[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6579701,"mediaKeyId","3049892-6fb8601b72fc999256db291445a0d16d","parentId",3049892,"title","Design Review Commission continues hearing on unpermitted retaining walls at 3385 Woodview Drive","audioSeconds",1648,"startMs",455000,"endMs",2103000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3049892-6fb8601b72fc999256db291445a0d16d&start=455&end=2103","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3049892-6fb8601b72fc999256db291445a0d16d/thumbnail_455000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6579701/Lafayette/Contra-Costa-County/California/Design-Review-Commission-continues-hearing-on-unpermitted-retaining-walls-at-3385-Woodview-Drive","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579701-6dba5e4209400566e33e634dd2617e00/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141505&Signature=GnIak8hmKWY06ccrAW8qc8u~f1HZvsdpCLsH1OlceQoXouuBPjMccnTIIpwIryU2mw5wo3jOxP4soeZAtJEfzWz2-vGpItNF-~t~8bDzcGNmHlHa8wmmxXxHKxuan3dqPhCmRfok-ZOvcuSxSMDe0cUHMFszTLAsqiHQPyRCXQbJTb6Jo0nQy8R4~ZS9wuNEoYTh9lZVTR9osA7OqmBK5~PxxSyJL4Bk9~i7e6FUeLHCxcCHWLRndtpH2Ut7i4YrJhpX2RjT0CdnFXVaKMnDwvz2OR6cb2YKIimlAPNs4JU05z97UGvsS5uHbJDKKcuJDzCG~ED8f21fduCz2Z7BEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-18T10:04:27.933Z","article","The Lafayette Design Review Commission continued consideration of a hillside development and grading permit for 3385 Woodview Drive on March 24, moving the matter to a date certain of April 28 so the applicant can provide additional plans and documentation.

Project planner Nicole Zettle told the commission the application is intended to remediate previous unpermitted grading and retaining walls at the 0.77-acre parcel. Zettle said the applicant proposes to remove unpermitted walls and build soldier‑pile retaining walls ranging from under 4 feet (within setback) to about 5–8 feet where allowed, and to relocate about 105 cubic yards of earth. The driveway is proposed with pervious pavers and staff recommends darker brown wood for soldier piles and painted black for exposed steel. Zettle said staff coordinated with code enforcement and the city engineer and that the city engineer has expressed support for the plans as satisfying engineering concerns. Zettle recommended the commission find the project exempt from CEQA and approve the application subject to conditions.

Neighbors objected to several elements during public comment. Alan Waters Ford, who said he lives at 3391 Woodview Drive immediately northwest of the project, asserted the finished wall would exceed the R20 setback height limit when measured from the natural grade that existed before the unpermitted work. Waters Ford described survey stakes having been removed when the unpermitted grading occurred, said trees and a six‑foot privacy fence were removed, and said the proposed plans do not show a replacement fence. He also said he has documented tree removals to code enforcement and saw no condition of approval (COA) addressing those removals. \"The current plan shows about 3 foot of fill at a 2 to 1 slope in that area,\" Waters Ford said, arguing that fill at the base changes the measured height relative to the natural grade. He urged that the COA require restoration of natural grade lines and replacement of removed survey stakes.

Richard Wheeler, a neighbor who said his property is just downhill, raised separate concerns about stability and runoff: the area to be widened for additional parking is on a steep natural slope and was not designed for vehicular loading, he said, and converting dirt to a hard surface without engineered drainage could increase erosion and runoff onto downslope properties.

Commissioners said there are two distinct issue categories: engineering matters (site stability, compaction, drainage) that should be resolved to the city engineer's satisfaction, and visual/privacy/design matters that are within the Design Review Commission’s purview. Commissioners asked that the applicant provide clearer dimensions for soldier‑pile embedment, a survey that documents the natural grade and replaced survey markers, planting and fencing or other screening to restore privacy, and documentation of tree removal and any required tree permits or mitigation. Commissioners also asked for documentation on compaction testing for any previously placed fill and for landscape/screening plans that are diagrammatic sections showing sightlines to neighboring properties.

With the applicant in attendance, the commission set a date certain of April 28 and asked the applicant to provide revised plans by Friday, April 18; the motion to continue was approved unanimously.

Next steps: the applicant will return to the commission on April 28 with revised drawings and supporting documents addressing the city engineer’s comments, a survey to replace missing survey stakes, a plan for restoration or replacement of screening (fence/landscape), and compaction/engineering documentation as required by staff.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Design Review Commission, March 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Lafayette Design Review Commission continued consideration of a hillside development and grading permit for 3385 Woodview Drive on March 24 to April 28, after neighbors raised concerns about wall heights, removed survey stakes, tree loss and soil compaction.","taxTitle","Lafayette, Contra Costa County, California","taxId",77659,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6579692,"Design Review Commission approves two single‑story homes on Phillips Road ridgeline with conditions",2330,2566000,4896000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3049892-6fb8601b72fc999256db291445a0d16d&start=2566&end=4896","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3049892-6fb8601b72fc999256db291445a0d16d/thumbnail_2566000.jpg","/articles/6579692/Lafayette/Contra-Costa-County/California/Design-Review-Commission-approves-two-singlestory-homes-on-Phillips-Road-ridgeline-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579692-4ff7e3f4bd9094d302d934d9ad099c54/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141505&Signature=dXshlORJIA~7yxydQigmTdEGuklUHIiyn2Elz6j4smT31JsmgxPfIpqm3cXIW4UUiZWBujCKApqd5jrH8NQPAZZc69DIvkCJhjx6UyvVEnqNxkFyF38KNwM-6AAqZPjDo0ZeONcUcrQJ4EkCSou22EOCeikMbV88GGWqJpd32AMR5cKG6N0jxR5InP3i3iedlFW9NWjh5ISZlyXtozz1ZfZGBfDlv8GKFjC-UAXIMVOZ0TkNdnvVQ-1ANUq6bt1RyUzXakJQXP5q7fwqNh64ouQ0G7OElMAO~tb8SbNH188VLw5cwmzed2CVg0oM-A7nPfwD-5A-STSGAIArsfr6MA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lafayette Design Review Commission on March 24 approved two related hillside development/design review applications and accompanying grading permits for Parcel A (3500 Phillips Road) and Parcel B, both created by an earlier SB 9 subdivision. The approvals are recorded in DRC Resolutions 2025‑05 (Parcel A) and 2025‑06 (Parcel B), both adopted unanimously with conditions.

Staff presenter Arleigh (staff planner) explained that the two vacant parcels are located on a Class II ridgeline in the R6 zoning district in the east end of town. Parcel A measures about 20,207 square feet (0.46 acre); Parcel B is about 17,590 square feet (0.40 acre). Each parcel is proposed to host a single‑story residence of about 4,940 square feet total (4,199 sq ft living area with a 741 sq ft three‑car garage), with four bedrooms. Parcel A’s maximum measured height was reported as 18 feet 7 inches (19 feet 7 inches using ridge measurement); Parcel B’s maximum reported height was 19 feet 3 inches (20 feet 3 inches to ridge). Both homes use a low, butterfly metal roof, earth‑tone rainscreen siding, extensive glazing to wooded slopes and a diagram of terraces and decks to step into the topography.

Grading and drainage differ between the parcels. For Parcel A staff reported 175 cubic yards of cut and 100 cubic yards of fill outside of building footprints, plus an additional ~1,250 cubic yards of cut within the building footprint to lower the buildings into the ridge. Parcel A’s impervious surface numbers in the staff presentation were approximately 5,492 square feet for the house and 2,206 square feet for the driveway (about 7,700 square feet total). Parcel B’s staff slides reported about 700 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint, no outside fill, and an additional 250 cubic yards of cut within the building footprint. Both projects require design review findings for projects over 17 feet in height and grading permits because grading exceeds 50 cubic yards.

Staff said the parcels were created ministerially under SB 9 (a 2023 subdivision), and that the planning commission had previously made findings for siting and massing; the design review commission was reviewing the phase‑2 HDP/design and the grading/tree permits. Staff noted no public comments were received in the formal noticing period and recommended the commission find both projects exempt from CEQA and approve subject to conditions.

Commissioners and staff discussed several issues in public review: the proximity of the homes to the ridgeline (Class II ridgeline exceptions were reviewed by planning commission), parking and driveway arrangements (each single‑family home meets the requirement for two parking spaces; some driveway areas are easements and will constrain on‑site guest parking), mechanical and rooftop systems and screening, and landscaping/screening to preserve privacy of downhill homes. Commissioners asked for clearer landscape sections showing sightlines, additional planting buffering where needed, and attention to mechanical equipment placement and screening. Several commissioners praised the low profile and material palette but asked staff and the applicant to ensure landscape buffering and drainage details are robust.

Two technical items were raised and added to conditions: Central Sanitary requires the shared central driveway over a sewer main to be impervious where the main extends beneath the drive, which led the applicant to propose asphalt for the central shared section even though permeable pavers are proposed elsewhere; and the city engineer suggested an off‑site flow‑through planter located on 3300 Phillips Road to collect runoff from a portion of the driveway. Staff asked for an easement or maintenance agreement allowing the two new parcels access to that flow‑through planter on 3300, and added that as a condition. Commissioners also accepted an explicit condition that the applicant may adjust the landscape plan during construction with staff review and approval to improve privacy screening and buffering.

Applicants (Jeff Stone, owner; architect Charles Davos; partner Brian Griggs) described the design intent to minimize ridgeline visibility by keeping units single‑story, stepping the plans into the hillside and using restrained earth‑tone materials. The applicants confirmed prior outreach to immediate neighbors and said two neighbors visited about screening preferences; they also said utility and fire review meetings influenced the driveway and sewer design.

Both resolutions were adopted unanimously. Conditions require final engineering approval, a maintenance/easement for the off‑site flow‑through planter on 3300 Phillips Road, submission of construction‑grade landscape and screening plans with diagrammatic sightline sections, and other standard grading and tree‑protection conditions. The commission recorded the approvals and will track permit issuance through the Planning & Building Department.","The commission approved two single‑story homes on newly split SB 9 parcels on Phillips Road, approving design review, hillside development and grading permits for both parcels subject to conditions including an easement for an off‑site flow‑through planter and staff review of landscaping adjustments.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6579696,"Design Review Commission approves Ace Backyard & Barbecue wall sign at 3325 Mount Diablo Boulevard",317,2218000,2535000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3049892-6fb8601b72fc999256db291445a0d16d&start=2218&end=2535","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3049892-6fb8601b72fc999256db291445a0d16d/thumbnail_2218000.jpg","/articles/6579696/Lafayette/Contra-Costa-County/California/Design-Review-Commission-approves-Ace-Backyard-Barbecue-wall-sign-at-3325-Mount-Diablo-Boulevard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579696-c54a4387a00d13787891cc206c4dd05e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141505&Signature=XQX-F4DnNC0Iu379DMwv4P8bm0ROkmKZVWlsuE3XtJoaDwFSxkmYgIu91k5d5QTFFqeFE3NSr5QIAPGpEGbLTrI2IfTSAi~WvgWD7yknMVT3UaCxwfcfU~uXaR72c-cTx0jB8aM48wz1v6yoMz5Pijbd6ncB789J4VcW1j919AIZMEkmQd~mn3IASBz7NDY3qmpqqGsZskbsmvHUgsTFcAc7zRT8ktJvm6aziY~93OaoAE-SeITlb7---1-7qTxlOSpkRsiOfoTVs01vAGU6WIrupqm8y4axbbXyocPesv9Zxc~QwnIosNdAF3CfkTf-XWLYkvhBam6w8QxjhH68Gw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lafayette Design Review Commission unanimously approved a sign permit on March 24 for a wall sign reading \"Ace Backyard and Barbecue\" at 3325 Mount Diablo Boulevard.

Project planner Madison Leonard told commissioners the site is in the C‑1 general commercial zone in the East End District of the downtown specific plan. The property’s principal business frontage is roughly 50 feet, giving it a maximum sign allowance of 75 square feet. The proposed internally illuminated wall sign measures about 49.79 square feet (roughly 2.5 feet tall by nearly 20 feet long), Leonard said, and uses standard Ace brand colors (red and black). The sign was noticed to property owners within 300 feet and posted in the vicinity at least 10 days before the hearing; staff received no public comment.

Commissioners had no substantive questions. The commission voted to find the project categorically exempt from CEQA and to approve the sign permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff; the motion passed unanimously.","The commission approved a 49.79-square-foot illuminated wall sign for a second Ace Hardware location at 3325 Mount Diablo Boulevard, finding it complies with the sign ordinance and within the 75-square-foot allowance for principal frontage; no public comments were received.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Commission continues hearing on unpermitted retaining walls at 3385 Woodview Drive

Design Review Commission approves two single‑story homes on Phillips Road ridgeline with conditions

Design Review Commission approves Ace Backyard & Barbecue wall sign at 3325 Mount Diablo Boulevard