page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 13
page 14

CITY OF LAFAYETTE

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

DRAFT MINUTES

Lafayette Community Center, Manzanita Room

500 St. Mary's Road, Lafayette, California

March 1,2007

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Holt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Commissioner Present:

Chair Dick Holt; Vice Chair Mark Mitchell; Commissioners Jeanne

Ateljevich, Tom Chastain, Jaime Harris, Dick Holt, and Will Lovitt.

Commissioner Absent:

None

Staff Present:

Niroop Srivatsa, Planning and Building Services Manager; Greg Wolff,

Senior Planner; and Karen Liu, Contract Minute Taker.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Commissioner Ateljevich moved and Vice Chair Mitchell seconded, to adopt the agenda as

presented.

AYES:

Ateljevich, Chastain, Harris, Holt, Humann, Lovitt, and Mitchell

NOES:

None

ABSENT:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR

(Estimated 7:OOPM*)

TRAILS MASTER PLAN

The Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission is pleased to provide the updated Trails Master

Plan to the Planning Commission for review and future reference. The Trails Master Plan was

adopted by the City Council on November 27, 2006 (Resolution 2006-08) and represents two

years of work by the PT&R Commission and PT&R Director.

Recommendation: Receive and file.

Project Planner:

Jennifer Russell, PT&R Director, Tel (925) 284-2232,

irussell@lovelafayette.org

Vice Chair Mitchell moved and Commissioner Humann seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar

as presented.

AYES:

Ateljevich, Chastain, Harris, Holt, Humann, Lovitt, and Mitchell

NOES:

None

ABSENT:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

CONSENT CALENDAR

(Estimated 7:OOPM*)

DR5O-06 POLYTECH ASSOCIATES, INC. (APPLICANT), LAFAYETTE RESIDENTIAL

PARTNERS, LLC (OWNER), P-i ZONING:

Request for approval of the final development

plans for the third phase of Lafayette Town Center. The final plans, which are consistent with

the

approved preliminary planned unit development, call for a 25,817 26,851 sq. ft., three-story

office building and a two-story parking garage for 300 104 vehicles. APN 243-040-035.

Recommendation:

Review the revised plans and draft conditions of approval and continue to

the March 15th meeting for consideration of an approval resolution.

Project

Planner:

Niroop K. Srivatsa, Tel (925) 299-3206, nsrivatsa@lovelafayette.org

(Estimated time: 30 min*)

Project Planner Niroop Srivatsa indicated the application was last considered by the Planning Commission

on February

15th

where the applicant was provided with a series of recommendations to improve the

project.

Staff has reviewed the revisions and feels the changes, along with the conditions that will be

imposed on the project would warrant a recommendation for approval. The one outstanding item relating

to the beautification of the garage and the office building was addressed by the applicant via e-mail after

the staff report was prepared.

On February

20th,

the City Council held a special meeting to discuss Phase Ill of the Town Center and

reiterated their preference for a residential use on the site rather than an office building. The consultant

hired by the City to advise them on the economics of the project presented their findings that evening.

Plans as described in both the settlement agreement and the plans were deemed too expensive to build,

particularly the costs to build a two or three level underground parking lot. In order for there to be residual

land value on the property, it would be better to provide parking above grade; given the expense, the

maximum that they could go below grade would be one level.

To allow the City and the property owners to continue discussions on a residential project and to alleviate

the pressures to secure a building permit for the office building before the May 27, 2007 deadline, the City

Council directed staff to extend the Development Agreement by one year. Ms. Srivatsa indicated a list of

conditions of approval has been prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration tonight. If the

Commission can make the findings necessary, they can direct staff to come back with a Resolution of

Approval.

Chair Holt asked if the City would be allowed to modify the project into residential condos at a later date if

they were to approve the application as submitted tonight. As part of the settlement between the property

owner and the City, Ms. Srivatsa responded the City agreed to amend the development agreement to

include the multi-family residential use consistent with the Helen Manus' plans.

Commissioner Ateljevich asked what the Helen Manus' plans were.

Ms. Srivatsa explained the Helen

Manus plans' were presented by KB Home in September 2005, which called for 80 condominium units, a

restaurant, five live-work units, and two levels of underground parking.

Commissioner Ateljevich asked why they would amend the plan if it didn't conform to those specifications.

Ms. Srivatsa said as part of the settlement, the City had agreed to amend the development agreement.

Commissioner Lovitt pointed out if the plans were approved and building permits were issued, there would

be nothing stopping the applicant from building the office building.

David Bowie, attorney for the applicant of the Lafayette Town Center Project, stated even though progress

was made in discussions of a residential development project at the Council's special hearing, he felt timing

was still an issue.

Therefore, they are pursuing the project as presented with the hopes of getting

everything in place to pull building permits.

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

Vice Chair Mitchell thought the City Council had extended the agreement for one year. Mr. Bowie

responded the City Council did adopt a motion with the intent of extending the agreement and directed staff

to take the proper steps to do so. The problem with that is his client would have to go through this whole

process again.

He is hoping this project is something the Commission wants and beneficial for the

community and everyone involved.

Chair Holt said he can appreciate the position they are in but if there is some mechanism that allows for

more time to get it right, he thinks they should do that. He also thought more time would be beneficial to

the applicant given the time constraints. Mr. Bowie pointed out this project is not brand new and has been

on the drawing boards for a long time. He understands the desire to look at this very carefully and felt the

Commission has already done so.

Chair Ateljevich asked if there is a condition in place for it to go back to Design Review.

Ms. Srivatsa

responded that final details of the project to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Commission

include exterior lighting, type, color, texture of the brick veneer, sample brick panel, roof materials, type of

ground floor glazing, brackets, outdoor furnishings, plaza details, transition areas between the subject

parcel and Phase I, signage, and final landscaping.

Charles Jennings, AlA, Polytech Associates, Inc., presented an overview of the project and addressed the

issue of continuity.

Ned Smith, Smith and Smith Landscape Architects, addressed the concerns raised from the last meeting

with regards to more integration of the plaza with the project, incorporation of riparian materials, integration

of the BART path, and replacement of certain plantings.

Commissioner Chastain asked if there was still a seat wall on the green planting strip along the ramp. Mr.

Smith responded in the affirmative and reported the height of the seat wall varies from 18 to 24 inches.

Commissioner Chastain asked if there was planting there last time. Mr. Smith responded in the affirmative.

Chair Holt asked why they chose seating boulders over benches. Mr. Smith indicated it had to do with

aesthetics.

Chair Holt stated his preference would be wooden benches.

Commissioner Ateljevich

indicated boulders can be comfortable and thought it would be interesting to incorporate them into the

natural elements of the patio.

Mr. Bowie reviewed the comments he submitted in writing with regards to the final version of the Conditions

of Approval:

Condition 4 - the condition is a duplication of Condition 8. It should be deleted in its entirety.

Condition 8 - insert the word "material" in the condition to read "No

material

changes shall be made to the

approved plans or color and material board . .

Condition 9 - condition is a duplication of Condition 5 and should be deleted.

Condition 16 - storage should be permissible at other locations as long as it is with the permission of the

property owner.

Condition 17 - the condition shall be revised to read - "The project shall exercise best reasonable efforts to

comply with recommendation of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District."

Condition 25 - add the following sentence at the end of the condition - "Nothing in this Condition shall be

deemed to require the payment of fees or exactions, if any, the imposition of which is precluded by and

under the terms of the Development Agreement."

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

Conditions Prior to Issuance of a Grading, Building, or Demolition Permit, Whichever is First

Condition 28 - the project currently incorporates bicycle parking; the development agreement does not

include any provision for bicycle lockers; therefore the condition should be deleted.

Condition 30 - this condition should be deleted in its entirety; the substance of the condition has been

addressed on numerous occasions, including but not limited to, as part of the Settlement Agreement

process.

Condition 31 - the word "revised" found in the first line should be deleted.

Condition 32 - in lieu of installation of landscaping, the posting of a performance bond, a cash deposit, or a

letter of credit in a sum equal to the estimated cost of landscape installation plus 25% should release "hold"

status.

Condition 39 - the reference to Phases I and II should be deleted.

Prior to Release of "Hold-on-Final" Status and Final Building Inspection

Condition 1 - condition is unacceptable and should be deleted. It would make issuance of an occupancy

permit subject to review and approval of construction already completed.

Condition 2 - in lieu of installing landscaping, a bond, cash deposit, or letter of credit should be acceptable.

Condition 9 - in the second sentence, the word "material" should be inserted between the word "all" and

"conditions."

The last sentence should read - "Planning Services Division staff shall release the "hold" on

the final building inspection when there has been substantial compliance with all materials of conditions of

approval."

Chair Holt asked staff to respond to Mr. Bowie's comments.

Ms. Srivatsa responded as follows:

Condition 4 - condition is a duplication of Condition 8 and will be deleted.

Condition 8 - the introduction of the word "material" is not acceptable because it is a standard of approval

imposed on all projects and has to do with exterior changes, not interior.

Condition 9 - condition is a duplication of Condition 5 and will be deleted.

Condition 16 - staff will amend it to say that storage of construction materials has to be on site. If another

location is found, the applicant has to consult with staff and get the City's permission to do so. She has no

issue with the applicant submitting a storage plan to staff for approval.

Condition 17 - the applicant does have to comply with the recommendation of the Contra Costa Fire

Protection District; therefore staff is not in support of the change.

Condition 25 - staff has no issue with it but will check with the City Attorney just to be sure.

Condition 28 - bicycle lockers will not be required since the development agreement calls for bicycle racks

which the applicant has fulfilled.

Condition 30 - deletion of condition is acceptable.

Condition 31 - the word "revised" in the first line will be deleted.

Condition 32 - staff would not recommend a change to condition to allow the applicant to post a bond.

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

Condition 39 - the reference to Phases I and II can be deleted.

Prior to Release of "Hold-on-Final" Status and Final Building Inspection

Condition 1 - making it a condition prior to issuance of the building permit would work much better for staff.

Condition 2 - a bond is not acceptable in lieu of installing landscaping.

Condition 9 - the insertion of the word "material" is not acceptable.

With no public testimony, Chair Holt closed the public portion of the hearing and brought the matter back to

the Commission for discussion and action.

With regards to vehicular circulation, Vice Chair Mitchell asked how garbage and delivery trucks were going

to come and go. Mr. Jennings responded that vehicular circulation for deliveries will occur in the zone

between the retail and the office site. It is anticipated the 15-minute parking spaces will be used. Any sort

of delivery trucks can also park in the common area adjacent to the retail area.

Since they have to be in plan check by March 13th, Mr. Bowie asked if the Commission can direct staff to

instruct the County to begin their plan check process.

Ms. Srivatsa responded they can do that, but the

applicant takes a risk because should the plans change, the review was for naught.

Commissioner Lovitt said he has issue with Item 1 in the table of the staff report and would like staff's

feedback.

Ms. Srivatsa reported the applicant submitted revised plans after the staff report was prepared;

staff is pleased with the revisions as it relates to Items 1, 2, and 3.

Ms. Srivatsa reported significant

progress was made on Item 4 but thinks the transition area and the way the back paving ends abruptly in

the middle of the BART pathway should be addressed by DRC; Items 5, 6, 7, 8, & 10 will also be

addressed by DRC.

With regards to Item 9, staff will delete the reference to bike lockers in the garage

since there are bike racks at the front and the rear of the building.

Commissioner Chastain suggested the last two parking spaces on the north corner at the drive be pushed

back up into the green area to provide for a more generous space to load and unload larger delivery trucks.

As for the brick panel, he felt it would be prudent to ask for an 8X8 panel to include the brick veneer, the

roof material, and topic glazing brackets so they can see the relation as to how it will be detailed on the

building.

Vice Chair Mitchell disagrees with staff's finding that traffic congestion will not likely be created by the

proposed use or will be obviated by improvements since that has not been his experience. On many

occasions, he's had a hard time finding parking at the Town Center in its current condition and thinks this

proposal would make it a much bigger problem.

Commissioner Ateljevich moved and Commissioner Harris seconded to continue the application to

the March 15, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval,

and revise the conditions of approval as amended.

AYES:

Ateljevich, Chastain, Harris, Holt, and Humann

NOES:

Lovitt and Mitchell

ABSENT:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

GPO1-05

RZO1-05 BRUCE TORQUEMADA, LAFAYETTE PROPERTIES, (APPLICANT &

OWNER), R-15 ZONING:

Request for:

(1)

General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density

Single-Family Residential (up to 6 dwelling units per acre) to Low Density Multiply-Family

Residential (up to 17 dwelling units per acres) and to allow a building up to 56-ft. in height;

(2)

Rezone the subject property from Single-Family Residential District 15 (R-15) to Planned

Unit Development (P-i);

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

(3)

Minor Subdivision to create 32 condominiums and common area; and

(4)

Design Review approval of the project including the approximately 52,000 sq. ft. residential

condominium building with 26,000 sq. ft. underground parking garage

(5)

Tree Permit to remove protected trees associated with the development project

(6)

Grading Permit to grade an estimated 40,000 cubic yards of earth

(7)

Development Agreement

The project is proposed on -2.0 acres located at 3235 Mt. Diablo Ct. APN5: 233-131-020 &

022.

Recommendation:

Review project revisions, CEQA Initial Study and Mitigated Negative

Declaration of Environmental Impacts and forward

positive recommendation to the City

Council.

Project

Planner:

Greg Wolff, Tel (925) 299-3204, qwolff@lovelafayette.orc

(Estimated time: 45 min*)

Project Planner Greg Wolff indicated the Planning Commission considered the subject application on

January

18th

and continued the matter to tonight's meeting. The Commission asked for a model of the

project to show the building height and mass in context with the hillside; come back with a revised truck

staging plan showing no lane closures on Mt. Diablo Boulevard; and reduce the height and appearance of

the building itself.

Staff is satisfied with the revisions made and recommends the Planning Commission

adopt the draft resolution along with a positive recommendation to the City Council.

Joe Bologna, Hollman Bologna Architecture & Planning, Inc., led the Commission through the model in

terms of the height and massing issues and the context of blending in with the neighborhood. In addition,

illustrations were shown identifying where the height of the building has been reduced.

Michael Milani, Milani & Associates, reported they met with Chamber members who reiterated concerns

about lane closures on the east part of town. They have since revised the traffic control plan to include no

lane closures; there will be no staging of any construction traffic within Mt. Diablo Court; Chamber

member's desire to limit the staging to a four day period is something they would take into account if need

be; there will be no staging on any of the off ramps; and some staging is proposed underneath the over

crossing.

Chair Holt opened the public hearing on the item.

As a business owner on Mt. Diablo Court, Larry Blodgett's biggest concerns have been the reduction of

traffic on and off Mt. Diablo Court. He was one of the Chamber members that met with the developer and

is relatively satisfied with the revised staging plan. He still had concerns about the amount of construction,

dust, and delays the project will cause and would request improvements such as the traffic signal at the

subject intersection be mandated as a condition of the project being final. He wants to make sure the park

development and street improvements are not paid out of in lieu fees, but carried by the developer.

Ray Russell indicated he and his wife would like to downsize their living accommodations and has found

very little suitable condo/apartment complexes for them to move to. They look to the Commission to make

easier for them by approving this project.

Shawnee Browne noted a 1,500 feet decrease is a very insubstantial reduction in the mass of the building

as is the reduction of height from 10 to 9 feet. The beautiful rolling hills, featured in the 2005/06 brochure,

is exactly where they are going to put the proposed 56 feet high condominium complex. She does not see

the benefits to Lafayette and does not think the school teachers, firemen, and policemen in the community

are going to be able to afford the units even if it is suppose to be low income. For all those reasons, she

requests the Commission not approve the project at this time.

Carol Gray echoed Ms. Browne's sentiments and indicated the reduction of 1,500 square feet out of the

total 54,000 square feet equates to less than a 3% reduction in the mass of the building. She feels a very

attractive multi-unit building about half the size should be considered and noted that wisdom and restraint

as pointed out in previous meetings should be used in this transitional area as it borders the entrance to

Lafayette.

Planning Commission

March 1, 2007

Vivienne Portnoff echoed the comments of Carol Gray and Shawnee Browne. She believes the building is

still too big and the reduction in mass is an insult to the Planning Commission and the people of Lafayette.

She remains opposed to the project as it is too big and incompatible to Lafayette.

Gene Widdel felt the project will create a great deal of disruption at their end of town and the end result will

not contribute to the charm and character of Lafayette. He is also concerned that yet another stop light

would be installed at their end of town; he finds it environmentally unfriendly and will result in increased

delays, frustrations, and a waste of natural resources.

Randall Castro echoed previous speakers' comments that the reduction in mass is disappointing. He does

not think the property transitions well next to the smaller buildings and homes in the area. He opposes the

project and wanted to forward an additional 25 signatures to the petition signatures already submitted by

the Pleasant Hill Valley Group.

Michael Swan echoed previous speaker's comments. It was only four years ago that the general plan was

hashed out and they are already asking for variance. He does not think any of the existing condominium

complexes would have ever passed through the general plan and would like to know why the variances for

such projects are in a concentrated area.

While the idea is to create affordable housing, he believes based

on the square footage of the units discussed, they are easily going to be at the million dollar price point.

With respect to the environmental impact, staging is looking better although he does not quite see how it's

going to work with 1,400 trucks of off haul. Finally, he is appalled by the comment made by City Manager

Steven Falk that this project was a foregone conclusion when discussions haven't even been completed.

Cliff

Tong believed the bar needs to be set much higher in comparison to a standard subdivision in this

particular instance. In an effort to lower the profile of the building, all the applicant has really done is lower

the roof lines. He feels there is quite a bit more that can be done. In particular, he is very concerned about

the view corridors from Old Tunnel Road and Pleasant Hill Road.

Barra Tessen didn't think the proposed project should be compared to the mass and size of existing

apartments and condominiums which were completed when Lafayette was under the County's rule. She

does not think they would stand a chance of getting approval today based on the current standards of this

town. Impacts to the residential neighborhood should be taken into consideration as the proposed project

abuts single family residential neighborhoods.

Alan Moore, land use attorney for the applicant indicated a joint study session was held a year and a half

ago to address the General Plan Amendment. The City Council, Design Review Commission, and the

Planning Commission determined the general plan and land use was appropriate. The applicant's team

has been very careful to hold public hearings prior to going through the process.

Mr. Moore wanted the

audience to know they have done their homework and didn't just come in out of nowhere to ask for the

general plan amendment. Secondly, one of the things he would like to point out is that although the

general plan is a 20 year document, the housing element is updated every 5 years as needs in the city

change.

Chair Holt asked Mr. Milani to address the dirt/dust suppression.

Mr.

Milani responded as part of the

grading plan, the implementation of erosion control and dust control plan is required. They will also work

with the grading inspector to make sure that impacts are minimized on the project site.

Chair Holt asked if the applicant would be in support of greening the project as the City is moving towards a

green ordinance.

Mr. Bologna responded materials for the building have not been specified at this point;

when the time comes, they would like to be the first one to come under that ordinance and set an example.

Chair Holt closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.

Mr. Wolff clarified the traffic signal proposed at Mt. Diablo Court and Mt. Diablo Boulevard would function in

similar fashion to the signal at Risa Road and Mt. Diablo Boulevard where Mt. Diablo Boulevard traffic can

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

flow constant and uninterrupted until such time a vehicle at the cross street triggers the loop detector in the

pavement. The signal will then briefly change allowing that vehicle out.

Due to the fact there were three more continued public hearings to be heard, Chair Holt asked the

Commission if they would consider continuing Item No. 7 to the next meeting. Ms. Srivatsa indicated she

will inform the applicant and the project planner accordingly if the Commission wishes to do so.

Commissioner Ateljevich moved and Commissioner Humann seconded to continue Item 7, without

consideration, to the March 15, 2007 meeting. The vote was unanimous.

The Commission took a 5-minute break and returned to Item 6B.

Vice Chair Mitchell felt the horizontalness of the building does not follow the topography outlined in the

Design Review guidelines. Since seven of the ten speakers seem to have a problem with the east side,

especially as it transitions into the single family neighborhood, he would like to see a size reduction on that

eastern side.

Commissioner Ateljevich said she regrets they are working in one mass rather than a collection of two or

three buildings to provide more of a transitional feeling to the residential neighborhood.

Commissioner Chastain said the density at the site is not a problem for him because the kind of housing it

provides is needed in Lafayette. Because landscape improvements are being made, it's giving something

back which is a positive to the community. Although he thinks it's a good project, he does agree more work

needs to be done, particularly at the east end.

Chair Holt agrees the land use is appropriate and does not have a problem with the number of units

proposed.

However, he is not satisfied with the architectural look and the transition on the eastern end.

He would like to see it be a little bit more sensitive to the Pleasant Hill residents.

Commissioner Humann asked if landscaping at the east end would help mitigate that transition.

strongly opposes breaking up the building or starting a whole new redesign at this point.

Since the

Planning Commission does not have the final word, he suggested the item be moved along to the City

Council.

Commissioner Ateljevich said moving mainly the east end back 10 or 15 feet might help.

Chair Holt

pointed out a lot of that open space belonged to the neighbor, not the applicant.

Chair Holt asked Commissioner Chastain if there is some sort of articulation that can be done to the

gabling to make it less horizontal and more interesting.

Commissioner Chastain didn't think it is just a

fenestration issue. It had to do with scale and level of dimension of the building at that east end.

Commissioner Harris did not believe you can see the full horizontal length of the building unless you were

standing right in front of the building.

From looking at the drawings, photographs, and model and from

going up and down Pleasant Hill Road a number of times, he believed that even if the building were to be

redesigned or stepped back at the east end, it would not make much of a difference on the true visual

public impact of the building.

Commissioner Humann asked Mr. Wolff if it's possible to forward a recommendation to the City Council

along with their recommended conceptual changes and require it goes back to design review to implement

those changes. Mr. Wolff responded that if the goals were articulated, Design Review can do their best to

implement it.

A recommendation can be forwarded to the City Council with respect to proposed land use

and concerns articulated.

Commissioner Ateljevich indicated she is not going to support moving forward until the basic form is

something she feels comfortable with.

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

Commissioner Humann moved to forward the application, along with the concerns voiced relative to the

east end of the project to the City Council along with a recommendation for approval.

Commissioner Harris said the motion needed to be made more precise.

What they would need to do is

recommend approval of the general plan amendment to the City Council, the change of land use

designation, approval of the rezoning, a recommendation for the 32 units, and design review approval of

the project subject to Design Review Commission addressing the concerns about the bulk and mass at the

east end of the building.

Chair Holt asked for a roll call on the motion and asked staff to repeat back what was said. Mr. Wolff

reported the motion made by Commissioner Harris is to move staff's recommendation of all seven items

listed in the staff report - general plan amendment, rezoning subdivision, design review, tree permit,

grading permit, and development agreement; and the design review commission look at the articulation of

the east end to ease the transition to the single home dwellings.

The roll call was as follows:

Vice Chair Mitchell

- No;

Commissioner Lovitt - No;

Commissioner Ateljevich

No;

Commissioner Chastain

Mr. Wolff announced the motion fails due to a lack of majority vote.

Chair Holt noted there was consensus that the applicant needed to work on the east end of the project.

Commissioner Chastain indicated his concern with the building overall is how it actually responds to the

transition at the site.

He does not have a problem with the number of units, the size itself, and the overall

density.

He would like to see a redistribution of units in a slightly more creative way in the overall building

mass which may mean lowering the east end and potentially raising the west end.

Chair Holt asked for a motion again.

Commissioner Ateijevich moved and Commissioner Lovitt seconded to continue the application for

a re-design consistent with the remarks made by Commissioner Chastain to a date certain.

AYES:

Ateijevich, Chastain, Harris, Holt, Humann, Lovitt, and Mitchell

NOES:

None

ABSENT:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

L04-06 & HDP65-06 COAST RADIO (APPLICANT), GEORGE MOORE (OWNER), LR-1O

ZONING:

Request for: (1) Land Use Permit pursuant to Section 6-7103 of the Lafayette

Municipal Code (LMC), (2) Hillside Development Permit pursuant to Section 6-2015

LMC, (3)

Class II Ridgeline Exception pursuant to Section 6-2027 LMC, and (4) Exception to exceed the

15-degree declination requirement pursuant to Section 6-2029 LMC to replace an existing 101-

foot wooden utility pole with a 97-foot steel self-supported structure within the Hillside Overlay

District and a Class II Ridgeline setback, located at 1199 Dunsyre Drive. APN 177-120-020.

Recommendation:

Conduct public hearing, review application, and adopt Planning

Commission Resolution 2007-06, approving application L04-06 and HDP65-06, subject to

conditions of approval.

Project

Planner:

Michael Cass, Tel (925)299-3219, mcass@lovelafayette.org (Est. time: 30 min*)

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

On behalf of project planner Michael Cass, Ms Srivatsa summarized the staff report and recommended the

Commission conduct a public hearing, review the application, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution

2007-06, approving application L04-06 and HDP65-06, subject to conditions of approval.

Vice Chair Mitchell asked if the applicant can accomplish the same with the use two shorter towers on

opposite sides of the trees; if the towers were shorter, they would recede into the trees and not be as

noticeable.

Tim McFadden, representing Coast Radio, said the antenna has to be stacked in a particular fashion and

the height is needed to get the radiation pattern needed. Replacement of a taller structure with two smaller

structures would not give them the same coverage that they have today. Upon investigation, the existing

pole is in poorer condition than he thought and he does not know how it is still standing. The structural

report is pretty clear that the existing pole needs to be replaced as quickly as possible.

With regard to the road, because the one neighbor is still reluctant to complete his portion of the work, a

referee was appointed by the court for the lawsuit filed. At this point, the court can take action to compel

the owner of the adjacent lot to complete the work.

Chair Holt asked if they had a condition addressing that. Ms. Srivatsa responded that there was.

With regards to the conditions of approval, Mr. McFadden questioned the need for landscaping given the

fact that there are already some mesquite bushes in front of the lower part of the tower and the trees there

now will conceal the mass of the tower. Based on the property set up with such a long range view, he does

not think anybody would be able to see the landscaping even if it was installed. Ms. Srivatsa responded

Condition 14 will be deleted as landscaping is not proposed for the site.

Chair Holt closed the public hearing and asked staff to weigh in.

Ms. Srivatsa summarized the three project specific conditions: the City will not grant any future land use

permits for wireless telecommunication facilities until the road issue is resolved; the City will be provided

with a full topographic survey showing the trees, the accurate drip line, and all the structures on the site;

and prior to issuance of the release of the final inspection, the applicant will remove all old, unused, and

abandoned facilities to the greatest extent possible.

Chair Holt asked how staff felt about the referee and getting the road prepared. Ms. Srivatsa responded

that staff is trying to remain impartial in this situation as it is really a private matter.

Commissioner Ateljevich

moved and Commissioner Humann seconded to adopt Planning

Commission Resolution 2007-06, approving application L04-06 and HDP65-06, subject to the

conditions of approval.

AYES:

Ateljevich, Chastain, Harris, Holt, Humann, Lovitt, and Mitchell

NOES:

None

ABSENT:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

HDP97-06 ERIC STRAND (APPLICANT & OWNER), LR-10 ZONING:

Request for: (1)

Hillside

Development Permit pursuant to Section 6-2015 of the Lafayette Municipal Code

(LMC), (2) Design Review approval pursuant to Section 6-1 903 LMC, and (3) Grading permit

pursuant to Chapter 3-7 LMC to construct a new, approximately 3,500 4,000 sq.ft. one-story

single-family residence with basement with a maximum ridge height of approximately 29-ft.

above existing grade on a 5.3-acre vacant parcel in the Hillside Overlay District on Burton

Ridge at 10 Vista del Valle off Michael Lane. APN 238-080-035

Recommendation:

Review the applicant's schematic siting alternatives and direct the

applicant to proceed with design development of a home on the "Dead Oak" site (applicant's

term).

Project Planner:

Greg Wolff, Tel (925) 299-3204,

wolff@lovelafayette.orcj (Est. time: 45 min*)

Commissioner Humann stepped down and announced he will be leaving for the night.

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

Project Planner Greg Wolff summarized the staff report and recommended the Commission review the

applicant's schematic siting alternatives, continue the matter for a future meeting, and direct the applicant

to proceed with design development of a home on the "Dead Oak".

Commissioner Ateljevich said there should be complete staking of the house proposed to determine if the

mass is acceptable before design development is addressed. Mr. Wolff responded the Commission could

so direct the applicant.

Mike Mussano, Ward-Young Architects, gave an overview of the two sites before the Commission; one

being the Planning Commission site and the other known as the Dead Oak site.

Commissioner Ateljevich asked what the top peak roof elevations were for the two sites.

Mr. Mussano

responded the Planning Commission site was 17 feet above 564.5 and the Dead Oak site was about 12

feet above 567; he believed they were both at about the same elevation.

Vice Chair Mitchell asked if there was a reason why the house on the Dead Oak site was not within 5 feet

of the property line as shown on the Planning Commission site. Mr. Mussano responded they were trying

to match the elevation on the hill. If they attempted to move a house within five feet of a property line on a

five acre site, he can guarantee it will be appealed.

Vice Chair Mitchell asked if moving it within 5 feet was just to satisfy a request that was made earlier. Mr.

Mussano indicated the 5 foot was a drawing done by Commissioner Ateljevich. The first time they saw it

was at the Design Review meeting in September of 2006.

Cliff Tong representing burtonvalley.com said he is still stuck on the decision that was made to essentially

abandon the idea of starting with 2,000 square foot plus a 500 square foot garage as a baseline. It seems

tonight's discussion about the site is taking them away from that key point and he is really troubled by why

the Planning Commission has abandoned that philosophy. He would strongly urge them to go back to that.

Sherrie Hoover indicated her issue is with visibility. She implored the Commission to scale back the size of

the proposed home and do whatever they can to reduce the visibility on Burton Valley so that it would not

take the place of the dead oak, which has been the icon for the past 30 years that she has lived here.

Commissioner Ateljevich thought it should be explained that while it's called the dead oak site, the house is

shown on the plans is not by the dead oak. It's an unfair name because the house is actually down in the

swale. It's closer to the dead oak than the original proposal but it is not on top of the knoll like the dead oak

is.

Ms. Hoover said her point is the dead oak is the icon at present. Once you put a 4,500 square feet home

there, the dead oak will disappear and the home becomes the new icon.

Chair Holt asked Mr. Mussano if he ever contemplated designing a 2,500 square foot house. Mr. Mussano

replied no.

Chair Holt asked why that was. Mr. Mussano responded that if they were to come before the Commission

with a 2,500 square feet house and compared it to one that is 4,000 square feet, it would be obvious the

Planning Commission would select the one with the least impact. The owner has made it quite clear since

the very first Design Review meeting that he will not build a 2,500 square feet home on a site that costs him

that much money.

Chair Holt closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. He said he is

still troubled by the fact that the Planning Commission never got the smaller house that they asked for.

Commissioner Ateljevich said they should stake which ever one of the two possible sites they decide on to

determine if they want to go with the size presented. If they don't want to go the size, then they can deny it.

Chair Holt said he did not want to go with that size and wanted to hear from the rest of the Commission.

Commissioner Chastain reiterated the reason why he didn't vote for the motion last time, was due to the

fact the process wasn't followed. Moving forward, the Commission would have to be very explicit about the

direction they give.

Commissioner Lovitt thought they were very explicit at the last meeting.

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

Of the two sites presented, Commissioner Harris felt the dead oak site seemed to be the better one. As for

the 2,500 square feet, the direction all along was to come back with something that consists of a 2,000 foot

house, with a 500 foot garage; a basic house that would minimize the offsite visibility. If a case can be

made a bigger house would not increase the visibility substantially, then the Commission would have basis

to make the finding for the bigger house.

Chair Holt asked if there was a consensus on a site. Commissioner Ateljevich responded she is not

against the dead oak site. Commissioner Lovitt said his only concern with the dead oak site was the length

of the driveway and what it was going to look like.

Vice Chair Mitchell said he liked the dead oak site better but that he would be happier if it slid 5 feet from

the property line.

Commissioner Chastain wondered if they were ready to approve a site since they are now being asked to

consider another site. Given the information presented, he is not ready to say that the dead oak site is the

one to go with.

Commissioner Harris felt the Commission owed the property owner a decision, which would then allow him

to completely understand what his position is and how he should proceed.

Chair Holt wanted to hear what staff had to say in the way of a recommendation.

Mr. Wolff responded they have a constraint of a statutory deadline coming up on March 9th• With respect to

that alone, they would either need a 90-day extension from the applicant this evening or direction from the

Commission to continue to March 8th and prepare a denial without prejudice resolution.

Commissioner Ateljevich asked Mr. Mussano if they would grant the extension of time tonight. If they don't,

the Commission would have to move for a denial without prejudice. Mr. Mussano responded there will be

no extension granted.

Vice Chair

Mitchell moved and Commissioner Lovitt seconded to continue the item for preparation

of a denial, without prejudice to the March 8th Special Planning Commission meeting.

AYES:

Ateljevich, Chastain, Harris, Holt, Lovitt, and Mitchell

NOES:

None

ABSENT:

Humann

ABSTAIN:

None

NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS

(Estimated 9:3OPM*)

MS503-06 JEFF & JACKIE MANN (APPLICANTS & OWNERS), LR-1O ZONING:

Request

for a minor subdivision to divide a 39.35-acre parcel located in the Hillside Overlay District into

four lots pursuant to Chapter 6-30 LMC, located at 45 Prado Way. APN 231-090-001.

CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

HDP47-06: Request for a hillside development permit to subdivide a 39.35-acre parcel located

in the Hillside Overlay District into four lots pursuant to Chapter 6-20 of the Lafayette Municipal

Code, located at 45 Prado Way. APN 231-090-001.

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

LLRO4-06:

Request for a lot line adjustment pursuant to Chapter 6-24 Lot Line Adjustments of

the Lafayette Municipal Code to adjust the lot lines between the parcels located at 45 Prado Way

and 1548 Rancho Del Hambre. APNs 231-090-001 and 230-010-019.

V21 -06:

Request for a variance permit from Section 6-7210 to roduce the required setbacks

from 50 ft. to a minimum of 27 ft., measured from the proposed access easomont, for future

devolopment pursuant to the above requested minor subdivision located at 45 Prado Way.

APN

231-090-001

Recommendation:

Conduct public hearing, review application, and continue the matter to a

future date to allow the applicant to make modifications based on staff and Commission

comments.

Planner:

Shawna Brekke-Read, (510) 482-4732, brekkeread@california.com

(Est. time: 90 min*)

Commissioner Ateljevich moved and Commissioner Humann seconded to continue the item,

without consideration, to the March 15, 2007 meeting.

AYES:

Ateljevich, Chastain, Harris, Holt, Humann, Lovitt, and Mitchell

NOES:

None

ABSENT:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Srivatsa announced Michael Hubbard, the new Police Chief will be starting the end of March.

The Commission will receive their staff reports tomorrow for the March 8th special meeting.

COMMISSIONERS' ACTIVITY REPORT

Commissioner Chastain reported WRT was selected to be consultant for the Downtown Plan; they have

partnered with a local firm in San Francisco to work on the project. Staff has met with WRT to discuss the

scope of work; a draft will be submitted shortly for consideration.

10.

PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT

11.

ADJOURNMENT

- (Estimated 11 :OOPM*) Adjourn to the special PC meeting of March 8, 2007.

Chair Holt adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. to the special March 8, 2007 Planning Commission

meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________________

Karen Liu, Contract Minute Taker

Planning Commission

March 1,2007

City of Lafayette

General Information for Public Meetings

Location of Agendas and Agenda Packets:

Agenda and packets are available for review by the public

during regular work hours at the Lafayette City Offices, 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 210. Agendas and

packets shall be made available at least 72 hours in advance of each meeting.

Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with

disabilities, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec.

12132). Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in

a meeting should direct such request to Joanne Robbins, City Clerk at (925) 299-3210 at least 48 hours

before the meeting, if possible.

Board Discussion:

In accordance with State Law, the Board is generally prohibited from discussing and

making decisions regarding items not posted on the agenda. Exceptions include items of urgency that

become known to the Board after the posting of the agenda; discussion of such items requires a 4/5ths

affirmative vote by the Board.

Persons Wishing to Speak:

Any person may address the Board on any item listed on this agenda.

Persons wishing to address the Board should complete a speaker slip and submit it to the City staff. In

addressing the Board, speakers should step to the podium and state their names and addresses for the

record.

Time Limit

on Comments:

Persons will be permitted to speak for up to three minutes.

Posted Times:

Posted times are estimated and actual times will vary.

Reconsideration of Items:

After the Board

has

acted on an agenda item, it may reconsider the same item

later in the meeting in accordance with Council Rules of Proceedings lI.D.4.

Consent Calendar:

All

matters listed under consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be

enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a

member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time that the Board votes on the motion to

adopt.

Notice

Requirements:

Lafayette Municipal Code Section 6-21 1 requires that the City provide public

notice of the first public hearing for any meeting that requires public notice. If there are additional

meetings, they are

not re-noticed.

Be advised that it is the responsibility of any interested party to follow

the continuance date or dates, as well as be apprised of whether project revisions have been submitted.

14-Day Appeal Period:

The decision of the granting authority is not final until the time for appeal expires.

you wish to appeal, please contact the project planner as soon as the granting authority makes its

decision. The time for appeal of most decisions is within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision.

Planning Commission

March 1, 2007

Public Comments on Agenda Items:

Persons wishing to speak on items listed on the agenda will be heard

when called by the meeting chair. After the public has commented, the item will be closed to public comment and

brought to the Board for discussion and action. There is no further comment permitted from the audience unless

invited by the meeting chair.