TUESDAY, September 10, 2019 CITY OF ORINDA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 TUESDAY, September 10, 2019 CITY OF ORINDA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair Iverson. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Brandyn Iverson Chair Present 7:00 PM John Lynn Smith Vice-Chair Excused Robert Hubner Commissioner Excused Marian Jelinek Commissioner Excused Lina Lee Commissioner Present 7:00 PM Willy Mautner Commissioner Present 7:00 PM David Parnigoni Commissioner Present 7:00 PM Drummond Buckley Director of Planning Present 7:00 PM Adam Foster Senior Planner Present 7:00 PM Mayank Patel Senior Planner Excused Winnie Mui Assistant Planner Excused Julie Tamayo Senior Administrative Assistant Present 7:00 PM 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chair Iverson recommended the adoption of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mautner. The motion passed by a unanimous (4-0) majority vote. 3. PUBLIC FORUM Chair Iverson opened the floor to any member of the public wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. Seeing and hearing none the public forum was closed. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR There is no reportable action. 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. At 100 Moraga Way: Exception EXC and EXC and Tree Removal TRP requests to realign the property s existing driveway, install a new gate along the proposed driveway, and remove two protected trees. The project includes two exception permit requests: 1) retaining wall/fence combinations greater than four feet in height within the front yard setback and greater than eight feet in height outside of the front yard setback; 2) gate pilasters greater than four feet in height within the front yard setback. The project applicant proposes to remove two protected trees: 1) a 27-inch diameter valley oak located in the center of the proposed driveway [tree #7]; a 25-inch diameter coast live oak located near the south-east corner of the property [tree #9].

2 PROJECT SITE: 100 Moraga Way APN: APPLICATIONS: EXC ; EXC ; TRP ZONING DESIGNATION: RL-20 (Residential Low Density) OWNER: Richard V. Bowling Jr. APPLICANT: James Wright PROJECT PLANNER: Adam Foster, Senior Planner CEQA: Categorically Exempt, CEQA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, close the public hearing, and evaluate the proposed project for conformance to the applicable standards. Chair Iverson introduced the project and asked for any ex-parte communication by the Commissioners. Commissioners Mautner, Parnigoni and Lee had visited the site and spoke to no one. Chair Iverson, who was not present for the initial hearing, visited the site and spoke with the project architect James Wright, who gave her a brief tour and summary of project. Chair Iverson welcomed Senior Planner Adam Foster to present the item. Senior Planner, Adam Foster provided the Commission an overview of the project and staff report as well as an update on items that have been changed or eliminated from the previous planning Commission meeting. The yurt structure and the detached bathroom structure has been removed. Exterior modifications on the guest house have neighbor consent. The garage has been reduced from 1100 to 940 square feet, just below the requirement for design review. Two exceptions remain: 1) retaining wall/fence combinations greater than four feet in height within the front yard setback and greater than eight feet in height outside of the front yard setback; 2) gate pilasters greater than four feet in height within the front yard setback. Two protected trees are being requested to be removed (#7 and #9). Foster shows floor plans to reduce square footage of the garage and asks commission if there is any issue with not including crawl space within square footage as historically this has not been counted as square footage. Mautner: There were some trees that were cut down previously. Where were they located? Foster: Those were approximate to the proposed yurt. A little bit north of where tree #7 is shown in the image. As mentioned in the staff report, the applicant has paid a restitution fee to close out the code enforcement case. Lee: Were those trees cut down after the June presentation to this Committee? Foster: They were cut down prior to the previous Planning Commission meeting. Those were discussed during the previous Planning Commission meeting.

3 Chair Iverson: When I walked the site today, the proposed trees to be removed were not marked. Had I not ran into the project architect, I wouldn t have known which trees were being removed. Is it ever feasible to mark the trees so that we know which ones are the exception to the permit? It helps when we are reviewing in person. I know it is not always feasible. For the fence height exception, in the materials I saw a detail of what the open type fence would be but I am having a hard time finding a single visual of where on the site the fence would be placed, and what that retaining wall fence combo is. Can you point me to a good visual aide? Foster: I believe the applicant in his presentation will provide a visual. Chair Iverson: You mentioned the hammerhead versus the circular driveway. I felt that most of the late submitted materials still showed the motor court circle. Do you have an example of the hammerhead? Foster: It is actually embedded within the driveway you see before you. It may be a little more clear on the printed plans you have. Drummond Buckley is going to point to where the approximate location of the hammerhead is on the screen. Chair Iverson: It s a subset. That s very helpful. Parnigoni: I don t mean to be difficult about this but we are still running the driveway parallel to Moraga Way and not making a circle out of it, just doing a hammerhead, is that what you are saying? Foster: The applicants proposed driveway and the staff s recommendation for the modification through the conditions of approval is the driveway you see before you on the screen which is from the site plan would be the one that staff is recommending approval of. However, it would not circle around it would just stop at the hammerhead. Parnigoni: So, half the circle would be gone? Foster: Yes. Mautner: Will the applicant be showing any sketches of that? The Commissioners saw in the latest report there was a couple sketches of options B and C driveways. Buckley: This is something that was proposed by staff as a condition of approval so the applicant is not providing any graphics. It is proposed by staff as a condition of approval. Chair Iverson: The correspondence still talks about an option A and option C. I noticed your report really just focuses on option A, how shall the Commission think about that in our considerations?

4 Foster: The arborist report, the addendum version, includes specific recommendations for each tree. The applicant originally showed option A and B; option A being the preferred option and B showing if you were to change the existing driveway and modify it to meet MOFD Moraga Orinda Fire District requirements this is somewhat what that driveway would look like. Without the applicant s authorization and without talking to staff, the project arborists came up with option C, which is not being proposed by the applicant. So in the report staff emphasized the driveway that is being proposed by the applicant and then used the conditions of approval and mitigations from the arborist report as to how that driveway could be modified to preserve trees. Lee: Can I clarify that what is being presented in that graphic is option A? Foster: Yes. Lee: Is staff recommending a hammerhead version of option A? Foster: Yes. The applicant provided option B for illustrative purposes only, B and C are not being proposed as options by the applicant, only option A. Parnigoni: Would staff s recommended option A.1 take into consideration most of the comments that the city arborist made relative to the existing trees and what the recommendations would be for preserving them? Foster: Yes, for instance the circular driveway would allow for tree #1 not to be destroyed,and then there are other conditions that relate to other trees along the proposed new driveway. Mautner: Where is tree #1? Foster: Tree #1 is in the northern point of the circular driveway. Chair Iverson invited applicant, James Wright to speak. Project Applicant, James Wright presented the project. Chair Iverson opened the floor for public comment. A summary of public comments (not verbatim) are as follows: David Moylan, the grandchild of original owner of 100 Moraga is concerned about the historical integrity of the house, charm of the neighborhood, and removing trees. T Coleman, the grandchild of original owner has similar concerns of historical preservation, charm of the neighborhood and city identity. She believed there is more than enough structures on the property currently and no need for more.

5 Irene Smith, the daughter of original owner described the property as iconic and ADU does not fit the aesthetic. She is upset about trees that were cut down illegally, and takes issue with the size of garage as well as traffic concerns. She strongly encourages the denial of project. Susan Livingston, the daughter of original owner presented the history of the structure. Spoke of her father s history of building house and his vision of having a storybook house. Susan and her sisters sold the house in 1980 and the house has been taken care of impeccably until recently. She believes the house is in jeopardy of being aesthetically destroyed by the ADU, and strongly protests the construction of the current design. Joanna Lande, 110 Moraga Way: Owner is concerned about the 6 day construction schedule that has been disruptive and will only continue with the proposed ADU and new driveway. She urges approval for Option C only for driveway design and concerned about light coming into her living room window. Ryan Alexander, 25 Camino Sobrante: Owner is concerned about the illegally removed trees that have affected views from his property, now seeing headlights instead of foliage. He expressed concern that the property will be used commercially. Staff should take into consideration Joanna s concerns because she has every right to enjoy her property as much as the applicant does. Chair Iverson closed the floor for public comment and opened the floor for the project applicant for rebuttal. A summary of the applicant comments (not verbatim) are as follows: James Wright: I would like to respond to the square footage of the ADU, it was said that it was twice the square footage of the main house which is 1300 square feet and the ADU is 1100 with parking below. The concept of the garden was to maintain the original courtyard in front while creating an elliptical garden with a perimeter driveway that would tangent the cluster of buildings and we nestled the ADU into the hillside. The ADU no longer has the metal roof, and it now has a simulated slate that matches the main house. Sandra Bowling: Thank you for being here tonight, we want you to know that we took into consideration all the comments and concerns from the previous meeting and we hope you can put some of the fears and misinformation to rest. I would love for you all to understand the effort that our family is putting forth to preserve this property. The professional advice we received was that it was unsalvageable and wanted to relay that our mission has been to salvage this property. We have a goal of multiple uses for our family as a long term investment; my parents will one day come to live at this property, my sister and I have been looking for a house together and I hope that she retires with me, I hope that my nieces and nephews live here.. On an acre property we would like to house 6 people. We are trying to do the best to preserve and maintain the appearance of the property and

6 listen to the needs and concerns of Joanne. Her biggest concern was the fence that lies on 5 feet of the property which we have rebuilt for her. There had been a long standing argument about the fence and the trees from the previous owner, Pat, and I am hoping Joanna can find gratitude that she got both of the things she wanted and that we lost some privacy in the process. In regards to the trees that were cut down illegally, we were not a part of that but I do want to acknowledge that mistake and it will not happen again. Regarding the headlights in the driveway, I think that the frequency and duration are minimal as it is second of exposure each time a car enters the driveway. Joanna invited me to view the property from her house and there are blinds that could help with this issue in the room that is affected. I don t see this being an issue as I am not nocturnal. James Wright: I would like to make one more comment regarding the gabion cage living retaining wall, it follows along the driveway inclination so it s two stacked 3 feet gabion cages that are filled with recycled material from the job, it s 6ft high and on top is a hedge planting that is a barrier that physically obscures any headlights and a separation from the properties. Sandra Bowling: One more point in regards to the idea of maintaining the story book visual as it relates to viewing it from the street. In the slide Adam showed from the street, you actually can t see the property. The speed limit is 30mph and someone passing by doesn t have more than a couple seconds to view. I don t think that view should be prioritized more than the function of how my family and I use this property. I am confused about the relevance of this. Chair Iverson closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. A summary of Commissioner Comments (not verbatim) are as follows: Parnigoni: I am not sure I have any questions yet, I am a little confused by what is being presented versus what we have been asked to review so I am going to need a couple minutes think about it. Chair Iverson: Why do the pilasters need an exception? James Wright: We are using the existing gate, we are salvaging it and the height adapts better to a 5 6 pilaster. Chair Iverson: Can you educate me further on my earlier question in regards to where exactly that retaining wall fence combo will be on the property? The fence that requires an exception because we need to make finding for those exceptions. James Wright: Where the driveway is, we immediately make a turn across the asphalt and that gabion cage with the fence above is directly at the top of this straight asphalt driveway currently. Chair Iverson: I thought it was going to be by the front set-back along Moraga way but it sounds like it is on the lower edge of the property towards the streamside.

7 James Wright: That is correct. Mautner: Can you show that on the drawing on page 1.1? James Wright: As seen from Moraga way, the fence height is 5 above existing grade, it s only from our internal view that you see the substructure of the retaining wall. Buckley: The site plan is on packet page 38. Chair Iverson: Is it the three shaded areas? James Wright (pointing to site plan directed at the Commission): The fence is here, here is the linear asphalt driveway that section cuts right through here which is the worst condition. The purpose is to shield the headlights passing with a 5 solid fence on top. As seen from public view, it is only 5 high fence which complies to the intent of the zoning ordinance. Chair Iverson: How much of that requires the exception permit because of the retaining wall increasing its height? James Wright: Here is the setback line (referring to site plan). A small portion in this area and a small portion in this area. This area does not require exception. Foster: That area does require an exception because the combined height exceeds 8. James Wright: At this area there is a hill. The adjacent driveway is very steep. Chair Iverson: Staff recommended an open slat and you are requesting solid due to the headlights. Can you show me exactly which portion of that would be having that issue? James Wright: Solid all the way to here so that we can have no visual passing of light. Chair Iverson: And that is on both sides of the driveway that you are requesting that? James Wright: No, only on the downhill side of the driveway. Chair Iverson: What is on the street side? James Wright: Nothing. An 18 stacked rubble stone wall. Mautner: I am kind of disappointed by the layout of the driveway, just from a design standpoint. It takes up a lot of space. I would like to see a different driveway that didn t have the grading issues. I have some questions starting with your impervious surface calculation. There is a circular driveway and then the garage but it does not include any area to get into the garage. Your calculation is missing some square footage, this is on page 41. I am having some problems with your grading, and I am really concerned about tree #8. On page 40, there is a top of wall and bottom of wall notation 503, 501 yet the grade is at

8 447 at that point. So you have a 2 step but you can t have that. Grading there is 501, your top of wall is correct but your driveway is 497. I am having a hard time understanding the grading and the amount of retaining wall that you are actually going to have to build. Likewise the next one down is a top of wall of 501 and a bottom of wall at 498 and the grade is 496. One of the things I would ask is for this grading to be reviewed and if it is so, the Commission may need to review these retaining walls. The second concern is the way that you presented the modification of the garage versus the ADU. On the ADU you have a nice entry porch area and you ve continued the foundation down at that point. With the revision of the crawl space, you could reduce the amount of the concrete retaining wall move the wall to the inboard wall and the porch become a cantilever element that would lighten up the structure. That would move the concrete foundation of the garage further away from the #6 oak tree. One comment, this is a 16 driveway not an 18 driveway which makes it a little bit narrower. The other element is the #8 oak tree, the width of the gabion, are they 3? James Wright: Yes. Mautner: If you are measuring from the oak tree to the face of the gabion cage is 5 or its 3, so if you have a 3 gabion you are already on the edge of the tree. That is part of my concern about this driveway that you are hugging that property line and cutting that tree a little bit on the tight side. I am concerned about the grading in this zone. James Wright: You are right about the cantilevered portion and that was something that had come up when we were designing it and it was an option that would improve the health of the tree. The top of wall and bottom of wall are indicated on the uphill side and the downhill side of the wall where the road is, I didn t show a tag because the uphill side exposure is 4 but the downhill side 6. I am pretty confident that the numbers we are showing is accurate; it s just graphically a little confusing. Regarding the pervious pavement, we propose all pavement to be pervious. Mautner: Let s stick to one question at a time. Can you go to page 41 on the screen? Buckley: We do not have the full packet as a PDF. Mautner: This is just a calculation issue. If you go to the top right hand sketch you have A, B, C, D, but you notice the area between D and C. James Wright: You are right, there is a discrepancy. Mautner: So that would be a paved area I would assume? James Wright: It is, pervious paved. Mautner: Does that change anything? James Wright: No. Mautner: That just needs to be corrected. Let s talk about the cantilever, you said that had been discussed?

9 James Wright: Yes, it had come up in the 11 th hour of designing trying to get it finished and submitted. I told my project architect not to worry about it, but we discussed it. Mautner: Would you be open to this being a condition of approval? James Wright: Absolutely. Chair Iverson: I suggest that we not get into ADU design tonight but we can discuss when it is up for deliberation. Mautner: We should discuss the gabion dimension issues. James Wright: There is a graphic issue with the dimensions, in a cross section the gabion cage is 3 x 3 x 6 which is a standard size. My project architect drew the top gabion cage at 4 tall in the cross section. Mautner: I am looking at page 40. Are you saying that the dimensions are to the back of the wall as opposed to the front of the wall? James Wright: Yes, those top and bottom of the wall were on the street side showing the height above existing grade, the lowered grade of the driveway, we did not show the top and bottom of walls which confirms what you were saying earlier. Mautner: If I am looking at this correctly, the top of wall is 503 and 497 at the bottom of the wall on the driveway side, so we are talking about a 6 retaining wall. James Wright: Yes, when we do the base for the road, we are going to make it 3 wider and put the gabion cage directly on the road base, sloping with the road, 2 cages high 6 the entire length as a 6 high barrier and then on top where it nestles into the slope, we create a planter and put all the hedge on top. Mautner: If you plan to use recycled materials for the cage, are you looking to use some sort of draping ivy or plants for on top to cover up the materials? James Wright: We are going to use all the demolition materials as the owner has used all recycled building material in the house and guest house. We will continue that philosophy for the garden ornament. Mautner: Are you going to try and soften that with some greenery? James Wright: It will be mixed, in the pockets where there are voids there will be planting soil which will be irrigated and become a living wall. Mautner: Is that a condition here that we are going to have a living wall within the landscaping? You were talking about creating a line of trees in the southern property line but is that within a condition that is already in the proposal? Foster: The condition that was recommended by staff was for the privot trees that are along the southern property line.

10 Lee: I would like to know the applicants response or reaction to the hammerhead design versus the circular driveway as you have presented. James Wright: The condition that staff was recommending of hammerhead only was due to the impacts on tree #1. The root zone of tree #1 is impacted by the driveway apron on top of it. We proposed the same geomat permeable paving which allows rainwater and irrigation to the root structure that exists. Also, the existing grade, there is no excavation required in that area for the sub-base of the driveway. So there will be no more root disruption of root zone for tree #1 by the proposed driveway. It is a physical fact that can be proven by the grading plan so if it were a condition that there would be no excavation under the drip line of that tree, we could meet that. Foster: For clarification, there has been gravel and excavation in that area right now. Is your response assuming that the excavation that has already occurred without authorization would remain, or are you saying that there isn t any change already? James Wright: There is no further excavation required. Lee: Similarly, the consulting arborist reports indicate that there are 7 trees that would be impacted by your design where as you are presenting that only 2 would be affected. James Wright: What we have done since the arborist peer review is we have elevated the driveway. By elevating the driveway, you can see it completely eliminates disruption to the root zone of tree #8 which was a concern. Where the gabion retaining wall collides with the hill, there is disruption of the roots on tree #8. It is only in that one point. The rest of the driveway has been elevated to protect all of the trees above and below the driveway and we propose that whole zone to be permeable material to allow for irrigation to the roots and rainwater to pass through. Buckley: During the presentation, you mentioned a new 6 retaining wall. Can you clarify if that they are included in the plans that were submitted and reviewed for the staff report or is it something new since the report came out? James Wright: That is the 6 gabion retaining wall that was proposed and submitted, this one that we are looking at on the plan. Mautner: I have an issue with the racetrack layout and the formalization of that. With the hammerhead concept, you would be cutting that back. Could you solve this design by having the paved areas in the hammerhead and create a softer area for the area that is not the hammerhead? James Wright: Yes, we can but it would not be as beautiful. Mautner: So you are committed to that track as opposed to doing something that has the same outline. You have your paved area that s the hammerhead and the balance of that curve which would still be expressed but not as formalized of a driveway. This is a design issue but it s your decision. James Wright: If you look at the artist s rendition, what is not shown is the concept of the landscaping material which is a garden growing wild and it is not a formal garden. The

11 shoulders of the driveway although they are firetruck rated have a gravel that bleeds into the landscape so there is no demarcation between the firetruck turnaround and the gravel that goes beneath the shrubbery, etc. The much defined racetrack will be lost in the organic landscaping. You can see it more in the perspective rendering. We are trying to achieve a more organic space rather than something classic and formal oval. The oval unifies the structures by the tangent aspects of it. You can see how we have an area of landscaping by the entry of the main house and it integrated the circulation needed to get into the garage, drop off at the front door while keeping it in a residential scale. The big issue with the firetruck turnarounds is that the minimum width is 16, the hammerheads are 50 by 70, and they turn residential dwellings into commercial scale spaces. We have been trying since day one to retain a scale that fits with the character of the property. What you are seeing is more of the engineering of what s beneath the gravel that bleeds into all the organic planting material growing wild. Mautner: What I was trying to do is acknowledge is that the firetruck requirement are met by the hammerhead. So the part that is not the hammerhead, can that be in a material of transition into the main entry area that you don t have? That transition doesn t look real clean to me. James Wright: I am happy to come back with a landscape plan that would illustrate the intent and it would obscure this racetrack oval. It is really subsurface, and the boundary of the gravel is everywhere, with plant material, the feeling decomposed granite paths everywhere. Chair Iverson closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. A summary of Commissioner Comments (not verbatim) are as follows: Lee: What extent if any are we able to weigh in on the design of the ADU? I know specifically we are looking at the two exceptions, ADU design being out of scope. This has come up in public comment as well as in commissioners questions so if you could give us some guidance. Foster: The discretionary application is for the exceptions and the tree removal permits. You can comment on the exceptions and how they relate to the overall project but the ADU and the design are not up for review tonight. Buckley: I would just clarify one thing there, if you feel that we made the wrong interpretation in terms of the crawl space area and you feel that in order to not count it toward the total square footage that it should be kept open, that s an acceptable condition of approval to include. Chair Iverson: I would like to talk about preservation. It was very touching to see how many family members came to tell us the story of this property. I am in support of this application and I would like to explain why, for the people that are so invested and passionate about this property. They are going through a lot of trouble and expense to save a house that has foundation problems and that was falling apart. And that s what happens with older houses if you do not invest in them and you don t keep them up. I was thrilled to see that someone wanted to rescue such a beautiful house and site. What I heard from a number of you tonight is that you are concerned about the ADU

12 blocking the view of the house and changing the character of the site. What I saw was that the ADU was placed apart from this jewel box of a house. It is placed way up by the road, doesn t have nearly as much privacy as you would down by the stream. There is no perfect on a site like this, however given the fact that they have a right to do all this, I feel like they were being sensitive to the original house. I was very happy to see that this house will live another 100 years because of this. Supporting this project does not mean ignoring all those concerns, but that the ADU is legal, it is not in our discretion, but sometimes projects need to evolve and so I support it in light of all the important concerns. I differ from staff s recommendations on two things. I actually like the racetrack. I thought it had a better design sense, that there is a sight path, as well as an elegance to it that the hammerhead doesn t have. I would not require the hammerhead personally but I also support it because it s the applicant s preference. I also do support the solid versus the slat wall on the top fence because we have looked at other projects on Moraga way and it s a high traffic zone unlike other walkable areas in Orinda. In walkable areas where it does affect the character of neighborhoods I would be more concerned about the fence in this respect but projects right on Moraga way I don t feel have that walkable neighborhood character and I would give privacy a little bit more deference in this case. Parnigoni: I have mixed feelings on this project, I share in the chair s support for the historical aspects and your passion for preserving it. I recognize the current owner s right to develop the property within the limits of Orinda s municipal code. In terms of someone taking on a restoration like this, there are very few people that would actually take this on. As much as it is departing from where your grandfather or father left it, there is something to be said about someone s desire to not only improve the original house but the guest house as well. It takes a special kind of person to take on a project like this and I have to respect that. Initially, I was discounting the driveway C option because it seemed like it wasn t something the applicant desired although it had the circular court which does comport with the original application. I could be swayed to go with the arborist recommendation option C if that was the most sensible way to preserve the most trees while still having a circular drive, but compromising on the headlights into the neighbor s property. The one thing I like about the driveway on the back is that it does use a part of the property that wouldn t otherwise be useful. It s also high up there and to the extent that the ADU is nestled into the hill that does even more to screen it from Moraga Way. And to the extent that the retaining walls on the west side are larger than favored, they are on the side that faces the home so it s not something the public would see. Especially if there is a landscaping element added to it. So it s not something I am concerned with. I am not too worried about the pilasters and where they are located. This house has been here for 90 years and a lot of the trees have been there for just as long, and to the extent that the chair pointed out that this is probably a 100 year restoration, any trees that would be removed would most likely overtime be replaced. It seems like an overreach for us to overly tweak this preferred design just to support trees that are living now and trees that the arborist suggest will most likely diminish. It is not a guarantee. Certainly the applicant and the architect are sensitive to preserving the

13 trees. If they are conscious of that during construction there are ways to better the odds that the trees will be saved with the existing layout. I do like the circular driveway. I think it gives the opportunity for a full vantage of the full property from the back of the ADU as well as a chance to circle all the structures on the property. It still preserves quite a bit of the property for some future use or just to further landscape the property. I do worry that those traveling north on Moraga way, it could be confusing to see a secondary set of headlights coming their way from the driveway. I would advocate for some sort of a screen beyond what the architect pointed out as a natural break, a rubble retaining wall. I would advocate for a living wall or fence to lower the chance of someone being confused with another set of headlights on that side driving in the opposite direction. In regard to the privot trees being planted along the property line, if the landscape architect felt that trees denser than privots would be more appropriate, I don t know if we need to be locked into the privots. I think the important thing is that the home owner be impacted as little as possible with the headlights coming into their home. I can support the project in a couple configurations, I will wait to see what the rest of the commission has to say and weigh in. Lee: I also have had a lot of mixed feelings about the project. Back in June, I was skeptical of the transparency of the intentions. I share some of the same comments from the public in regards to the use, whether it was commercial or not. But I do want to address the concerns of the speakers from the family of the original owners that spoke tonight. I do want to give credit to the applicants for preserving the home and I do believe in private property rights. We have a difficult job in trying to respect people s property rights while considering how it fits and feels into the character of Orinda. The applicant could have decided to demolish the home and build a new home which we see very often here. I do want to recognize the efforts that the applicant has made in preserving the house and build around it. To that point, the circular elliptical driveway, hearing the applicant talk about the landscaping you have in mind, actually got me around to it more. I also see that it would bring together the three different buildings. I know that the roof is on the ADU is now being changed to compliment the main house but I think the circular driveway will help bring that all together. In terms of the retaining wall, given the vantage point of Moraga Way, we do have to look at this property differently from one of the side streets where there a lot more pedestrians. I don t have an issue with the height of the retaining wall, it makes sense especially what you described as a living wall will look very nice. What I am struggling with is really staying in scope with the two exceptions, tree removal and exception of the wall. I do have some concerns about the ADU designs and not sure how to incorporate that in. If we were to make an approval tonight, what kind of conditions we would want to make. I liked what Commissioner Mautner was recommending and I hope that we could incorporate that in. Chair Iverson: I would like to suggest that the applicant listen to DICTA but that we do not make any express conditions on the ADU. I do not believe that is within the scope that we have, am I correct Drummond?

14 Buckley: Other than that crawl space issue. Mautner: Which is a design issue. That s an easy one. Chair Iverson: No it is not a design issue, it is whether the square footage measurement of the garage, to make sure that it is technically compliant, if by being open it would give us more comfort that it is NOT non-compliant. That is the only narrow issue we have to decide on. Buckley: Correct. Mautner: I am fine with that. If they reduce that crawl space issue, and make the entry balcony a cantilever, that lightens up the whole design. Chair Iverson: That is designing the ADU. Mautner: This is the garage, not the ADU. Chair Iverson: The garage is not here for design review. The question is would an open crawl space make the square footage not count. Lee: For the garage, the phrasing in the slide said historically the Commission does not count crawl space as square footage. Buckley: This is a staff interpretation, and I am not sure that we have been 100% consistent. In some cases we have counted this condition as square footage and in other we have not. I think it is appropriate if the Commission wants to provide direction that the crawl space be open, that s an appropriate direction to give us. Chair Iverson: To be clear, what we can t do is say because it is closed, we are going to design review it. Buckley: I am not suggesting a design review, I am saying if the Commission feels that in order to make the finding that the square footage of the garage does not exceed 1000 square feet that the crawl space needs to be kept open that is appropriate. It is not a design review issue. Chair Iverson: My personal view is that it doesn t accomplish anything. Therefore, I wouldn t require having it being open simply for compliance. I am not sure it makes the project any better, but I defer to my fellow Commissioners on that. Mautner: In my terminology, moving that retaining wall inboard so the garage footprint is smaller and you get the foundation further away from tree #6. Buckley: I would also say that it is very clearly related to tree #6, because we have a suggested condition of approval for dealing with that foundation where it is now, and if you move that foundation back, that is going to help preserve the tree. Chair Iverson: Can the Commission do that given that we are not here to design review

15 the garage? Buckley: You are also here to ensure that the protected trees are protected through the design and that they are not destroyed as a result of the design. Mautner: I got the sense that the owner and the architect would not be objecting to that condition. Chair Iverson: What Drummond said was helpful. I wanted to understand where the boundaries are. Mautner: I have to commend the owners for taking on this remodel and following through with it. Last time we met, there was a great concern about a commercial use, but I am confident now that there is no intent for commercial use at this point. I am concerned about tree #6, as a condition, I would like to include that. I would also like it if staff and the owner could work together and do a landscape review, in order to clearly understand very clearly where the landscaping is going to go and how it is going to be done. I think the gabion walls are pretty ugly and any kind of greenery to soften them would be beneficial. I think the two layers of gabions is going to help a lot with the headlight issue. Within the context of the landscaping plan as it relates to the oval driveway, I would like staff to work with the landscape architect and architect to understand entry paths and walkways because at this time we don t see that. I think it will have an impact on the design. I was initially having a hard time with this project but now I am understanding the design much better. I think the solid wall above is an important element and I would follow through with that. I do have a concern about tree #8, because of the gabions I think that tree may be at risk. Chair Iverson: I would be happy to make a motion. Is there anything further to add? Parnigoni: Relative to the cantilever and tree #6, the foundation is well beyond the drip line of that tree. It feels to me it s less about helping to preserve tree #6 and more about tweaking the design. To the extent that we are all comfortable weighing in on that, we could make it a condition, or we can ignore it and leave it up to staff. Mautner: I would like to make it a condition; I think it makes that element lighter from that stand point. The tree is a good reason to do it. Drummond: The drip line is within area. We are talking about tree #6 not tree #1. Foster: Approximately half of the ADU is within the drip line of tree #6. Chair Iverson: I have a question for staff, the neighbor Mr. Alexander was talking about the two trees that were cut down now create an unobstructed view from his property to Moraga Way. I saw in correspondence that there were $13,000 in fines as a result of that. Is any of that going to help him mitigate the consequences from that? Or is that not how it works?

16 Buckley: No, that is not how it works. ACTION: Chair Iverson made a motion to approve the application for driveway realignment with the two exceptions, including all of staff s recommended conditions of approval with the following list of exceptions and additions: 1. Staff s recommendation that the fence needs to be open, we propose that it be the applicant s discretion, open or closed. 2. The garage foundation which currently puts tree #6 at risk be modified, whether it is open crawl space or changes that could reduce the size of the foundation, which may be a minor design change. Staff can work with the applicant to make sure that tree protection is addressed, specifically with a view to the foundation reduction. 3. That there be a living wall for the privacy of the immediate neighbor where the driveway lights are a problem. There shall be a living wall with greenery planted on it, and part of that is a specific landscape review with an eye to masking the wall with greenery, paths and walkways, and tree #8 s health and protection. Those are all subsets of the landscape review that we would have staff do. Did I forget anything? Buckley: One of the recommended conditions of the approval has to do with the driveway configurations. Iverson: My motion would be to remove the hammerhead driveway condition and leave that to the applicant s discretion. That s what I would propose. Do I have a second? Mautner: I ll second. Ayes: Mautner, Parnigoni, Lee and Iverson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Hubner, Jelinek, and Smith 6. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. At 2 Irving Lane: Consideration for a Design-Review application DRA for a 1,145 square-foot addition in the south-east corner of the property at 2 Irving Lane, where an existing 1,601 square-foot residence and 404 square foot garage are located. The proposed addition would result in a 3,150 square-foot (2,750 adjusted square-foot) residence. This hearing is for an appeal of a Zoning Administrator s decision, which approved the project. PROJECT SITE: 2 Irving Lane APN: APPLICATIONS: DRA ZONING DESIGNATION: RL-40 (Residential Low Density) OWNER: Deborah & Raymond Hearey APPLICANT: Brovelli Architecture APELLANT: Thomas Ng PROJECT PLANNER: Adam Foster, Senior Planner

17 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, close the public hearing, and evaluate the proposed project for conformance to the applicable standards. Chair Iverson introduced the project and asked for any ex-parte communications by Commissioners. Commissioners Parnigoni, Mautner, and Lee had visited the site and spoke to no one. Chair Iverson visited the site and the appellant s site but spoke to no one. Adam Foster provided the Commission with an overview of the project and staff report. Chair Iverson: I thought in the correspondence, the appellant had said if we could add that condition, modifying his own permit, he said that he would drop the appeal. I assume we would still need to have tonight s hearing to grant those formalities but I wanted to see if there was an amicable solution on the table already. Or should we disregard that? Buckley: We received that on Thursday when we were preparing the staff report for tonight s meeting. So we didn t have a chance to work with the applicant to see if there could be a withdrawal of the appeal. Once the staff report came out, the applicant prepared a letter stating that they were ok with doing what the appellant suggested. We met with the appellant who decided not to withdraw the appeal and I will let the appellant speak to that himself. Chair Iverson invited applicant, Jim Brovelli of Brovelli Architecture to speak. Project applicant, Jim Brovelli of Brovelli Architecture and Gary Ramp of GGR Development presented the project. Chair Iverson: A question, is what you are describing is that in any of our materials or is this a subsequent new concept? Gary Ramp: It is a new concept. Chair Iverson invited appellant, Thomas Ng to present. Mautner: I am confused. Your neighbors are building the addition, and they have to provide the trees. Who is planting the trees? Thomas Ng: I had asked what plants were going to be planted. And this is the first time I am hearing about them being natellis ficus tree, they have not been mentioned throughout the whole process. We felt that if it is something that we can plant, and we can control, and screen what we want to screen from a stand point of privacy and height. We didn t feel it was right to put that burden on someone else. It is something we wanted to have in our own hands. We want to do what we can to preserve our privacy. The cost is burdensome. We are willing to take on some of the cost but not to the full extent. There is an option to mask the privacy issue with the windows. In essence, we would prefer to have a green, living wall of plants to look at as opposed to a wall of grey with windows that limits our privacy. We would like to minimize the height, so at least we can keep

18 some of the sky and light that we already have and not lose it all. Mautner: The Planning Commission can only require the neighbor to plant the trees, and cannot dictate that the neighbor plant a tree. All the conversation pertains to what they plant on their property. Buckley: The difference here is that the neighbor has a condition of approval that specifies that all vegetation on his property cannot exceed 14. That s the difference. Chair Iverson: I have a question for the appellant, would you mind if we removed that condition just for theoretical future flexibility even if that is not part of tonight s plan? Is there any reason you want to keep that condition in place? Thomas Ng: The 14. The only reason we accepted that is we wanted to build our house by the Heary s so we were on the other side of the aisle 5 years ago. We just wanted to move forward and we dropped our height and then an administrator said we also needed to do this. To be honest, we just agreed because we wanted to build our house and move on. Chair Iverson: Drummond, do we have the ability to remove that condition tonight, is that correct? Buckley: As stated in the staff report, what you have the ability to do is create a new condition of approval that covers this issue as it pertains to the proposal from the Heary s, that would not amend the original statement of action. However, because it is indicating the intent of the Commission, on a discretionary approval, it is covering the same issue of the same two neighbors. We would interpret that, to mean that for purposes of the condition of approval on Mr. Ng s property, we would consider it to be 16 instead of 14 and that it is not only drought tolerant. Mautner: I am still confused. We are talking about landscaping on the neighbor s property, not Mr. Ng s property. Is that correct? Buckley: Mr. Ng was willing at one point to allow the Heary s to do what they have planned to do without requiring them to do any landscaping on their property, and that he would handle landscaping on his property as long as they could agree that it would be 16. The Heary s agreed to that but this conversation was taking place as we were preparing for this hearing and in the end, Mr. Ng decided to not withdraw his appeal which is his right. That is why we are talking about landscaping on his property. As you know, I do not like making conditions of approval that are not in regards to the subject parcel, I like to steer away from that. Unfortunately, we are addressing a condition of approval that imposed by my predecessor that did just that. Actually it didn t do just that. It actually conditioned the subject parcel at the time, which is the Ng s project, which limited the height of the landscaping. It is very difficult to enforce. That is the situation we are in and we are trying to deal with it. Lee: When the applicant was presenting and Gary Ramp was speaking on trees to be planted, that was trees to be planted on 2 Irving? Buckley: Correct. To clarify that, this landscaping plan was just introduced here tonight at

19 the hearing. So there is landscaping shown, between the time of the Zoning Administrator approval and the packet, the Heary s did do a good faith effort to add some landscaping and that is shown on the plans. We had some questions as to whether or not it would adequately screen and in response to our staff report they brought a landscaping professional (Gary Ramp) who is proposing the same species of tree that Mr. Ng is proposing on his property, and those would be planted on 2 Irving. Mautner: It seems to me that the trees that we are talking about if they are put into 2 Irving, that would be beneficial to Mr. Ng because those trees are now further away from him and therefore he has more light coming into his space. Buckley: That s a good point. Lee: You said that one of the reasons why you decided not to withdraw the appeal is that the draft version from July of this report did not match up. Can the staff help me understand what the big discrepancies that may have swayed the appellant? Foster: There was a statement of official action that was approved by the Zoning Administrator, not a staff report, which was the decision on the project. And now that staff has seen the story poles and understand the project further from the eyes of both parties, there is updated analysis in the staff report. Buckley: I want to point out that we are still recommending approval and we have included a draft statement of official action. Obviously the commission has the authority to act differently. I also want you to know that based on the procedures, this is your last chance to speak to the appellant. Parnigoni: So it is my understanding that you do not take issue with the design of 2 Irving, it s really a matter of the screening, modifying the condition of approval that you inherited, and if we can allow that to be raised up by 2 feet. And those plantings would be done on 2 Irving, which doesn t require you to modify the soil at your property line that is something that you could live with. Is that correct? Thomas Ng: The key reason that my wife and I decided to continue with the appeal was to really understand and hear what the Planning Commission can tell us in regards to the staff report, if there were any other options other than planting. We went this route because we thought there was no other way, given the July 30 th staff report. Staff said that the living room and kitchen of 2 Irving with the addition, would look directly into our property. And we wanted to know if there was any design changes that could be done so that myself or my neighbors do not have to do this massive planting and have such a big green wall. If there is anything we can do to make the massing go down and make the wall smaller so that we can keep some of what we can currently see. If you look at the view from our kitchen counter, that view would be all gone. It will be either all green or nothing. It is our hope that something can be done in design to in essence lower the height, but still plant, which we need to do regardless. We spoke with a local architect who said that there are several ways to make the massing less intrusive, but it is not his job to tell someone who is not his client how to achieve this. He showed me several ways that this could be done, and one quick thing he told me that could be done, is that if you take the shed roof that is going up east, if you were to just flip it