The Lafayette Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a concrete retaining wall and grading permit at 1166 Camino Vallecito after staff and the applicant described active sloughing that has damaged an existing house.

Staff described a proposed wall roughly 150 feet long that ranges from about 1–2 feet at the ends to a maximum of 6 feet near the center and that triggers a grading permit. Staff reported approximately 150 cubic yards of cut and 600 cubic yards of fill and showed the wall would sit approximately 6 inches off the southern property line. Because most of the wall lies within the 15‑degree declination area measured from the ridgeline, the commission must make an exception to the ridgeline standards.

Engineering staff flagged three unresolved issues to be addressed in the building permit: (1) remove a failed prior wood wall shown on the plans, (2) ensure any railing above a 6‑foot drop is set back per Lafayette code so it does not create a continuous height that would require a variance, and (3) resolve drainage concentration behind the wall either through an engineered drainage design acceptable to the city engineer or by recording a drainage easement with the downhill neighbor acknowledging the concentrated flow. Staff placed the drainage option and engineering acceptance in Condition 21, requiring resolution before a building permit will be issued.

Applicant Greg Orley said the house has experienced foundation cracks and interior damage and that early remediation (haunch piers) was already installed to shore the house. He described the planned concrete wall as a caisson‑supported buttress keyed into competent material, designed to follow soil‑engineer recommendations. Orley said the project team proposed closer spacing of weep holes (every 5 feet) to dissipate concentrated flow; staff had described 10‑ and 15‑foot spacings in the report and engineering recommended further analysis.

Commissioners expressed concern that an easement recorded after approval could place long‑term restrictions on the southern property owner and asked whether the alternative (city engineer approval of a drainage design) could be required in advance. Staff and the planning director explained Condition 21 gives the applicant two options: submit engineered drainage details acceptable to the city engineer or obtain a recorded agreement with the neighbor; if neither is feasible, the approval will lapse and the applicant must return with an alternative design. Commissioner Mason requested that engineering or a waterproofing/drainage study be demonstrated so the first option's feasibility is verified.

Commissioner DiGiorgio moved to find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt PC Resolution 2025‑16 approving the retaining wall and grading permit subject to conditions. The motion carried 5‑0. Staff noted a 14‑day appeal period.

What happens next: the applicant must resolve the unresolved engineering items at building permit stage — either secure the city engineer's acceptance of drainage measures or record an easement with the southern property owner, remove the failed wall from final plans, and confirm railing placement per Lafayette standards before construction can begin.