agency Comments
2734 Happy Valley Rd (DR12-18 Pease) Landscape Review
Dear Brianne
We have reviewed the proposed plans with a revised date of August 27 2018 to construct a new 5083 SF single family residence on a vacant lot located at 3654-A on Happy Valley Road
Also reviewed was an arborist report dated September 7 2018 prepared Traverso Tree Service
Site Summery
The 101 acre SF vacant lot is located along the eastern shoulder of Happy Valley Road just north of the Deer Hill Road intersection The level rectangular lot retains a few mature walnuts a deodar cedar a London plane tree and six valley oaks (m
Potential view impacts as a result of the proposed development include the following
Moderate for the adjacent residences south of the property at 3650 amp 3652 Happy Valley Road
Significant for the adjacent residence to east at 3654 Happy Valley Road
Insignificant to minor for the residence to the northeast at 3656 Happy Valley Road
Minor for the residence north of the site at 3658 Happy Valley Road
Proposed plantings can help mitigate view disruptions
Existing Trees and Mitigations
All proposed tree removals are consistent with the cityrsquos objective of retaining healthy amp native protected trees on sites to be developed Trees deemed for removal on site are either in decline or have been disfigured due to overhead utility lines
1 The proposed Tree Mitigations Calculations chart (shown on Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan) quantifies required replacement trees per the cityrsquos tree ordinance Mitigation replacement trees are typically specified as the species removed (ex
To achieve a greater portion of the required mitigations consider locating one or two additional Arbutus lsquoMarinarsquo along the southeastern property line (east of the lsquo18rdquo oakrsquo) The evergreen trees would help buffer views for the neighboring residence
As an alternative the applicants may elect to satisfy a portion of the mitigation costs via in-lieu payment Recent costs for 15 gallon replacement trees have equaled $263 per tree
Recommendations for Sheet L-40 Proposed Planting Plan
2 Consider planting small to medium sized shrubs between the proposed lsquoback-up spacersquo and Happy Valley Road to help buffer the feature for views from the road
Recommendations for Sheet L-60 Conceptual Drainage Plan
3 To ensure adequate drainage and cover over the proposed drain lines please provide drain inlet and invert pipe elevations