City of Lafayette Staff Report

Transcription

1 City of Lafayette Staff Report For: By: Design Review Commission Sarah Allen, Associate Planner Meeting Date: May 23, 2016 Subject: Deadline: HDP04-16 Joe Egan (Owner) R-20 Zoning: Request for (1) a Hillside Development Permit (2) Design Review and (3) Grading Permit for the demolition of an existing 2,055 sq. ft. single-family residence and the construction of a new 5,546 sq. ft. residence with a maximum ridge height of 21' requiring 325 cubic yards of grading (275 cu. yds. cut/ 50 cu. yds. fill) located within the Hillside Overlay District at 931 Sunnyhill Road. APN July 5, 2016 (without PSA extension) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project includes demolishing an existing residence and rebuilding a new house and accessory building on a site containing class II and class III ridgelines. The existing and proposed building pad is located within the class III setback as shown in the GIS map. This application is a Hillside Development Permit and ridgeline exception where the Design Review Commission will consider context, site design, layout, architecture, landscape and design details. While the home has been reduced in size and layout from the original study session review, staff finds the structure needs to be pushed back away from the edge of the slope or reduced in height in order to limit its visual impacts from offsite. The formal landscaping and lawn area on the eastern side of the residence should be modified to blend seamlessly with the adjacent open slope. The site is visible from El Nido Ranch Rd. and from portions of Hwy 24 traveling westbound. REQUESTED APPROVALS 1. Hillside Development Permit 2. Ridgeline Exception degree Declination Exception 4. Design Review (Over 17 in height) 5. Grading Permit (Over 50 cubic yards) REVIEW PROCESS The Design Review Commission reviewed two iterations of this project at two different study sessions in May and June of last year and the formal application is now under consideration. This project has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission yet as the parcel is not a vacant site and does not require a siting and 1 of 9

2 Design Review Commission HDP04-16 Egan Staff Report May 23, 2016 massing determination. The Design Review Commission will be providing comments and direction and final action will be taken by the Planning Commission due to the location of the development within the ridgeline area and the request for an exception. TRIGGERS AT-A-GLANCE Trigger Yes No Trigger Yes No Within a protected ridgeline setback? Within 100-ft. of a ridgeline setback? In the Hillside Overlay District? Over 17-ft. in height to ridge? Development > 6,000 sq. ft.? In Redevelopment Area? Creek Setback required? Inclusionary Housing required? Grading > 50 cu. yds? DR required as COA? In a commercial or MFR zone? Variance requested? Tree Permit Requested? Subject to Public Art Ordinance? Land Use Permit required? Zoning Text Amendment required? BACKGROUND The parcel was created as part of the Rancho Acalanes subdivision and the existing home was built in 1948 before the City incorporated in 1968 and well before the Hillside Regulations were in effect. This explains the grading and the placement of the home on top of the ridge, which would not be permitted today. The first review of this project at the study session in May 2015, was of a residence over 6,000 sq. ft. and ~18 in height. The Commission provided feedback indicating the home was too large, pushed the edges of the site and the proposed courtyard provided some challenges with massing, relationship of the building to the grade, and the indoor/outdoor connection. During the second study session in June 2015, the applicant modified the structure by reducing the overall square footage to less than 6,000 sq. ft., eliminating the courtyard area, orienting the home to the north and east and reducing the length and extent of the home to create a more compact structure. The height increased from 18 to 21. The Commission was generally supportive of the revised layout and suggested the next iteration provide more clarity at the entry and a better connection of the structure to the grade. LOCATION & SITE CONDITIONS The project site is approximately five (5) acres and located on Sunnyhills Dr. which is a private street accessed from the western portion of El Nido Ranch Rd. near Lizanne Drive. The parcel is zoned single family residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. (R-20). The General Plan designation is Low Density Residential allowing up to two (2) dwelling units per acre. There are no creeks on the property and the site contains both a class II and class III ridgeline. There is an existing driveway leading up to the site along the edge of the ridge and a substantial slope running from the top of the hill down to the north, east and south. An open slope makes up most of the land area on the east and south portions of the lot. Several non-native trees have been removed that previously screened the existing structure from lower elevations. There are few neighbors in proximity to the site and existing vegetation, topography and physical distance limit visibility of adjacent homes. The site is challenging in terms of the slope and the location of existing development on top of a graded ridge. 2 of 9

3 Design Review Commission HDP04-16 Egan Staff Report May 23, 2016 PROJECT LOCATION MAP Subject property Existing and Proposed Building Site Class III Ridgeline Class II Ridgeline and 250 Ridgeline Setback ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff evaluated the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ) and determined the project to be categorically exempt under Section 15302, where one single-family residence is being replaced by another in a residential zone on a property that is already served by public services. PUBLIC NOTICE & COMMENT Property owners within 300 of the subject property were mailed a notice of public hearing, and the immediate area was posted at least ten days prior to the initial scheduled public hearing. The City has not received any public comments as of the writing of this report. REFERRAL AGENCIES COMMENTS The project plans were referred to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, City Engineer, Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the Homeowner s Association, Homeowner s Council and Lafayette Police Department. Comments received at the time this staff report was prepared include the following: 3 of 9

4 Design Review Commission HDP04-16 Egan Staff Report May 23, 2016 Central Sanitary District: Sewer service is available to the site, but had not previously been utilized. If the property owner would like to connect to the sewer there are several options to do so. The proposed development can be accommodated by the sewer system. City Engineer: Manufacturer s recommendations for a permeable subgrade should be used for the proposed permeable paver driveway, not a compacted subgrade. The driveway area below contour 678 may not be sufficiently flat to be conducive to a permeable paver design. The driveway should be graded to allow runoff to sheet flow and dissipate in the vegetated slope. All surfaces should be graded to sheet flow toward the slope without concentrating the runoff. Downspouts should daylight on splash blocks and be allowed to dissipate over the slope. The landscape plan should be coordinated with the drainage design to concentrate groundcover, hydroseeding, or erosion control planting where runoff toward the slope is expected to occur. Happy Valley Improvement Association: Ridgeline protection should be taken seriously here. The ridgeline and setback should be shown on many more of the drawings, and a visibility analysis should be undertaken. If the new structure is visible from designated lower viewing areas, the relevant findings have to be considered. All comments have been included in this report as attachments. ANALYSIS & COMMENTS Consistency with the Zoning District Regulations The subject property is located within a Single Family Residential District, minimum Lot size 20,000 sq. ft. (R-20). The project is compliant with each of the elements of the zoning regulations including land use, setbacks, height and parking. The requested use is a single family residence which is encouraged and expected in the R-20 district. The application requests no variances from setbacks. The R-20 district requires a 25 front yard setback, 15 minimum and 35 aggregate side yard setback and a 15 rear yard setback. The large site provides adequate space for development without encroaching into setbacks. Additionally, the home is significantly separated from other homes, increasing privacy between neighbors. The proposed structure is shown with a maximum height of 21 which is within the allowable height limit of 35 to the midpoint of the roofline. The R-20 zoning regulations require two (2) 10'x20' parking spaces outside the required setback. The applicant has demonstrated a compliant garage with two (2) parking stalls. DRC Framework for Review & Discussion The discussion of the Design Review Commission should be focused on the components of a project listed below and how they relate to the required findings for approval. Each component is underlined with staff comments in italics. Context (a) Compatibility with neighborhood: The home is not out of scale or character with the neighborhood. The height is less than the 35 limit and the style is internally consistent. The size is larger than surrounding homes; however the site is a much larger parcel and possibly able to accommodate the additional square footage. The distance between homes reduces the need for the size and style to be 4 of 9

5 Design Review Commission HDP04-16 Egan Staff Report May 23, 2016 as consistent as in an area where proximity creates a more cohesive neighborhood context. This home will not be visible in comparison to other homes, but will be visible from portions of El Nido Ranch Rd. and Hwy 24. (b) Privacy: The building is located at the top of a slope and existing vegetation, topography and distance from adjacent homes prevents privacy impacts to the surrounding neighbors. (c) Views: This residence is significantly higher than many of the surrounding properties and sites below the adjacent neighbor to the west. The stepped topography allows views for each site and the development of this home will not impact the views currently enjoyed by surrounding homeowners. (d) Visibility: The story poles were not yet installed as of eth writing of this report; however, given the visibility of the existing house, it is clear the new house will be visible from lower elevations of El Nido Ranch Rd., and Hwy 24. The colors may need to be altered to better blend with the hillside setting. The challenge is finding a neutral tone to work with the golden/brown hillside that exists much of the year. Too dark of a color will stand out as much as too light of a color. Pushing the residence back away from the edge of the slope and strategically planting native vegetation will further reduce visibility. Site (a) Site plan: The site plan has been established based on the location of the existing development on top of a previously graded ridge. The location of the lawn area and some of the new planting should be reconsidered to allow the new development to blend better with the adjacent open slope. The applicant has modified the site plan to no longer contain a courtyard and has instead placed the main living areas facing southeast toward the views. The landscape and outdoor area along the northern side of the home should be more carefully considered; plantings are located in front of door openings and don t provide a functional indoor outdoor connection. (b) Access / parking: Access to the site will continue to be a steep private driveway off of the small private road of Sunnyhills. The new driveway configuration at the top of the hill will provide space for vehicles to park and turn around. Staff has not yet heard from the Fire District regarding compliance with emergency vehicle access requirements. (c) Location of buildings: The new building is proposed to be placed in a similar location as the existing building. The new development will expand the footprint and is proposed to come closer to the edge of the flattened hilltop. Staff is suggesting the home be pushed back from the edge of the slope to reduce the offsite visibility impacts and the silhouetting above the ridge. (d) Accessory buildings: The applicant has shown one accessory building as a guest house. This would not be considered a second dwelling given there is not a sink outside the bathroom. The building meets height and setback requirements for the R-20 zone and provides additional living space. (e) Grading: The proposed grading will not scar the hillside as it is mostly for the driveway. Staff would encourage limiting the amount of grading at the top of the hill outside the building footprint in order to ensure the grading will be visually compatible with the surroundings and not further flatten the top of the hillside. (f) Open space: The majority of the site is being maintained as natural open space, although it is not usable outdoor living space. The building, garage, driveway turnaround and accessory building take up most of the existing flat space on the site. The proposed lawn area on the east side of the residence is not appropriate in that location and should be reconsidered. 5 of 9

6 Design Review Commission HDP04-16 Egan Staff Report May 23, 2016 (g) Outdoor living space: The project contains two outdoor living areas, one as an area connecting the main house to the guest house and the other at the edge of the flattened hilltop along the eastern side of the home. The outdoor living area between the accessory building and the main residence does not seem to be usable or planned for either space. There are no opening directed toward the area and planting seems to block access. The outdoor area off the kitchen and family room creates a nice connection to the outside and allows for views and enjoyment of the site. Building (a) Design concept: The applicant has described the design concept as contemporary California ranch style. The design is internally consistent with matching roof slopes, windows, eaves, fascia, and other design details. The style is suitable for neighborhood and will not detract from the character of the area. Staff would suggest a lower roofline given the prominence of the structure on top of the hill and the conversion of the home from a flat roof to a sloping roof. (b) Height / Bulk / Mass: The design, colors and materials and articulation of the building reduce the apparent height bulk and mass of the home; however, the height of the structure should be reduced as much as possible given the prominence of the building on the very top of a ridgeline area. Several factors will further reduce the bulk and mass including reduced height, moving the structure away from the edge of the graded hilltop and adding strategically placed native vegetation. Color will also work to reduce the visual prominence of the structure when viewed from lower elevations. (c) Articulation: The residence contains varied windows, pop outs, changes to color and material and is adequately articulated providing visual interest and reducing the apparent size of the home. Landscape (a) Concept: The proposed landscape plan provides formal planting surrounding the new residence. Staff finds the concept should revert back to a natural scheme with minimal planting and limited color along the east and southern skirts of the development in order to blend more naturally with the open slope. Formal, colorful and non-native planting should be more internal to the site where it will not be visible offsite and not disrupt the native appearance of the existing slope. (b) Layout: The layout of the landscaping along the eastern and southern elevations should be carefully considered to seamlessly blend with the open slope and hillside. Lawn area, if considered, should be relocated away from the open slope and public views. New plantings on an near the slope should be sparse trees native to Lafayette strategically placed in a natural and irregular configuration. The landscape along the northern side of the home should be more carefully considered; plantings are located in front of door openings and don t provide a functional indoor outdoor connection. (c) Planting vs. Hardscape: The majority of the site is left open and natural with the home, driveway and patio as the extent of the impervious surface. The ratio of open space to hardscape is appropriate. The amount of planting could be reduced in consideration of the drought and the hillside setting. Details (a) Colors & materials: The applicant has proposed a light tan color for the stucco which will alternate with a stone façade. The color in this location will be tricky given the pedestal on which the building sits. Since much of the time the hillside is a golden color, finding a house tone that is dark but not overly so is a challenge. The dark windows, gutters and trim will help the home recede instead of outline the building as white trim would. Possibly an onsite mockup of the colors may be appropriate 6 of 9

7 Design Review Commission HDP04-16 Egan Staff Report May 23, 2016 to determine if the proposed color will be suitable for the project. This can be incorporated as a condition of approval. (b) Exterior lighting: The light fixtures provided by the applicant are translucent, but should be completely shielded and downward facing, allowing light to be cast down but not up or out. The sides and face of the fixture should be opaque, not allowing light to penetrate due to the prominence of the home on top of the hillside. Limiting the number of lights will also reduce the visual impacts and light pollution. No landscape lighting is shown or proposed. (c) Walls and fences: There are currently no proposed fences shown on the site plan; however, the landscape rendering does show fencing a portion of the property. Due to the location in the Hillside Overlay District, only open agricultural style fencing would be permitted onsite. A 30 retaining wall near the guest cottage and 2-3 walls along the driveway will be relatively unseen from lower elevations due to their location beyond the most prominent portions of the ridge. (d) Drainage: A drainage plan has been provided and commented on by the City Engineer. Given the significant amount of open space on this parcel there is plenty of space to allow runoff to sheet flow and percolate onsite consistent with best management practices. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant is required to satisfy the City Engineer regarding drainage and erosion control. (e) Plant materials: Plant materials should be reduced and the lawn eliminated in its current location. Areas adjacent to open slopes should be more natural and blend seamlessly. Colorful plants that are tall should be avoided given the open slope and the offsite visibility. The planting plan along the east and southern sides of the development should be native and in a natural configuration. Staff is unable to make the hillside landscape findings as described below. REQUIRED FINDINGS The Design Review Commission must make the required findings for hillside development, an exception to building with a restricted ridgeline, an exception to build within the 15-degree declination, grading over 50 cubic yards of soil, design review and structures over 17 in height in order to approve the subject application. A list of all required findings has been attached for the Commission s reference. As currently designed, staff is unable to make the following findings: (b) (1): The height, size, siting, design and landscaping are such that the building is concealed to the maximum extent feasible and the structure will not silhouette above the ridge when viewed from lower elevations in the city, using the Viewing Evaluation Map as a guide for areas from which views are considered. Given that the existing residence silhouettes above the ridge when viewed from lower elevations, the new residence will increase visibility given the increase in height of the structure and pulling it closer to the east and south edges of the hilltop. Staff finds the height of the structure could be reduced and the location could be pushed further from the edges of the slope to reduce the visual prominence as seen from El Nido Ranch Rd. and Highway 24. The site has already been developed on top of a hill; however, with a complete demolition there is room for improvement in location and site layout as to not exacerbate the non-conformity with the hillside regulations. Not all measures have been employed to conceal the building to maximum extent feasible (c): Structures in the hillside overlay district will, to the extent feasible, be located away from prominent locations such as ridgelines, hilltops, knolls and open slopes; 7 of 9

8 Design Review Commission HDP04-16 Egan Staff Report May 23, 2016 The proposal brings the home closer to the edge of a prominent ridgeline which contains an open slope and little vegetation screening the building. New vegetation should not be solely relied upon to conceal the structure, particularly since new vegetation on an otherwise open slope may appear unnatural (d) (2): Not have a significant visual impact when viewed from lower elevations from public places, using the viewing evaluation map as a guide to establish locations from which views are considered; and The site contains visibility to and from El Nido Ranch Rd. and Highway 24, both of which are streets listed in the Viewing Evaluation Map. The new structure will be taller and closer to the edge of the slope allowing the building to silhouette above the grade. In order to reduce the visual impact the home could be reduced in height or pushed further from the edges of the slope. Colors, materials and light fixtures will help to reduce the visual prominence of the structure as could appropriately located vegetation; however, building height, size and placement should be appropriate for the site (i): The new or replacement vegetation for the development is native to the surrounding area in areas abutting open space and natural areas, such as oak woodland, chaparral, grassland and riparian areas, and conforms to the policies of Section ; and The proposed vegetation contains a lawn area at the edge of the slope adjacent to an open grassy hillside which will create a green rim at the top of the hill. New landscaping is colorful and placed in an organized fashion which is counter to the natural, irregular, native setting. Proposed oak trees are not the species specified in the tree protection ordinance and specifically native to Lafayette. The policy of the referenced Section requires the seamless blending with the natural vegetation when development is adjacent to natural area and seeks to prevent green expanses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review the project and provide feedback to the applicant. Continue the matter to June 13, 2016 in order to allow the following changes: Pull the house back from the edge of the slope Reduce the height of the structure as much as possible Revised the light fixtures (shielded and downward facing) Revised the landscape plan: o No lawn or formal planting at edge of slope on the east (green halo) o Planting a few trees in a native palate and natural configuration along the eastern edge o Limit colorful planting to areas internal to the site and away from the open slope o Ensure planting is compatible with door openings and outdoor access o Show and label all trees Install story poles ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Maps & Photos 2. Required Findings 3. Study Session Minutes from May 26, Study Session Minutes from June 22, of 9

9 Design Review Commission HDP04-16 Egan Staff Report May 23, Applicant narrative and submittals 6. Geotechnical Report from Friar Associates Inc. dated July 23, Arborist Report from Nicholas Jaros of the Professional Tree Company dated March 19, Referral Comments 9. Site Photographs Taken by Staff May 13, Project Plans Received May 3, of 9

10 Page 1 of 1 5/8/ Sunnyhills Rd. APN CityGIS 400 ft

11 Page 1 of 1 5/14/ Sunnyhill Dr. APN: CityGIS 200 ft

12 Page 1 of 1 5/14/ Sunnyhill Dr. APN: CityGIS 100 ft

13 DESIGN REVIEW RESPONSE TO FINDINGS Planning & Building Department 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 210 Lafayette, CA Tel. (925) Project Description - On a separate sheet, please briefly describe the scope of the project you are proposing. Include the reasons for the request and the reasons why you believe the design review permit can be granted. Response to Findings - Repeat and respond to each of the findings listed below which must be made for the hearing body to approve your design. Your responses should address each design element that you are requesting. Print or type using blue or black ink. These findings can be found on the City of Lafayette web site to facilitate copy/paste into word processing software. In order to approve an application for design review, the approval body must make the findings listed below. On a separate sheet, please copy and respond in writing describing how the project meets with each of the required finding (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: (1) The approval of the plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare; (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; (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; and 1 of 4

14 (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 (B) Single-Family Residential Findings Exceeding 6,000 Square Feet 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 6,000 square feet in gross floor area as outlined in Section 6-272(A)(3): (1) The house substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines; (2) The house is so designed that its mass will not appear significantly out of scale with the existing neighborhood; (3) The house does not, because of its size, unduly impact, restrict or block significant views; and (4) The house does not, because of its size, require removal of natural features, require excessive grading or cause the unnecessary removal of a healthy tree(s) (C) Single-Family Residential Findings 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): (1) The structure substantially complies with the Residential Design Guidelines; (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; (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; and (4) The structure is so designed that it does not unreasonably reduce the privacy or views of adjacent properties. 2 of 4

15 CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUPPLEMENTAL FORM HDP-B Required for Development Within a 15-Degree Declination of a Class I or II Ridgeline Setback REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE 15-DEGREE DECLINATION OF A CLASS I OR CLASS II RIDGELINE SETBACK REQUIRED FINDINGS PER SECTION AND APPLICANT: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PHONE NO. PARCEL NO. Section states that the Planning Commission may grant an exception to the restriction of development within the 15 degree declination line of a class I or class II ridge if it makes the findings in A or B or C below: In granting approval for this exception, a number of findings must be made. Please respond to each of the following statements on a separate sheet. A. The topography or existing vegetation are such that: 1. The building will not have a substantial visual impact and will not silhouette above the ridge when viewed from lower elevations in the city, using the Viewing Evaluation Map as a guide for areas from which views are considered; and 2. Grant of exception will not interfere with an existing or proposed ridge trail or compromise its open space and scenic character. B. For existing lots of record where it is not possible to substantially conceal the building in conformance to section (A) above, the Planning Commission may grant an exception if it finds that: 1. The height, size, siting, design and landscaping are such that the building is concealed to the maximum extent feasible and the structure will not silhouette above the ridge when viewed from lower elevations in the city, using the Viewing Evaluation Map as a guide for areas from which views are considered; and 2. Grant of an exception will not interfere with an existing or proposed ridge trail or compromise its open space and scenic character. C. For subdivision, when the prohibition would deprive the property of all economically viable use and the subdivision meets the standards in section to the maximum extent feasible. In granting an exception under this subsection the density: 1. Shall not exceed the density permitted by the slope density formula or the underlying zoning district, whichever is less; and 2. Shall not exceed that necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of the property. SIGNATURE OF PREPARER: DATE: PRINT FULL NAME: FORM HDP-B (Rev ) HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.

16 Required for Hillside Development Permit & Restricted Ridgeline Setback Area CITY OF LAFAYETTE APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUPPLEMENTAL FORM HDP-A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT / RESTRICTED RIDGELINE EXCEPTION REQUIRED FINDINGS PER SECTIONS , , AND REQUEST(S): Hillside Development Permit Class I Ridgeline Setback Exception (development within 400-feet of ridge) Class II Ridgeline Setback Exception (development within 250 feet of ridge) Exception to Exceed Height Limitation Based on Horizontal Plane of Class III Ridge In granting approval for this exception, a number of findings must be made. Please respond to each of the following statements on a separate sheet. A. Explain how the development is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and is in conformance with applicable zoning regulations. B. Explain how the development will preserve open space and physical features, including rock outcroppings and other prominent geological features, streams, streambeds, ponds, drainage swales, native vegetation, native riparian vegetation, animal habitats and other natural features. C. Explain how structures in the Hillside Overlay District will, to the extent feasible, be located away from prominent locations such as ridgelines, hilltops, knolls and open slopes; D. Explain how the development, including site design and the location and massing of all structures and improvements will, to the extent feasible: 1. Minimize the loss of privacy to surrounding residents and not unduly impact, restrict or block significant views; 2. Not have a significant visual impact when viewed from lower elevations from public places, using the viewing evaluation map as a guide to establish locations from which views are considered; and 3. Not interfere with a ridgeline trail corridor or compromise the open space or scenic character of the corridor. FORM HDP-A Page 1 of 2 (Rev )

17 E. Within 100 feet of a restricted ridgeline area, or when a exception to a ridgeline setback has been granted, explain how the development will result in each structure being substantially concealed by terrain or vegetation when viewed from lower elevations from public places, using the Viewing Evaluation Map as a guide to establish locations from which views are considered. F. Explain how development grading will be minimized to limit scarring and cutting of hillsides especially for long roads or driveways, preserve existing geologic features, topographic conditions and existing vegetation, reduce short and long-term erosion, slides and flooding, and abate visual impacts. G. Explain how the development provides adequate emergency vehicle access, including turn-around space, to the building site and surrounding on-site undeveloped or isolated areas. H. Explain how each structure and proposed landscaping complies with the City s Residential Design Guidelines. I. Explain how the new or replacement vegetation for the development is native to the surrounding area in areas abutting open space and natural areas, such as oak woodland, chaparral, grassland and riparian areas, and conforms to the following policies, pursuant to Section : New or replacement vegetation in an area abutting open space and natural areas, such as oak woodland, chaparral, grassland and riparian areas, excluding planting for erosion control or land stabilization, shall be native to the surrounding area. The goal of the planting should be a seamless blending with the natural vegetation. The reviewing authority may grant an exception to this requirement for a small garden area near the home provided it is not visible from public places and contains no non-native trees or shrubs over six feet in height, or large green expanses. J. Explain how the development will not create a nuisance, hazard or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or the city, nor require the city to provide an unusual or disproportionate level of public services. FORM HDP-A Page 2 of 2 (Rev )

18 Planning Services Division 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 210 Lafayette, CA Tel. (925) Fax (925) APPLICATION FOR GRADING PERMIT RESPONSE TO FINDINGS Project Description - On a separate sheet, please briefly describe the scope of the project and the purpose of the proposed grading. Include reasons why you believe the grading permit can be granted. CUT = Cubic Yards OFF-HAUL= Cubic Yards FILL = Cubic Yards IMPORT = Cubic Yards NET = Cubic Yards NET = Cubic Yards OTHER CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS: None Subdivision Design Review Land Use Permit Hillside Development Permit Other Response to Findings - Repeat and respond to each of the findings listed below which must be made for the hearing body to approve your application. Print or type using blue or black ink. These findings can be found on the City of Lafayette web site to facilitate copy/paste into word processing software. In granting approval for this Grading Permit, a number of findings must be made per Section (e). Please respond to each of the following statements on a separate sheet(s). 1. The grading will not endanger the stability of the site or adjacent property or pose a significant ground movement hazard to an adjacent property. (Applicant: refer to project geotechnical report when responding to this statement.) 2. The grading will not significantly increase erosion or flooding affecting the site or other property and will not cause impacts to riparian habitats, stream channel capacity, or water quality that cannot be substantially mitigated. 3. The grading, when completed, will result in a building site that is visually compatible with the surrounding land. 4. The grading is sensitive to the existing landforms, topography, and natural features on the site. 5. The design of the project preserves existing trees on the site and trees on adjoining property to the extent possible. 6. Arborist recommendations for retained trees, if any, are incorporated into the grading plan. Additional Comments - Provide any additional comments on a separate sheet. Rev. 2005/05/09 1 of 1 Application Number:

19 Design Review Commission May 26, there is a bus stop on Mt. Diablo Blvd., and the development is walkable to BART. Mr. Freethy plans to add electric car plug-ins and provide scooter parking. Commission Chair Chong encouraged the applicants to move away from a proposal that reflects the massive apartment complexes, such as the one located below the subject properties. He felt the applicants have a terrific opportunity to create a wonderful project with great views and orientation and encouraged creativity in their thinking. Mr. Harris commented that their use of 2 to 1 parking was considered as a marketing issue. He is aware of current Walnut Creek properties that are not selling because of their low parking numbers, stating that the public is still married to their cars in this area. Commission Chair Chong indicated that the fact the development will be rental units increases his desire to see a lesser parking ratio. Mr. Cass asked for the Commission s comments regarding having vehicular access from both Aileen and Stuart Streets. Commissioner Ptaszynski felt it was premature to address that issue; however, with 42 units he would be concerned to limiting the access to one street and the traffic impacts on that street. Commission Chair Chong felt that both streets will require significant improvements to accommodate this project. C. SS08-15 Bruce Mastick (Applicant), Joe Egan (Owner) R-20 Zoning: Request to demolish existing 2,055 sq. ft. residence and a construct new 6,307 residence with a maximum ridge height of ~18' in the Hillside Overlay District within 100' of a Class II Ridgeline at 931 Sunnyhill Rd. APN Recommendation: Provide feedback to the applicant. This is an informational item and no formal action will be taken Project Planner: Sarah Allen Ms. Allen introduced the study session stating that the subject property is located on Sunnyhill Road and is not in a ridgeline but close to one at the top of a hill. The applicant held initial discussions with Planning staff about a larger project with more grading but has subsequently reduced the amount of grading. The application triggers design review because it is within the Hillside Overlay District, over 17 feet in height, and over 6,000-s.f. of gross floor area. Bruce Mastick, project designer, was present at the meeting. Mr. Mastick described the subject site as unique in that it has a graded pad at the top of a hill. The site has magnificent views of In his initial meetings with property owners Joe and Margaret Egan, they indicated a desire for a single-story house with a courtyard. Mr. Mastick noted that a courtyard at this site makes sense as there are prevailing westerly winds coming through the property. The property owners wanted a house of the proposed size (4,000-s.f. living in main house, 600-s.f. in guest house). The living areas plus garages and porches extend the total square footage to over 6,000-s.f. Mr. Mastick stated that it is a 5 acre parcel and there are no setback issues. He felt the issues to be addressed is an appropriate color, shape and tree buffer on the slopes. Mr. Mastick looked at a remodel of the existing home but did not like the knoll on the top. They have held several meetings with Planning staff including a site visit. Mr. Mastick was seeking the Design Review Commission s guidance on the project. Commission Chair Chong opened the study session to public comment. Hearing none, Commission Chair Chong opened the study session to Commission questions and comment. Page 10 of 19

20 Design Review Commission May 26, Commissioner Cleaver asked Ms. Allen if the Planning Commission would be doing a bulk and mass study. Ms. Allen said that a bulk and mass study is unnecessary because there is an existing home on the site. Commissioner Cleaver advised that he was approached by Mr. Egan about the project but he was unable to work with them due to scheduling conflicts. While he will inquire of the City Attorney whether he would need to recuse himself from the formal application, Commissioner Cleaver indicated he would participate in the study session. Mr. Mastick added that the property owners desired a turret on the proposed home; however, Mr. Mastick did not feel that element was quite right yet. Commissioner Ptaszynski visited the site and spoke with the property owner. He found the site to be stunning. Commissioner Ptaszynski was also stunned by how the top of the hillside had been cropped neatly and built on, which is so antithetical to the nature of the site. He was concerned that the proposed design doesn t do anything to ameliorate that condition. He is worried that the proposed home is still too big for the flat area and is starting to push its limits very hard. Commissioner Ptaszynski liked the idea of the courtyard and the anticipatory experience in opening the house to the view. He thought it a magnificent way of dealing with how to enter the house. That being said, Commissioner Ptaszynski commented that the proposed home feels like a flat land house and wished it could somehow grab the landscape a little more and integrate itself into it so that it feels like it belongs in this location. Commissioner Ptaszynski sensed that it might be achievable by integrating the structure of the house with landscape walls and making the walls of the house integrate into the earth. In this manner it would feel like the house is growing out of the mountain rather than plunked on top of it. Commissioner Ptaszynski reiterated that the house feels too big, noting that the family room pushes itself to the edge of the slope in a manner that seems to dominate on the landscape. He stated that the house needs to make friends with the landscape rather than dominating it. Commission Chair Chong commented that the proposed home has no impact on the surrounding neighborhood given its location. With regard to the design Mr. Mastick had mentioned the importance of the courtyard, yet the inside/outside relationship seems to be lacking the spaces that surround the courtyard are not the living room, dining room or other public kinds of spaces that would normally have an interaction with a courtyard. He noted the spaces that front to the courtyard are a guest bedroom, a porch, foyer and a 2-car garage. As a result, the courtyard is a circulation space rather than an outdoor living area. Commission Chair Chong stated that the long southern face of the building steps back and forth in very small increments which do not give it much form. The south elevation, as a result, seems very long without any sense of proper proportions and massing. The building also looks very stubby on the east-west elevation. He encouraged the applicant to look closely at the building proportions and whether the stepping of rooms is really meaningful. Commission Chair Chong commented that it is virtually a flat façade. He reiterated that the rooms next to the courtyard do not make any sense relative to an outside space because there is not a lot of outside space once you get outside the building pad. Mr. Mastick noted that the reason for the courtyard placement is that the major public rooms are located toward the eastern views. Commission Chair Chong commented that in that case, the courtyard really does not work for him. He suggested that the courtyard needs to somehow relate to the major rooms. Page 11 of 19

21 Design Review Commission May 26, Commissioner Ptaszynski liked the idea of a courtyard but agreed it should be an outdoor room and really livable. He commented that there is some confusion as to what should be the front door to the house. Once through the entry space, the next space could be an outdoor living room. In discussing the siting of the house with Commissioner Cleaver, Commissioner Ptaszynski felt the view side of the home pushes too close to the edge and the house could push to the north somewhat. He also felt that some parts of the house could be earth sheltered and made to feel like it s not sitting on a flat pad. Mr. Mastick asked about increasing the grading and whether it would be acceptable. Commissioner Ptaszynski noted that it is already a wounded hillside, so if the proposal remediates and fixes the hilltop in some way, the grading would not be an issue for him. He pointed out that the biggest area of grading will be the driveway. Mr. Mastick asked about minimizing the amount of building on the property by adding an upstairs. Commissioner Ptaszynski thought the applicant should be cautious about pursuing that idea. Mr. Mastick had also considered detaching the 2-car garage from the south side of the house and relocating it where the guest unit and other garage are located. Additionally, the guest cottage could be eliminated from the proposal and brought back in the future. Commission Chair Chong felt the center of the house is too dense and too wide in both north-south and east-west directions. He suggested that if it were a U-shape with the opening of the U to the south it would provide a courtyard with a view and with all of the public rooms from the U looking both into the courtyard and out into the view as well. It would provide a lot of perimeter to deal with protecting the courtyard from the west. It would be a less bulky building. Mr. Mastick asked for comments on the size and height. Commissioner Ptaszynski said it still felt like a flat lot house to him. This is what he felt they needed to break out of without creating a huge volume. Mr. Mastick asked about the proposed Mediterranean style of the house. Commission Chair Chong responded that the Commission prefers not to dictate style and commented that the Commission can work with anything as long as it is well designed. His concern in this case is that the proportions are wrong, the house is too thick and he believes there are other building massing options that could be much more elegant to create the courtyard, lessen the dense feel and give the applicant better proportions on the site. Commissioner Ptaszynski supported those comments. Mr. Mastick thought the suggestion of bringing the landscaping up to the house and creating a better buffer from the south side is a good idea. Awaiting the arrival of the next applicant, the Commission moved on to agenda item 8, Other Business. 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Pending arrival of the applicant for agenda item 6A, Commissioner Cleaver moved to switch agenda items 6A and 6B. Commissioner Ptaszynski seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous consent. (3-0-0) A. GR08-14 Tabibian (Owners), R-6 Zoning: Request for a retroactive Grading Permit for earth Page 12 of 19

22 Design Review Commission June 22, Commission Chair Chong echoed the Commission s comments and added special commendation on the sustainability approaches including the shutter control, wind protection and solar panels. He hoped that the proposed wood fence on the driveway will be a good neighbor fence that is attractive on both sides. While Commission Chair Chong thought the architecture to be well done, he felt there seemed to be a lot of stuff for this very modest home (i.e., materials proposed). Commission Chair Chong suggested that the design could be simplified and more unified in its materials. He added that coming down the driveway the standing seam roof has some unattractive elements that could use some attention. Mr. Silva interjected that the existing chimney would be removed and they may put in a faux chimney for the vent work. Commissioner Cleaver noted that the existing fence meanders off the property line and he asked if the applicant intended to reclaim that property with the new fencing. Mr. Silva said they intend to deal with the property line with the new wood fence; however, they intend to leave an existing deer and turkey path open along the back. He has spoken with the neighbors on this issue and they are in agreement with the proposal. Mr. Cass recommended that the applicant speak with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District about the existing driveway and its width in particular. Commissioner Cleaver added that the Fire District may have an issue with getting to the property at all. Mr. Cass stated that it was likely the home would need to have sprinklers and/or a fire hydrant installed. Commission Chair Chong referred to the north elevation and in particular the left edge with the stone façade. He questioned how the stone would wrap the corner, commenting that it will be important to get that detailing correct. Mr. Spiegel said the house would have a substantial corner there, with the stone applied to the front of the wall. Commission Chair Chong thanked the applicant for making use of the study session. B. SS08-15 Joe Egan (Owner) R-20 Zoning: Request to demolish existing 2,055 sq. ft. residence and construct new ~6,307 5,520 sq. ft. residence with a maximum ridge height of ~18 21 in the Hillside Overlay District Located within 100 of a Class II Ridgeline at 931 Sunnyhill Road. APN Recommendation: Provide feedback to the applicant. This is an informational item and no formal action will be taken. Project Planner: Sarah Allen Bruce Mastick was present at the study session on behalf of property owners Joe and Margaret Egan. The Design Review Commission last reviewed this proposal at its May 26, 2015 meeting, providing the following commentary: The courtyard, if used, should face the public spaces within the house. The south elevation is too long. The step backs are not deep enough to be meaningful; of stepping still create a virtually flat façade. The proportions of the home are awkward with a long south elevation and short and stubby elevations on the east and west. The house is too big and is pushing the limits of the site; it is too dominant on the landscape. Consider revising the house to integrate it with the grade. The house should feel like it is growing out of the hill instead of placed on top. Suggestions included using fill to remedy the Page 4 of 22

23 Design Review Commission June 22, existing cut, adding retaining walls and landscaping to soften the transition between the house and hill or modifying the location of the structure closer to the edge of the slope and stepping with the hillside. Consider a U-shaped building to take advantage of the view as well as create a courtyard area with wind screening. Mr. Mastick said they looked at the courtyard and agreed there was just too much building around it. As a result they have abandoned the courtyard concept. They have reduced the overall square footage and oriented the home to the north and east, reducing the length and extent of the home to create a more compact structure. While the height of the structure has increased from 18 feet to 21 feet at the tallest point, the overall square footage was reduced to not exceed 6,000-s.f. of gross floor area. Mr. Mastick sought the Design Review Commission s direction for pursuing the modified design. Commission Chair Chong opened the study session to public comment. Hearing none, Commission Chair Chong closed the public comment section and called for Commission comments. Planning Commission liaison Sayles liked the hip roofs and how it rounds off the top of the hill. He thought it looked like a good project. Planning Commission liaison Sayles felt a one-story design was a good idea. Commissioner Ptaszynski appreciated how the changes have simplified the proposal. He found it to be calmer and clearer. However, he was still not sure how it sits on the site. He was struck by the fact there are no fireplaces or chimneys. Mr. Mastick said they may put one in the master bedroom. Commissioner Ptaszynski noted that it is a minor issue but he was looking for something that pins the house to the site. Commissioner Cleaver commented that the roof plan appears more organized. Mr. Mastick responded that previously they were forcing in a turret desired by the property owners but they have simplified the plan. Commissioner Cleaver also liked the gap between the buildings with the driveway and thought the front porch and entry are logical in their placement. He felt the proposal will be better organized for access with better cues. Commissioner Cleaver noticed on the south side that the garage was reduced by 1 foot and the bedroom wind decreased by 2 feet. Commission Chair Chong appreciated the applicant s efforts on the south elevation, finding a big difference in the plans. He echoed Commissioner Cleaver s comments and hoped the next iteration would provide more clarity of the entry process. Referring to page 3 of the plans, Commission Chair Chong would like to see more consistency in window types and details of the gutter, downspouts, etc. Commission Chair Chong would also like to see the stone placed continuously around the house and not just on one wall. C. SS11-15 Bay Vista Capital (Owners) R-20 Zoning: Request for a Study Session to review three options for the construction of a new ~4,400 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence, requiring grading over 50 cubic yards and removal of ~26 protected trees on a vacant lot unaddressed lot in the Hillside Overlay District on Camellia Lane, APN Recommendation: Provide feedback to the applicant. This is an informational item and no formal action will be taken. Project Planner: Sarah Allen Page 5 of 22

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

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 Allen, Sarah From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Russ Leavitt Monday, May 16, :51 AM Allen, Sarah RE: Referral for HDP04-16 (931 Sunnyhills Rd.) RUSSELL B LEAVITT.vcf Follow up Flagged According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) records, the project site is within CCCSD s service area, but has not previously received sanitary sewer service. If sewer service is desired, a 12-inch diameter public sewer is available on El Nido Ranch Road. The project would need to include either: a) about a 135 foot long, 8-inch diameter public main sewer extension up Sunnyhill Road to the project driveway, along with an onsite, approximately 450 foot long, 4-inch diameter lateral from the house to the main sewer; or b) an approximately 250 foot long, 4-inch diameter lateral from the house to the El Nido Road sewer. This latter option would require a private sewer easement through 4100 or 4104 El Nido Ranch Road. The proposed residence and detached accessory structure would not be expected to produce an unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system, nor interfere with existing facilities. Capacity fees and other connection charges will apply to the proposed new house if connected to the public sewer system. The detached accessory structure will not trigger additional capacity fees, so long as it does not contain a kitchen, although other connection charges may apply. The applicant must submit full-size building plans for CCCSD review and pay all appropriate fees. For more information, the applicant should contact the CCCSD Permit Section at (925) Thanks! From: Allen, Sarah [mailto:sallen@ci.lafayette.ca.us] Sent: Friday, May 13, :00 PM To: Allen, Sarah Subject: Referral for HDP04-16 (931 Sunnyhills Rd.) Dear Referral Agencies, Please review the attached referral for a demolition and reconstruction of a single family residence and detached accessory structure. You can find the plans here: It would be great if I could get comments on Monday to include in the staff report; however, I understand the tight turnaround. 1

68 Allen, Sarah From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Coe, Tony Monday, May 16, :44 AM Allen, Sarah RE: Referral for HDP04-16 (931 Sunnyhills Rd.) Follow up Flagged Sarah: These are my comments on this referral TC 1. The project proposes to use pervious pavers on the new driveway extension. The civil drawing shows pavers to be on compacted aggregate base subgrade. This is not a permeable design. Manufacturer s recommendations for a permeable subgrade should be used. 2. Related, it s not yet clear to me that the area of the driveway below contour 678 is sufficient flat to be conducive to a permeable design. In any case, the driveway should be graded to pitch in a SE direction to allow runoff to sheet flow and dissipate in the vegetated slope. The swale shown starting at contour 672 may be redundant in that case. 3. It s not yet clear why the two drainage spreader would be necessary given the how the building is situated on a plateau with slopes falling away on all sides. All surfaces should be graded to sheet flow toward the slope without concentrating the runoff. Downspouts should be daylighted on splash blocks and allowed to dissipate over the slope. The landscape plan should be coordinated with the drainage design to concentrate groundcover, hydroseeding, or erosion control planting where runoff toward the slope is expected to occur. 4. All the details referenced on civil sheet C2.1 are missing. From: Allen, Sarah Sent: Friday, May 13, :00 PM To: Allen, Sarah Subject: Referral for HDP04-16 (931 Sunnyhills Rd.) Dear Referral Agencies, Please review the attached referral for a demolition and reconstruction of a single family residence and detached accessory structure. You can find the plans here: It would be great if I could get comments on Monday to include in the staff report; however, I understand the tight turnaround. Thank you for your reply prior to the hearing on May 23, Sarah Allen, AICP Associate Planner City of Lafayette Direct: (925) Main: (925) How are we doing? Please take a moment to complete our customer satisfaction survey here! 1

69 Allen, Sarah From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Peter K Clark <pkclark@ucdavis.edu> Monday, May 16, :31 PM Allen, Sarah Re: Referral for HDP04-16 (931 Sunnyhills Rd.) bostelman.pdf Sarah, Thanks for the speedy response. Your point is well taken, but seems to overlook the fact that findings for an exception shouldn't even be considered until it has been determined that it is infeasible to build in another location off the ridgeline and out of the setback. Without knowing the geotechnical details, one can't say for sure, but a house down the hill in back of the ridge could meet the constraint for a Class III ridgeline : highest point lower than the elevation along the ridgeline. This would have the additional benefit of reducing freeway and BART noise in and around the structure. I have attached a letter from a former resident of Happy Valley that was written with respect to the Monticello Ridge case which explains this point very clearly. It was five years late in that situation, but if siting off the ridge had been taken seriously when the Wight application was first considered, I think the whole mess could have been avoided. Mr. Bostelman had just retired from his position as one of the seven lead partners of Sullivan and Cromwell in New York and is a very good lawyer. I think other sites should be given full consideration. Sincerely Peter On 5/16/16 9:28 AM, Allen, Sarah wrote: Hi Peter, Thank you for your response. Yes, the site does contain a class II and class III ridgeline setback. There is an existing home at the top of the hill currently. It is a low slung dark brown home so it is not very visible. The new home I believe will be visible from El Nido Ranch Rd. and from portions of Hwy 24 traveling westbound. It is not illegal to build on a ridgeline, but there are exceptions that must be granted in order to build here. They have not yet provided story poles, but have gone through two study sessions with the Design Review Commission. The staff report will ready by Wednesday. Take care, 1

70 Sarah Allen, AICP Associate Planner City of Lafayette Direct: (925) Main: (925) How are we doing? Please take a moment to complete our customer satisfaction survey here! From: Peter K Clark [mailto:pkclark@ucdavis.edu] Sent: Saturday, May 14, :45 PM To: Allen, Sarah Subject: Re: Referral for HDP04-16 (931 Sunnyhills Rd.) Sarah: As far as I can tell, the current house sits right on top of a Class II/III ridgeline. and would be illegal to build after It seems like ridgeline protection should be taken seriously here. The ridgeline and setback should be shown on many more of the drawings, and a visibility analysis should be 2

71 undertaken. If the new structure is visible from designated lower viewing areas, the relevant findings have to be considered. Let's get this application correct from the very beginning and avoid Monticello Ridge style trench warfare later on. Peter Clark, President HVIA On 5/13/16 5:59 PM, Allen, Sarah wrote: Dear Referral Agencies, Please review the attached referral for a demolition and reconstruction of a single family residence and detached accessory structure. You can find the plans here: 6 It would be great if I could get comments on Monday to include in the staff report; however, I understand the tight turnaround. Thank you for your reply prior to the hearing on May 23, Sarah Allen, AICP Associate Planner City of Lafayette Direct: (925) Main: (925) How are we doing? Please take a moment to complete our customer satisfaction survey here! 3

72

73

74

75 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 1

76 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 2

77 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 3

78 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 4

79 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 5

80 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 6

81 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 7

82 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 8

83 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 9

84 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 10

85 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 11

86 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 12

87 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 13

88 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 14

89 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 15

90 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 16

91 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 17

92 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 18

93 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 19

94 HDP04-16 Egan May 13, 2016 Photo 20