City of Lafayette Staff Repoit
Subject:
GPO2-08, CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT), ANNA MARIA DETTMER
TRUST, MICHAEL & SARA KIM, ZBIGNIEW NAGLICKI LIVING TRUST,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(OWNERS):
Amendment to General Plan Map 1-1 to
reclassify six properties located on Deer Hill Road as follows: 1) APN 232-140-004
from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural Residential Single Family, 2)
APN 232-140-010 from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural Residential,
3) APN 232-140-016 from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural
Residential Single Family, 4) APN 232-150-021 from Low Density Single Family
Residential to Rural
Residential Single Family,
5)
APN 232-140-014 from
Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily to Rural Residential Single Family,
and 6) APN 232-150-027 from Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily to
Low Density Multi-Family Residential and Rural Residential Single Family.
RZO2-08, CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT), ANNA MARIA DETTMER
TRUST, MICHAEL &
SARA KIM,
ZBIGNIEW NAGLICKI LIVING TRUST,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (OWNERS): Rezoning of six properties located on
Deer Hill road as follows: 1) APN 232-140-004 from R-20 to LR-10, 2) APN 232-
140-010 from R-20 to LR-10, 3) APN 232-140-016 from R-20 to LR-10, 4) APN
232-150-021 from R-20 to LR-10,
5)
APN 232-140-014 from APO to LR-10, and 6)
APN 232-150-027 from APO to MRA or MRT and
LR-5.
Consideration
of an addendum to the 2002 General Plan Revision Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Project Summary
The current General Plan and zoning
amendments GPO2-08 and RZO2-08
("Project") were initiated by the City
Council on June 8, 2009; the Project
is not at the request of the subject
property
owner(s)
and
no
development/construction is being
proposed. See Attachment 1 for a
chronology.
qk
Table 1 describes the General Plan and zoning designations for the subject properties as proposed by
the City Council. The City Council removed the APO-zoned property at the northwest corner of Deer
Hill and Pleasant Hill roads (APN 232-150-028/Parcel 28) from the Project.
The City Council
members also wanted an alternative for Parcel 27 to be considered. The alternative suggested for
lower Parcel 27 is a General
Plan classification of Low
r
Density
Single
Family
r
Residential: Up to 2 dwelling
,,,
units per acre and a zoning
designation of
R-65.
The
suggested alternate General
Plan classification for upper
Parcel 27 is Rural Residential -
10 Single Family: Up to 0.1
'c.
dwelling units per acre and a
zoning designation of LR-10.
See attachments 2 and 3 for
property
ownership
and
current General Plan
and
zoning designations.
o
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 19, 2009. They adopted Resolution
2009-17 recommending that the City Council certify the Addendum and approve the Project, revised
to remove Parcel 4 from the Project and to substitute MRT zoning for MRA for lower Parcel 27. See
Attachment 4- Planning Commission minutes.
o
The City Council held a hearing on January 25, 2010 and continued the matter to February 8, 2010.
See Attachment 5 for January 25 staff report.
Reasons for the Project
To comply with Goal LU-i 3 of the General Plan which states:
"Ensure that the Eastern Deer Hill
Road area near the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road is developed, where development is
appropriate, in a manner consistent with Lafayette 's community identity.
To adopt residential General Plan and zoning designation(s) for APO-zoned parcels 14 and 27
making them subject to the hillside regulations (Chapter 6-20, Lafayette Municipal Code). Even
though the Eastern Deer Hill Road area is within the Hillside Overlay District (HOD), the hillside
regulations only apply to residential lots or if a subdivision is proposed.
APO is classified as an
"office" zoning district'.
o
To consider General Plan and zoning designations for the other five properties appropriate to their
location in the HOD.
The County zoning designations of N-B, Neighborhood Business and A-O, Administrative Office were changed
to the current APO zoning designation in 1976 by the City (Ordinance No. 171).
City Council Staff Report
Page 2 of 8
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
February 8, 2010
Table 1
Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations
---
---
-
--
-
Pronerties
Property
Current
Current
Allowed
Current
Proposed
Proposed
Allowed
Proposed
_____________
Owner
____________
General Plan
_______________________
Density
Zoning
__________
General Plan
____________________
Density
Zoning
232-140-014
-
California
Administrative!
Professional/Office!
Upto
35
APO
Rural Residential
Up to 0.1
_________
LR-10
1.35 acres
_____________ ___________
.
.
.
Multifamily_Residential
du/acre
_____________ __________
Single Family
____________________
du/acre
__________
Upper Portion
__________
(west of drainage
-
U t 0 2
20.49±ac.)
du/acre
LR-5
Rural Residential
Administrative!
Single Family
232-150-027
-
AMD Trust
Professional/Office!
Up to 35
APO
__________________ _________
22.26 acres
.
.
.
.
Multifamily Residential
du/acre
_________
Lower Portion
(east of drainage
-
1.76±ac.)
MRA
Low Density Multi-
Family Residential
232-140-004
Na
glicki2
Low Density
Upto2
R-20
Rural Residential
Upto 0.1
LA-la
.5 acre
Single Family Residential
du/acre
Single Family
du/acre
Low Density
Up to 2
R-20
232-140-010
nfiicetia
uc
Rural Residential
Up to 0,1
17.81 acres
-
AMDTrust
.
Single Family
du/acre
LR-l0
Rural Residential Single
Up to 0.1
LA-i 0
_____________ ___________
Family
du!acre
__________ ____________________
Low Density
Up to 2
-
________
_________
232-140-016
Single Family Residential
du!acre
Aural Residential
Up to 0.1
38.13 acres
-
AMDTrust
.
.
,
Single Family
du/acre
LR-l0
Rural Residential Single
Up to 0.1
LR-1 0
_____________ ___________
Family
du/acre
____________________
Low Density
Up to 2
__________
R-20
_______
_________
232-150-021
Single Family Residentia
acre
Rural Residential
Up to 0.1
20.75 acres
Kim
.
.
.
Rural Residential Single
Up to 0.1
LA-i 0
Single Family
du/acre
LA-b
_____________ ___________
Family
du/acre
_____________
__________ ____________________
__________
__________
2
Removal from the Project is recommended by the Planning Commission. A zoning change would render the
property nonconforming.
City Council StaffReport
Page 3 of 8
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
February 8, 2010
Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
o
The environmental impacts of the Project were studied in an addendum to the 2002 General Plan
Revision's certified environmental impact report ("EIR") with the Project being compared to the
buildout projected for the Project area in the EIR.
o
The Addendum provides a planning-level environmental analysis of the development potential which
could be allowed by the Project, development which may or may not be built.
Appropriate site-
specific environmental review will be required if and when development is proposed.
o
The Project analyzed in the Addendum would reduce buildout in the area by at least 24 units and at
least 98,000 square feet of non-residential development and assessed whether the impacts generated
by this reduction in development would create any new or more significant impacts than were
assessed in the EIR.
o
The Addendum states the reduction in development potential generally reduces the magnitude of all
impacts assessed in the EIR and in most cases the reduction in impact is relatively small, though for
some impacts, such as visual effects at a City entryway, the reduction in the impacts of development
potential is substantial.
o
The Addendum concludes that the Project would not result in any new impacts that were not
identified and assessed in the EIR and no additional mitigation measures would be required at the
program level for any of the impacts.
o
CEQA does not require public review of an Addendum or responses to comments, however responses
to two comments were prepared (see Attachment 5, page 11).
The complete Addendum is included in Attachment 6. See Attachment
5,
pages 8 and 9, for more
information including whether or not a change in the Project would trigger additional environmental
review.
Conformance to the General Plan
o
Goal LU-13 which states:
"Ensure that the Eastern Deer Hill Road area near the intersection of
Pleasant Hill Road is developed, where development is appropriate, in a manner consistent with
Lafayette 's community identity."
o
Policy LU-l3.l which states:
"Preserve and enhance the semi-rural single-family residential
character north of Deer Hill Road where not adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road."
• Policy LU-13.2 which states:
"Consider options for development south of Deer Hill Road and north
of Deer Hill Road where adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road."
• Project is consistent with Goal LU-13, Policy LU-13.l and Policy LU-13.2; see Attachment
5,
pages
6 through 8 for analysis.
o
Project complies with the General Plan Housing Element and Housing Element Law; see Attachment
5,
pages 7 and 8 for analysis.
City Council StaffReport
Page 4 of 8
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
February 8, 2010
Public Notiec
Public notice was provided for the January
25,
2010 meeting. Since the public hearing for the Project was
continued to a specific date, no new public notice is required. See Attachment
5,
pages 9 and 10 for more
information on the public notice process. See Attachment 10 for public comments on the Project.
Based on some of the public comments, there continues to be confusion about what the Project is,
particularly as it relates to Parcel 27.
GPO2-08/RZO2-08 is not a development application proposing the
construction of multi-family development and none of the parcels are being "re-zoned" to allow multi-
family residential.
In addition to allowing office uses, the current APO zoning allows multi-family
residential development with approval of a use permit. The density for any proposed residential would be
set by the current General Plan designation of Administrative/Professional Office/Multi-Family which
allows up to
35
dwelling units per acre3. The proposed General Plan designations of Rural Residential-S
Single Family for the upper portion of Parcel 27 and Low Density Multi-Family Residential for the lower
portion of Parcel 27 would reduce the allowed residential densities to 0.2 dwelling units per acre and 17
dwelling units per acre, respectively.
Therefore, the overall yield for Parcel 27 would be less than
currently allowed under the existing General Plan designation, thereby resulting in less environmental
impacts upon buildout of that parcel than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR (as documented by the
Addendum).
Staff
Comments
The original City Council direction to staff in 2003 was to, "initiate a General Plan amendment for the
seven parcels outlined in the Eastern Deer Hill Road area and that parcels with APO zoning be changed to
residential zoning." Since that time, studies have been conducted that now provide a better understanding
of the environmental (biological, hydrological, etc.) and regulatory (ridgelines, slopes, etc.) issues
affecting the properties and that direction has changed. Parcel 28 is no longer under consideration and the
Planning Commission is recommending that Parcel 4 also be removed from consideration. Parcel 27 has
been the most problematic resulting in the consideration of zoning designations ranging from LR- 10 to R -
20 to MRP and now MRA or MRT and a proposal for split zoning.
The tables on the following pages present the remaining six properties relative to their development
potential with the Project and without the Project. Table 2 shows the four properties north of Deer Hill
Road.
Because these properties currently have a residential zoning, they are subject to the hillside
regulations contained in Chapter 6-20 including ridgeline setbacks and slope vs. density. The only way
these properties can be developed with more than one-single family dwelling unit is by subdivision.
Chapter 6-20, section 6-2043, regulates the density allowed for a subdivision based on the average slope
of the unsubdivided lot, i.e., despite the maximum density allowed by the underlying zoning, the greater
the average slope, the less density allowed. Table 2 compares the buildout potential based on the General
Plan FIR without the Project, the potential buildout allowed with the Project, and the potential density
based on the slope calculation.
See Map I-i, Land Use of the General Plan.
City Council Staff Report
Page 5of8
GPO2-08/RZO2--08
February 8, 2010
Table 2
Comparison of Development Potential With the Project and Without the Project
For Properties North of Deer Hill Road
Potential
Potential
Average
Potential
Parcel
Property
Density/Buildout4
Density/Buildout
Slope of
Dwelling Unit Yield
Size
Under Current General Plan
with Project
Total Lot
From Subdivision
______ _______________
and_Zoning
per §6-2043
4
21,780 s.f.
1
SF
________________
1
SF
___________
21.0%
__________________
1
SF
.5 acre
10
776,239 s.f.
2 SF
1 SF
42.4%
1 SF
17.81
acres
16
1,661,378 s.f.
5SF
3SF
37.3%
5SF
38.13 acres
______________________ ______________ __________
21
904,044 s.f.
4SF
2 SF
34.0%
_________________
4SF
20.75 acres
___________________________ _________________
____________ ____________________
As can be seen by this table, there will be little effect from the Project on these parcels and their impacts
with or without the Project would be minimal.
The properties are already subject to the hillside
regulations and several are constrained by ridgeline setbacks and/or steep slopes. Changing the General
Plan and zoning of these properties may not be necessary to achieve the overall objectives of the Project.
If an applicant proposed a subdivision for parcels 16 or 21, they would not be guaranteed even the
potential yield based on §6-2043 as the subdivision would have to comply with the development
standards of Chapter 6-20 including off-site visibility and undergo environmental review which may
restrict the ultimate development potential.
Table 3 shows the two properties south of Deer Hill Road. Parcels 14 and 27 are zoned APO which is
considered an "office district" in the Zoning Ordinance. Even though these parcels are located in the
hillside overlay district, they are not subject to the hillside development regulations of Chapter 6-20
because they are not residential lots. If these properties were rezoned to a single-family or multi-family
residential district or a subdivision was requested, they would become subject to Chapter 6-20. See
Attachment 7 for more information on the APO district.
Table 3
Comparison of Development Potential With the Project and Without the Project
For Properties South of Deer Hill Road
Potential
Potential
Average
Potential
Parcel
Property
Density/Buildout4
Density/Buildout
Slope of
Dwelling Unit Yield
Size
Under Current General Plan
with Project
Total Lot
From Subdivision
_______ ________________
and Zoning
________________ ___________
per §6-2043
14
59,241 s.f.
3 MF and/or
1
SF
30 9%
1
SF
1.35 acres
5000 s.f. office
.
27
969,776 s.f.
50 MF and br
4 SF and
24 3%
14SForMF4
22.26 acres
93,000 s.f. office
29 MF
.
As identified in the 2002 General Plan Revision EIR. These are the same densities used in Table 2 of the
Addendum to analyze the potential impacts of the Project. MF = Multi-Family SF = Single Family
Only applicable if the property is subject to the hillside regulations of Chapter 6-2 0.
City Council StaffReport
Page 6 of 8
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
February 8, 2010
As can be seen from Table 3, the primary effect of the Project on Parcel 14, a change to a General Plan
classification of Rural Residential Single Family, is to eliminate the non-residential buildout.
The
General Plan classification of Low Density Multi-Family Residential proposed by the Project for the
lower portion of Parcel 27 would reduce the potential buildout from 50 units to 29 units and eliminate
most if not all of the 93,000 s.f. of non-residential development.6
Any development of these properties
would require approval of a discretionary permit (design review, subdivision, etc.) to determine
compliance with development standards such as lot size, parking, landscaping, and setbacks and
environmental review to determine impacts related to such things as geology, aesthetics, traffic, and noise
which may result in even lower buildout potential.
More importantly, the corresponding residential
zoning designations of LR- 10 for Parcel 14 and LR-5 for the upper portion of Parcel 27 and MRAIIvIRT
for the lower portion of Parcel 27 would now make the properties subject to the hillside regulations which
is one of the objectives of the Project.
Staff supports the Planning Commission's recommendation that the zoning designation for lower Parcel
27 should be MRT rather than MRA. According to section 6-8 82, the purpose of MRT is to provide for
townhouse development consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the City's semirural
residential character.
MRT also has a lower height limit, would provide for a housing type not largely
provided in Lafayette and would provide a transition zone between Highway 24 and the commercial areas
to the south and the single-family neighborhoods to the north. See Attachment 8 and Attachment
5,
Table
3, pages
5
and 6 for a comparison between MRA and MRT.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed zoning and General Plan designations are appropriate because they
take into account regulatory and environmental constraints such as ridgeline setbacks and riparian habitats
and balance the City's desire to retain the semi-rural character of its hillside lands with the needs of
private property owners.
The Addendum also concludes that the Project will not result in any new
impacts or increase the significance of potential impacts.
Alternative designations of LR-l 0 for upper Parcel 27 and
R-65
for lower Parcel 27 have been mentioned
as possibilities.
The conclusion of the Addendum is that the proposed Project, at densities higher than
allowed by LR-lO and
R-65,
would not result in any new impacts that were not identified and assessed in
the EIR and finds that the General Plan policies and programs that are listed as mitigation measures for
each of the defined Project impacts would, at a program level of analysis, continue to reduce the impact to
a less than significant level. Based on this, the alternative designations do not need to be considered on
environmental grounds. Since the LR-5 and particularly the MRT conform to the General Plan, the
alternative designations are not necessary on policy grounds either.
Findings
In order to approve the Project, the City Council will have to made the following findings for the General
Plan amendment and zone change (6-21 3):
1.
The change proposed is consistent with the General Plan and each of its elements; and
2.
Community need is demonstrated for the change proposed.
6
The MRA and to a lesser extent the MRT district can allow some non-residential uses with approval of a use
permit.
City Council StaffReport
Page 7of8
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
February 8, 2010
These findings can be made based on the entire record for GPO2-08 and RZO2-08 and all written and
oral evidence presented because GPO2-08 and RZO2-08 promote the goals and objectives of the City, are
consistent with the General Plan, and are necessary to protect and enhance the semi-rural character of
the area and community.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution 2010-02, adopting the 2009 Addendum to the Lafayette General Plan Revision
Final Environmental Impact Report and approving an amendment to the General Plan Map I-i
reclassifying five properties located on Deer Hill Road.
2.
Introduce Ordinance
594,
rezoning five properties on Deer Hill Road and continue to February
22, 2010 for second reading and adoption.
Attachments
1.
Chronology for Eastern Deer Hill Road area
2.
Eastern Deer Hill Road Parcels and Ownership
3.
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
4.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, November 19, 2009
5.
City Council staff report, January
25,
2010 (without attachments)
6.
2009 Addendum to the Lafayette General Plan Revision Final EIR
7.
APO Zoning District
8.
MRT and MRA Zoning Districts
9.
Memorandum from Robert Harrison Transportation Planning, January 27, 2010
10.
Comments received between January
25,
2010 and February 1, 2010 - Kim, January
25,
2010;
Gagen!McCoy, January
25,
2010;
Melmed, January 20, 2010; Atwood, January 20, 2010;
Siegel/Dunn, January 20, 2010; Workman, January 20, 2010; Parti, January 20, 2010; Valente,
January 25, 2010; Nicholai
Martinsen, January 25, 2010; Guy Atwood, January
25,
2010;
Springbrook Neighborhood Association, January
25,
2010; Lynn Hiden, January 25, 2010;
Parish, January
25,
2010; Lee, January
25,
2010; Sowarby, January
25,
2010; Sowarby, January
25,
2010; Folimer, January 27, 2010; Larrick, January 27, 2010; Martin, January 27, 2010;
Mickens, January 28, 2010; Christensen, January 28, 2010; Heffernan, January 28, 2010; Apple,
January, 28, 2010; Hagglund, January 28, 2010; Moore, January 28, 2010; Wade/Riebel, January
29, 2010; Sears, January 30, 2010; Golomb, January 30, 2010; Peirano, January 30, 2010; Miller,
January 31, 2010; Thomas, January 31, 2010; McGrath, January 31, 2010; Fleischmann, February
1, 2010; Vitale, February 1, 2010; Candell, February 1, 2010
City Council StaffReport
Page 8 of 8
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
February 8, 2010
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE
IN THE MATTER OF:
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lafayette)
Adopting an Addendum to the General Plan Revision
)
Environmental Impact Report and Approval of an
)
Resolution 2010-02
Amendment to City of Lafayette General Plan Map I-i )
Reclassifying Five Properties Located in the Eastern
)
Deer Hill Road area (GPO2-08)
)
WhEREAS, on October 28, 2002, the City adopted Resolution 2002-5
5
to certify an
Environmental Impact Report and adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
a revised and restated General Plan ("General Plan");
Plan;
WhEREAS, on October 28, 2002, the City adopted Resolution 2002-56 to adopt the General
WhEREAS, on October 8, 2008, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint public
hearing to discuss General Plan and zoning amendments to the Deer Hill Road area where the City Council
directed staff to initiate a change of zoning for parcels 232-140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-014, 232-140-
016, and 232-150-021 to LR-10 (with corresponding General Plan designations);
WhEREAS, on June 8, 2009, the City Council held a public hearing on GPO2-08 and RZO2-08
and directed staff to initiate a change of zoning for parcel 232-150-027 to LR-5 and MRA (with
corresponding General Plan designations) and to proceed with environmental review;
WhEREAS, pursuant to State California Enviromnental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines
section
15164,
subdivision (a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
Enviromnental hnpact Report ("BIR") if some changes or additions are necessary to a project but the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
WHEREAS, to consider the potential impacts of GPO2-08, the City has prepared an addendum to
the General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA and the State Guidelines ("Addendum");
WhEREAS,
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (c), the Addendum
is not required to be circulated for public review, but can be attached to the General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission has reviewed the Addendum and all other relevant
information presented to it regarding the Addendum; and
WhEREAS, on November 19, 2009 a duly noticed public hearing on GPO2-08 and RZO2-08 was
held by the Planning Commission at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the
applications were fully studied; and
WhEREAS,
on November 19, 2009 the Planning Commission approved Planning Commission
Resolution 2009-17 recommending to the City Council adoption of an Addendum to the General Plan
City Council Resolution 2010-02
Page 1 of 5
Februaiy 8, 2010
Revision Final EIR for and approval of GPO2-08 and RZO2-08 subject to, 1) the removal of Assessor's
Parcel 232-140-004 from the Project with no change to the General Plan or zoning designations for the
parcel and 2) substitution of MRT, Multiple-Family Residential Townhouse District zoning designation for
MRA, Multiple-Family Residential District A for the 1.76± acre portion of Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027
("Lower Portion") adjacent to Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads.
WhEREAS, on November 19, 2009 the Planning Commission determined that although the
proposed designation of MRA, Multiple-family Residential District A for the 1.76± acre portion of
Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027 ("Lower Portion") adjacent to Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads was
analyzed in the Addendum, the substitution of MRT, Multiple-family Residential Townhouse District
zoning designation for MRA would not result in any new impacts that were not assessed in the Addendum
because MRT is comparable to MRA in allowed density, and includes comparable land uses and lower
building heights.
WhEREAS, on January
25,
2010, the City Council of the of the City of Lafayette ("City
Council") conducted a duly noticed public hearing on GPO2-08 ("Project") and continued the public
hearing to the City Council meeting of February 8, 2010; and
WhEREAS, on February 8, 2010, the City Council continued the duly noticed public hearing on
GPO2-08 ("Project"), at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with GPO2-08 were heard
and the Amendment was fully studied; and
WIIERIEAS, the reasons for the Project include the following:
To comply with Goal LU-i 3 of the General Plan which states:
"Ensure that the Eastern Deer
Hill Road area near the intersection ofPleasant Hill Road is developed, where development is
appropriate, in a manner consistent with Lafayette 's community identity."
Consideration of this
goal has been ongoing since 2002,
o
Concern with the Eastern Deer Hill Road Area because of its visibility and open hillsides, its
location as a gateway to the city, and its proximity to Lafayette Ridge and Briones Regional Park.
The Eastern Deer Hill Road area is within the Hillside Overlay District and subject to Chapter 6-
20, Hillside Development, Lafayette Municipal Code, only if the properties were to be subdivided
or if a residential project were proposed and
Concern that the properties
with
current
General
Plan
designations
of
Administrative/Professional/Office/Multi-family Residential and zoning designations of APO
(Assessor's Parcel 232-140-014 and Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027) are not subject to Chapter 6-
20 even though they are located in the Hillside Overlay District. Chapter 6-20 would only apply if
the properties were to be subdivided or if a residential project were proposed; and
WhEREAS, the project is not a Specific Plan as recommended in General Plan Program LU13.2.2,
the City Council has determined that the program is not a set mandate, but rather one means to implement the
policies under Goal LU-i 3. The General Plan ("Plan") states that "programs state actions to be taken to
implement the policy," which is in turn defmed as a "general direction that the City elects to follow to meet its
goals." The General Plan further clarifies that the "programs listed in [the] Plan are not exclusive; rather they
are a set of actions that the city should take to implement a goal and policy. There maybe other mechanisms to
implement the same goals and policy." The extensive planning process conducted for the Project and required
by State law, is an equivalent mechanism for implementing Goal LU-i 3 and the two policies under that goal;
and
City Council Resolution 2010-02
Page 2 of 5
Februaiy 8, 2010
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
Section 1. Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral evidence presented to
the City Council, and the fmdings made in this Resolution, the City Council hereby amends City of
Lafayette General Plan Map 1-1 reclassifying five properties located in the Eastern Deer Hill Road area as
follows:
a.
Assessor's Parcel 232-140-0 10 from Low Density Single Family Residential and Rural Residential
Single Family to Rural Residential Single Family;
b.
Assessor's Parcel 232-140-014 from Administrative/ProfessionallOffice/Multi-family to Rural
Residential Single Family;
c.
Assessor's Parcel 232-140-0 16 from Low Density Single Family Residential and Rural Residential
Single Family to Rural Residential Single Family;
d.
Assessor's Parcel 232-150-021 from Low Density Single Family Residential and Rural Residential
Single Family to Rural Residential Single Family;
e.
Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027, upper portion west of drainage channel (20.49± acres) as shown in
Exhibit A, from Administrative/ProfessionallOffice/Multi-family to Rural Residential-S Single
Family; and
f.
Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027, lower portion east of drainage channel (1.76± acres) as shown in
Exhibit A, from Administrative/Professional/Office/Multi-family to Low Density Multi-Family
Residential
Section 2. An Addendum to the General Plan Revision Environment Impact Report
("Addendum") has been prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines.
Section 3. Based on the Addendum, the administrative record, and all written and oral evidence
presented, the City Council fmds that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that
were not identified and assessed in the General Plan Revision Environmental Impact Report and fmds that
the General Plan policies and programs that are listed as mitigation measures for each of the defmed
Project impacts would, at a program level of analysis, continue to reduce the impact to a less than
significant level.
No additional mitigation measures would be required at the program level for any of the
impacts. The City Council further fmds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair
argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts. The City Council fmds that the
Addendum contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental imp acts associated
with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.
Section 4. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute
the record of proceedings upon which the City Council based its decision is as follows: City Clerk, City of
Lafayette, 3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #210, Lafayette, California
94549-1968.
Section
5.
The City Council hereby adopts the Addendum for the Project.
City Council Resolution 2010-02
Page 3 of 5
February 8, 2010
Section
6.
The City Council directs staff to file a notice of determination and a certificate of fee
exemption (de minimis impact finding) with Contra Costa County within five
(5)
working days of adoption
of this Resolution.
Section
7.
This Resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting of
said Council on Febmary 8, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
City Council Resolution 2010-02
Februaiy 8, 2010
APPROVED:
Brandt Andersson, Mayor
Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT A
Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027
Upper Portion and Lower Portion
Lower Portion
Al
City Council Resolution 2010-02
Page 5 of 5
Februaiy 8, 2010
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE
IN THE MATTER OF:
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
)
Lafayette for a Change of Zone for Five Properties
)
Ordinance No.
594
Located in the Eastern Deer Hill Road Area (RZO2-08)
WhEREAS, on October 8, 2008, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint public
hearing to discuss General Plan and zoning amendments to the Deer Hill Road area where the City Council
directed staff to initiate a Change of Zone for parcels 232-140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-014, 232-140-
016, and 232-150-021 to LR-l0;
WHEREAS,
on June 8, 2009, the City Council held a public hearing on RZO2-08 ("Project") and
directed staff to initiate a Change of Zone for parcel 232-150-027 to LR-5 and MRA and to proceed with
environmental review;
WhEREAS,
on November 19, 2009 a duly noticed public hearing on the Project was held by the
Planning Commission at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully
studied; and
WhEREAS,
on November 19, 2009 the Planning Commission approved Planning Commission
Resolution 2009-17 recommending to the City Council approval of RZO2-08 subject to, 1) the removal of
Assessor's Parcel 232-140-004 from the Project with no change to the zoning designations for the parcel
and 2) substitution of MRT, Multiple-Family Residential Townhouse District for MRA, Multiple-Family
Residential District A for the 1.76± acre portion of Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027 ("Lower Portion")
adjacent to Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads basing its recommendation on the fmdings set forth below
and adoption of an Addendum to the General Plan Revision Environmental Impact Report in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS,
on January
25,
2010, the City Council of the of the City of Lafayette ("City
Council") conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all persons wishing to
testify in connection with the Project were heard and the Project was fully studied; and
WHEREAS,
on February 8, 2010, the City Council continued the duly noticed public hearing on
GPO2-08 ("Project"), at which time all persons wishing to testif' in connection with GPO2-08 were heard
and the Amendment was fully studied; and
WhEREAS,
the reasons for the Project include the following:
To comply with Goal LU-i 3 of the General Plan which states:
"Ensure that the Eastern Deer
Hill Road area near the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road is developed, where development is
appropriate, in a manner consistent with Lafayette 's community identity."
Consideration of this
goal has been ongoing since 2002,
City Council Ordinance No. 594
Page 1 of 4
February 8, 2010
o
Concern with the Eastern Deer Hill Road Area because of its visibility and open hillsides, its
location as a gateway to the city, and its proximity to Lafayette Ridge and Briones Regional Park.
The Eastern Deer Hill Road area is within the Hillside Overlay District and subject to Chapter 6-
20, Hillside Development, Lafayette Municipal Code, only if the properties were to be subdivided
or if a residential project were proposed and
o
Concern
that
the
properties
with
current
General
Plan
designations
of
Adrninistrative/ProfessionallOfficelMulti-family Residential and zoning designations of APO
(Assessor's Parcel 232-140-014 and Assessor's Parcel 232-1 50-027) are not subject to Chapter 6-
20 even though they are located in the Hillside Overlay District. Chapter 6-20 would only apply if
the properties were to be subdivided or if a residential project were proposed; and
WHEREAS,
the project is not a Specific Plan as recommended in General Plan Program LU1 3.2.2,
the City Council has detennined that the program is not a set mandate, but rather one means to implement the
policies under Goal LU- 13. The General Plan ("Plan") states that "programs state actions to be taken to
implement the policy," which is in turn defmed as a "general direction that the City elects to follow to meet its
goals." The General Plan further clarifies that the "programs listed in [the] Plan are not exclusive; rather they
are a set of actions that the city should take to implement a goal and policy. There may be other mechanisms to
implement the same goals and policy." The extensive planning process conducted for the Project and required
by State law, is an equivalent mechanism for implementing Goal LU- 13 and the two policies under that goal.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
Section 1. Change of Zone.
Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and
oral evidence presented to the City Council, and the findings made in this Ordinance, a Change of Zone is
hereby made for five properties ("Properties") located in the Eastern Deer Hill Road area as follows:
a.
Assessor's Parcel 232-140-010 from R-20 and LR-10 to LR-lO as described in Article 10, Chapter
6-7 of Title 6 of the Lafayette Municipal Code;
b.
Assessor's Parcel 232-140-0 14 from APO to LR-10 as described in Article 10, Chapter 6-7 of
Title 6 of the Lafayette Municipal Code;
c.
Assessor's Parcel 232-140-016 from R-20 and LR-10 to LR-10 as described in Article 10, Chapter
6-7 of Title 6 of the Lafayette Municipal Code;
d.
Assessor's Parcel 232-150-021 from R-20 and LR-10 to LR-10 as described in Article 10, Chapter
6-7 of Title 6 of the Lafayette Municipal Code;
e.
Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027, upper portion west of drainage channel (20.49± acres) as shown in
Exhibit A, from APO to LR-5 as described in Article 9, Chapter 6-7 of Title 6 of the Lafayette
Municipal Code; and
Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027, lower portion east of drainage channel (1.76± acres) as shown in
Exhibit A, from APO to MRT as described in Article 5, Chapter 6-8 of Title 6 of the Lafayette
Municipal Code.
Section 2. Findings.
Pursuant to Lafayette Municipal Code Section 6-213 and based on the entire
record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council
hereby makes and adopts the following findings:
City Council Ordinance No. 594
Page 2 of 4
Februaiy 8, 2010
1.
The change proposed is consistent with the General Plan and each of its elements; and
2.
Community need is demonstrated for the change proposed.
These findings can be made based on the entire record for RZO2-08 and all written and oral evidence
presented because RZO2-08 promote the goals and objectives of the City, are consistent with the
General Plan, and are necessary to protect and enhance the semi-rural character of the area and
community.
Section 3. CEOA.
The City Council hereby fmds that the environmental effects of the Project
have been thoroughly analyzed in an Addendum to the General Plan Revision Environment Impact Report
prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
state CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4. Zoning Map.
The Planning and Building Services Manager shall modify the Official
Zoning Map of the City of Lafayette in accordance with this Ordinance to indicate thereon the zoning
applicable to the Properties.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Section 6. Severability.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid
or
ineffective by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not effect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed
each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance irrespective of
the fact that one or more sections, subsections, subdivision, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be
declared unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective. To this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be
severable.
Section
7.
Publication.
The City Clerk shall either (a) have this ordinance published in a newspaper
of general circulation once within fifteen
(15)
days after its adoption, or (b) have a summary of this ordinance
published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once five
(5)
days before its adoption and again within
fifteen
(15)
days after adoption.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Lafayette held on
February 8, 2010, and was adopted and ordered published at a meeting of the City Council held on
February 22, 2010.
PASSED AND ADOPTED
by the City Council of the City of Lafayette at a regular meeting of said
Council on February 22, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
City Council Ordinance No. 594
February 8, 2010
APPROVED:
Brandt Andersson, Mayor
Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Assessor's Parcel 232-150-027
Upper Portion and Lower Portion
Lower Portion
City Council Ordinance No. 594
Page 4 of 4
February 8 2010
A
Chronology for Eastern Deer Hill Road Area
April 19, 2001
--
June 8, 2009
April 19, 2001
Based on a recommendation from GPAC, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to
recommend to the City Council that the General Plan designation for the Eastern
Deer Hill Road area be changed to Rural Residential.
January 2002
As part of the discussion about the revised General Plan in January 2002, the
City Council approved staff's recommendation that the eastern Deer Hill area be
the subject of further planning before a decision on land use designations was
made.
February 2002
The Council confirmed that further planning should be done for this area by
including the adoption of an Eastern Deer Hill Road Specific Plan in its
FY2002/2003 goals.
July 2002
Planning staff sent out requests for proposals to consultants for the preparation of
the specific area plan.
September 2002
Planning staff recommended to the Council that WRT be selected for preparation
of the specific plan.
WRT's cost to prepare the specific plan was $146,213. The
Council subsequently asked staff to look at less expensive options which were
presented to the Council later that month.
October 2002
After reviewing seven options ranging from modifying the consultant's scope of
work for the specific plan, hiring a contract planner, to removing the specific
plan as a Council goal, the Council decided to defer consideration of the specific
plan to their goal setting session for 2003/2004.
October 28, 2002
City Council adopts the revised General Plan including the following:
o
Goal LU-l3:
Ensure that the Eastern Deer Hill Road area near the
section of Pleasant Hill road is developed, where development is
appropriate, in a manner consistent with Lafayette's community identity.
o
Policy LU-13.l:
Preserve and enhance the semi-rural single-family
residential character north of Deer Hill Road where not adjacent to
Pleasant Hill Road.
o
Policy LU-l3.2:
Consider options for development south of Deer Hill
Road and north of Deer Hill Road where adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road.
o
Program LU-13.2.2:
Prepare through community planning process as
Eastern Deer Hill Road Specific Plan.
February 2003
At its goal setting session for 2003/2004, the Council decided not to include
preparation of the Deer Hill Road Specific Plan as a goal due to budget
constraints and other significant projects taking staff's time.
However, staff was
asked to bring back an agenda item to discuss whether the land use designation
within the planning area should be changed.
At the City Council meeting of February 24, 2003, staff offered three options for
the Council to consider; 1) Do nothing now and reconsider preparation of a
ATTACHMENT 1
specific plan next year, 2) Initiate a General Plan amendment to change the
current APO designations to LR and revise the General Plan goals, policies, and
program to support this change in density, and 3) Direct staff to prepare a
specific plan.
The City Council voted to pursue option 2 and have staff return
with a specific proposal for a General Plan Amendment.
August 2003
Staff began preparation of the General Plan Amendment but asked for
clarification from the City Council on which specific properties to include. The
minutes of the City Council meeting of August 11, 2003 state the following:
City Manager Falk said staff would prefer a motion, and said the question before
the Council was how many and which lots would the Council like studied, not
what zoning the Council would like them to be.
Mayor Federighi said it is clear they are looking at all seven parcels, but the
Council disagrees on what the ultimate zoning designation should be.
Ms.
Merideth suggested directing staff to look at all seven parcels. Staff can bring
back options to be heard by the Planning Commission who can then make a
recommendation to the Council. A first scenario could be eveiy parcel is LR.
Another scenario could be a suggestion for Parcel 1 depending upon its size,
something for Parcel 4 where the line is, how many potential single-family units
should be on the property, etc.
Councilmember Tatzin confirmed it would be a Council-initiated General Plan
amendment.
Ms.
Merideth said the Council was initiating a General Plan
amendment change tonight, sending it onto the Planning Commission, and that
staff would do an analysis.
However, she clarified that staff has not concluded
on how it would be presented, either with options or with a proposal with
alternatives, or some other way.
She [Ms. Merideth] said staff would like a General Plan amendment for all seven
properties, with the Planning Commission to make a recommendation, and with
a view toward changing the APO parcels to residentially zoned parcels.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Tatzin/Horn) to direct staff to initiate a General Plan
amendment for the seven parcels as outlined in the Eastern Deer Hill Road area
and that parcels with APO zoning be changed to residential zoning. Vote: 4-0-1
(Samson absent).
November 18, 2004
Planning Conmñssion conducts first public hearing on GPO3-04/RZO2-04 as
described below.
GPO3-04, CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT):
Amendment to General Plan
Map I-i to reclassify three properties (APN 232-140-014, 232-150-027, and 232-
150-028)
located
on
Deer
Hill
and
Pleasant
Hill
roads
from
Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily Residential to Rural Residential
Single Family and/or Low Density Single Family. The Planning Commission
may also consider an amendment to General Plan Map I-i to reclassify four
properties (APN 232-140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-016, and 232-150-021)
located on Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads from Low Density Single Family
Residential to Rural Residential Single Family.
RZO2-04,
CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT):
Change of zoning
designation for three properties (APN 232-140-014, 232-150-027, and 232-150-
028) located on Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads from APO to L-R-1 0 and/or R -
20.
The Planning Commission may also consider rezoning four properties (APN
232-140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-016, and 232-150-021) located on Deer Hill
and Pleasant Hill roads from R-20 to L-R-l0.
After taking public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to their meeting of January 6, 2005 so staff could provide additional
background information and exhibits on the proposed General Plan Amendment
and rezoning and the seven subject properties.
January 6, 2005
Planning Commission conducts a public hearing. At the meeting, a majority of
the
Commissioners expressed concern about moving forward with GPO3-
04/RZO2-04 without additional information on the physical characteristics of the
properties and an assessment of their development potential. The Commission
directed staff to prepare a preliminary scope of work and budget for a consultant
to prepare an opportunities and constraints analysis (OCA) for the seven Deer
Hill Road properties.
February 3, 2005
Planning Commission holds a public hearing where staff presents a scope of
work and budget for a consultant to prepare an OCA. The Conmiission votes to
forward the Commission's recommendation to the City Council for preparation
of an OCA prior to any further action on GPO3-04/RZO2-04.
March
15,
2005
City Council conducts a public hearing to consider preparation of an OCA. The
City Council votes to provide $40,000 from the General Fund for the preparation
of the OCA.
September 7, 2006
Planning Commission conducts a public hearing where it reviews the OCA
prepared by MHA Consulting and considers staff's request to decide which
specific properties within the Easter Deer Hill Area should be included in the
General Plan and rezoning applications and what the designations should be.
Further discussion on GPO3-04/RZO2-04 is continued to allow staff to respond to
Planning Commission requests for more information related to a scope of work
and estimated cost for a consulting civil engineer to calculate the average slope
of specific properties in the study area and a scope of work for conceptual design
studies for parcels 27 and 28 (1175 Pleasant Hill Road and 3233 Deer Hill Road,
respectively), including bulk and mass studies and circulation and traffic
constraints.
October 19, 2006 &
November 16, 2006
Staff provides scopes of work for average slope calculations and conceptual
development studies to the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
On
November 16, the Commission directs staff to proceed with requests for
proposals for the two studies. (The $30,000 needed to prepare the studies is
included in the Planning Services Division consulting services budget.)
November
15,
2007
As directed by the Planning and Building Services Manager, staff provides the
Planning Commission with a copy of the proposal by Design, Community &
Environment to prepare conceptual development studies for parcels 27 and 28.
The Planning Commission votes to rescind its prior direction to staff for
preparation of conceptual development studies.
November 21, 2007
Martin Lysons of Gagen McCoy files a letter on behalf of Anna Maria Dettmer
appealing the Planning Commission's November 15 decision.
January 14, 2008
City Council conducts a public hearing on the appeal by Anna Maria Dettmer
and votes to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Conimission's decision to
rescind the preparation of conceptual development studies.
February 21, 2008
Planning Commission conducts a public hearing where it reviews the results of
the average slope data prepared by Schell & Martin, Inc. at the request of the
Planning Commission. Staff suggests that the Commission consider LR-5 zoning
for
the properties
with
split zoning and
MRP - Multi-family
Residential/Professional
Office, One-story District for properties fronting on
Pleasant Hill Road. The Planning Commission continues discussion to March 20
and asks staff to prepare an LR-5 analysis and provide more information for the
properties fronting on Pleasant Hill Road.
March 20, 2008
Planning Commission conducts a public hearing where it considers LR-5, LR-10,
and MRP zoning. A straw vote is conducted on the possible zoning designations
for parcels 4, 10, 16, and 21. On a vote of 4 to 3 in favor, the Commission settles
on no change to the R-20 zoning of parcel 4 and that a zoning change of LR- 10
for parcels 10, 16, and 21 be considered. The Commission continues discussion
on parcels 14, 27, and 28 to the meeting of April 17.
April 17, 2008
Planning Commission conducts a public hearing where it considers LR-10, MRP
and MRT (Multi-family Residential Townhouse District) zoning. By a majority
vote, the Commission proposes no change to the R-20 zoning of parcel 4 and
proposes a zoning change of LR-1 0 to parcel 21. After numerous other motions
for possible zoning designations fail to carry, the Commission leaves General
Plan and zoning amendments for the remaining five parcels unresolved.
October 9, 2008
City Council and Planning Commission hold a joint public meeting on the
matter.
By unanimous vote of the City Council, staff was directed to initiate a
change of zoning for parcels 232-140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-014, 232-140-
016, and 232-150-021 to LR-10 (with corresponding General Plan designations)
and to work with the property owner of parcels 232-150-027 and 232-150-028 on
the terms of a development agreement and return to the City Council in three
months with a status report.
March 23, 2009
City Council conducts a public hearing where it considers General Plan and
zoning designations for the Eastern Deer Hill Road properties so a project
description for GPO2-08 and RZO2-08 can be developed. Staff reports that no
progress had been made with the owner of Parcels 27 and 28 regarding a
development agreement or submittal of a preliminary development plan. By a
vote of 4-0, the Council directs staff to return on June 8 to initiate proceedings to
amend the General Plan and zoning designations.
June 8, 2009
City Council conducts a public hearing where it considers General Plan and
zoning designations for the Eastern Deer Hill Road properties so a project
description for GPO2-08 and RZO2-08 can be developed. By a vote of 4-0, the
4
Council directs staff to initiate proceedings to amend the General Plan and
zoning designations for six properties (no change to the seventh property, APN
232-150-028) and to proceed with environmental review based on the following
project description.
Project Description:
Amend General Plan Map I-i to reclassify six properties
located on Deer Hill Road as follows: 1) APN 232-140-004 from Low Density
Single Family Residential to Rural Residential Single Family, 2) APN 232-140-
010 from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural Residential, 3) APN
232-140-016 from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural Residential
Single
Family, 4) AIPN 232-150-021 from Low Density Single Family
Residential to Rural Residential Single Family,
5)
APN 232-140-014 from
Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily to
Rural Residential
Single
Family,
and
6)
APN
232-150-027
from
Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily to Low Density
Multi-Family
Residential and Rural Residential Single Family and rezoning of six properties
located on Deer Hill road as follows: 1) APN 232-140-004 from R-20 to LR-l0,
2) APN 232-140-010 from R-20 to LR-10, 3) APN 232-140-016 from R-20 to
LR-10, 4) APN 232-150-021 from R-20 to LR-l0,
5)
APN 232-140-014 from
APO to LR-10, and 6) APN 232-150-027 from APO to MRA and LR-5.
To be considered along with the proposed project description would be an
alternate zoning of LR-10 for the upper portion of 232-150-027 and
R-65
for the
lower portion.
EXHBIT 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND
TWO OPTIONS
GPO3-04, RZO2-04 CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT): Amendment to General Plan Map 1-1 to
reclassify three properties located on Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads as follows:
Properties
Property
Current
Proposed
Current
Proposed
Owner
General Plan
General Plan
Zoning
Zoning
APN 232-140-014
State of
Administrative/Professional!
Rural Residential
APO
L-R-l0
__________________
California
Office/Multifamily Residential
Single Family
APN 232-150-027
Dettmer
Administrative/Professional!
Rural Residential
_________
APO
_________
Office/Multifamily Residential
Single Family
L-R-lO
APN 232-150-028
Dettmer
Administrative/Professional!
Low Density
APO
R-20
__________________
___________
Office/Multifamily Residential
Single Family
_________
_________
The Planning Commission and City Council may also consider the following two options:
Optioni
Properties
Property
Current
Proposed
Current
Proposed
Owner
General Plan
General Plan
Zoning
Zoning
APN 232-140-014
State of
Administrative/Professional!
Rural Residential
APO
L-R-lO
__________________
California
Office/Multifamily Residential
Single Family
APN 232-150-027
Dettmer
Administrative/Professional!
Rural Residential
_________
APO
_________
Office/Multifamily Residential
Single Family
L-R-l0
APN 232-150-028
Dettmer
Administrative/Professional!
Rural Residential
APO
L-R-l0
__________________
___________
Office/Multifamily Residential
Single Family
_________
_________
Option 2
Properties
Property
Current
Proposed
Current
Proposed
________________
Owner
General Plan
General Plan
Zoning
Zoning
APN 232-140-014
State of
Administrative/Professional!
Rural Residential
APO
L-R-10
__________________
California
Office/Multifamily Residential
Single Family
APN 232-150-027
Dettmer
Administrative/Professional!
Rural Residential
_________
APO
_________
L-R-10
_________________ __________
Office/Multifamily Residential
Single Family
APN 232-150-028
Dettmer
Administrative/Professional!
Rural Residential
_________
APO
_________
L-R-10
_________________
__________
Office/Multifamily Residential
Single Family
APN 232-140-004
Naglicki
Low Density
Rural Residential
_________
R-20
_________
L-R-10
________________ __________
Single Family Residential
Single Family
Low Density
________
_________
APN 232-140-010
Dettmer
Single Family Residential and
Rural Residential
Split R -
Rural Residential Single
Single Family
20
L-R-10
_______________ _________
Family
& LR-l0
APN 232-140-016
Dettmer
Low Density
______________
Rural Residential
________
Split R -
________
L-R-l0
________________ __________
Single Family Residential and
Single Family
20
Rural Residential Single
& LR- 10
________________ _________
Family
Low Density
_______________
________
Split R -
________
APN 232-150-021
Holding
Single Family Residential and
Rural Residential
20
L-R-l 0
Rural Residential Single
Single Family
& LR-l0
_______________
_________
Family
Q.
Naglicki
(232-140-004)
10
Dettmer
(232-140-010)
14
Caltrans
(232-140-014)
Dettmer
(232-140-01 6)
Kim
(232-150-021)
27
Dettmer
(232-150-02 7)
cEofldI
r8rL
c
-p
3
-p
AL&c
p.aor II
LOO'
EASTERN DEER KILL ROAD
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning
General Plan
LR
Rural Residential Single Family
R-20
Low Density Single Family
APO
Administrative/Professional
Office/Multi-family
'rr1e.
onJ
rrI_
c
L
R-20
APO
Aclne
c
-
;1.
S
1-
A
r
EASTERN DEER HILL ROAD
Ii
ATTACHMENT 3
1
Chair Lovitt said one of the primary objectives should be to improve circulation or at least not make circulation
2
worse through this process. Ms. Srivatsa recommended the Commission discuss what that means at the next
3
meeting. She asked if that means all along the downtown or only in the West End. She asked if the reference to
4
circulation was related to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or both.
5
6
Chair Lovitt requested the survey be put back on website for citizen information.
7
8
Ms. Srivatsa noted the Commission has provided staff with 21 points/questions, and staff will share them with
9
the Chair and Vice Chair for clarity. She asked for feedback on the presentation and suggestions for a
10
smoother process.
11
12
Ms. Merideth said staff will keep a running log of comments and for each chapter a summary of the main points
13
the Commission raised. If there is agreement, it will be noted. In the end there will be a list of concerns to help
14
focus the Commission's recommendation to City Council.
15
16
Vice Chair Chastain said he expects more of an educational experience out of the exercise.
17
18
Commissioner Humann asked staff if the 300 units Guy Atwood has mentioned will actually satisfy ABAG and
19
increased housing requirement. He would like staff to clarify this at the next meeting.
20
21
Chair Lovitt called for a five minute break before calling the meeting back to order.
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
22
-
----
--
23
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS (Start Time 9:00 PM*)
2JL---
GPO2-08, CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT), ANNA MARIA DETTMER TRUST, MICHAEL & SARA
25
KIM, ZBIGNIEW NAGLICKI LIVING TRUST, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (OWNERS):
Amendment to
26
General Plan Map I-i to reclassify six properties located on Deer Hill Road as follows: 1) APN 232-140-
27
004 from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural Residential Single Family, 2) APN 232-140-010
28
from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural Residential, 3) APN 232-140-016 from Low Density
29
Single Family Residential to Rural Residential Single Family,
4)
APN 232-150-021 from Low Density Single
30
Family
Residential
to
Rural
Residential
Single
Family,
5)
APN
232-140-014
from
31
Administrative/Professional/Office Multifamily to Rural Residential Single Family, and 6) APN 232-150-027
32
from Administrative/Professional/Office! Multi-family to Low Density Multi-Family Residential and Rural
33
Residential Single Family.
34
35
RZO2-08, CITY OF LAFAYETTE LAPPLICANT), ANNA MARIA DETTMER TRUST, MICHAEL & SARA
36
KIM,
ZBIGNIEW
NAGLICKI
LIVING
TRUST,
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA (OWNERS):
37
Rezoning of six properties located on Deer Hill Road as follows: 1) APN 232-140-004 from R-20 to LR-20,
38
2) APN 232-140-010 from R-20 LR-10, 3) APN 232-140-016 from R-20 to LR-10, 4) APN 232-150-021 from
39
R-20 to LR-10, 5) APN 232-140-014 from APO to LR-10, and 6) APN 232-150-027 from APO to MRA and
40
LR-5.
41
Consideration of an addendum to the 2002 General Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Report.
42
Recommendation: Consider the matter, take public testimony and adopt Resolution 2009-17
43
recommending that the City Council revise the Project to exclude Parcel 04 and (1) approve and certify the
44
2009 Addendum to the Lafayette General Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Report; 2) approve
45
GPO2-08 as amended; and 3) approve RZO2-08 as amended.
46
Project Planner:
Christine Sinnette, Tel., (925) 299-3241 • csinnetteloveIafayette.orq
47
(Estimated Time
60
Min*)
48
49
Christine Sinnette gave an oral report and stated the City has spent several years considering multiple
50
alternatives for a project description for General Plan and zoning amendments for seven properties in the
51
Eastern Deer Hill Road area. On June 8, 2009, the City Council directed staff to initiate General Plan and
52
zoning amendments for six of the seven properties.
The project proposes to change the General Plan
53
designation of 5 of the properties (parcels 4, 10, 14, 16, and 21) to Rural Residential Single Family with
Planning Commission
10 of 16
November 19, 2009
ATTACHMENT 4
1
corresponding zoning of LR-10. The
6th
property, parcel 27, is proposed for split zoning including LR-5 and
2
MRA.
3
4
As proposed, the Project could allow up to 41 dwelling units. If approved, the Project could reduce the build out
5
of these properties as identified in the General Plan and assessed in the EIR, by 24 dwelling units and 98,000
6
square feet of office.
7
8
The environmental impacts of this general plan amendment and rezone were studied in an addendum to
9
the General Plan EIR certified in 2002.
As an addendum, this document provides a planning-level
10
environmental analysis of the development potential which could be allowed by the proposed amendments;
11
development which may or may not be built.
12
13
The addendum concludes that the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts that were not
14
identified and assessed in the EIR and in most cases will reduce the level of impact previously identified.
15
No additional mitigation measures would be required at the program level for any of the impacts.
16
17
As noted in the staff report, the proposed amendments would be in conformance with the General Plan
18
goals, policies and programs for the Eastern Deer Hill Road area. The proposed project also complies with
19
Housing Element Law because although the Project would reduce the allowed residential densities on the
20
subject properties", none of the six parcels were used in the inventory for potential housing in either the
21
current or draft housing elements.
22
23
The Eastern Deer Hill Road area has been of special concern to Lafayette because of its visibility and open
24
hillsides, its location as a gateway to the city, and its proximity to Lafayette Ridge and Briones Regional Park. It
25
is staff's opinion that the proposed zoning and General Plan designations are appropriate because they take
26
into account regulatory and environmental constraints such as ridgeline setbacks and riparian habitats and
27
balance the City's desire to retain the semi-rural character of its hillside lands with the needs of private property
28
owners.
29
30
There is one exception to this, however.
Although the Planning Commission was unable to come to a
31
consensus on a project description for the Deer Hill amendments, they did agree that the designation for the .5-
32
acre parcel 04 zoned R-20, should not be changed. Staff agrees with this. A change to LR-10 would render
33
the property nonconforming and require the property owner to obtain use permit approval for any additions and
34
possibly a variance to yard setbacks.
35
36
When the City Council members established the project description, they also wanted an alternative for Parcel
37
27 to be considered. The alternative designations are LR-10 for upper Parcel 27 and R-65 for lower Parcel 27.
38
The conclusion of the Addendum is that the proposed Project, at densities higher than allowed by LR-10 and R -
39
65, would not result in any new impacts that were not identified and assessed in the EIR. Based on this, the
40
alternative designations do not need to be considered on environmental grounds.
Since the LR-5 and
41
particularly the MRA conform to the General Plan, the alternative designations are not necessary on policy
42
grounds either.
43
44
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2009-17 recommending that the City
45
Council revise the Project to exclude Parcel 04 and approve and certify the addendum and approve the Project.
46
Ms. Sinnette noted that Leonard Charles is present and he is the consultant who prepared the addendum to the
47
EIR.
48
49
Commissioner Ateljevich required clarification of what the City Council suggested.
50
51
Ms. Sinnette referred to page 2, table 1 of the staff report and noted that all except parcel 27 would be changed
52
to LR-1 0 including the CalTrans piece. She said the Council specifically excluded the gas station site as
53
substantial discretionary review for any type of development would be required. She noted the Council
54
suggested the upper portion of parcel 27 be rezoned to LR-5 and the lower portion to MRA which would allow a
55
density of up to 1 7 units per acre which translates to a potential for 29 units.
56
57
Chair Lovitt referred to the bottom of page 7 of the report and asked if Council has heard the reasons for staff's
58
recommended changes.
59
Planning Commission
11 of 16
November 19, 2009
1
Ms. Sinnette indicated the Council has heard the Planning Commission's concerns. She noted the Council
2
wanted to change the zoning of the small parcel that is surrounded by the larger parcel as they felt it could be
3
merged at a future date and then allow greater density. She does not recall if she indicated rezoning the lot
4
would make a non-conforming lot. She noted that there would be enough review related to a Lot Line Revision
5
to mitigate the Council's concern and that just because the property lines may change, the zoning designation
6
does not.
7
8
Commissioner Ateljevich said the MRA has always been high density residential zone and has historically been
9
in the Downtown. She said it has not been paired with rural residential designation before and asked if the City
10
Council had considered the MRT zone.
11
12
Commissioner Mitchell asked for brief description of MRT zone.
13
14
Ms. Sinnette noted MRT would also allow up to 17 units per acre and the purpose is to provide medium density
15
residential for townhouse development. The height limit is 25 feet, there is no lot coverage ratio, and the units
16
must be a town home configuration not flats. MRT allows residential businesses and convalescent or boarding
17
homes.
18
19
Commissioner Maggio said it sounds more flexible than the MRA zone.
20
21
Commissioner Ateljevich noted MRT is designed as a transition to single family residential areas and is more
22
appropriate. She said there are a lot of design protections and review built into the process.
23
24
Ms. Sinnette felt MRT was a good mix and a nice transition. She said it would eliminate office type uses. She
25
also noted there are limited areas within the City that are currently MRT. MRA could allow up to 35 dwelling
26
units per acre but with the rural residential designation it would be 17 dwelling units to the acre. Ms. Sinnette
27
indicated that even the MRA zone has a density of 35 units per acre; however the General Plan designation
28
can set the density.
29
30
Commissioner Ateljevich noted the difference would be the type of building which are townhouses versus
31
apartments.
32
33
Ms. Sinnette stated the primary difference between the two zones is a height of 25 feet or 35 feet.
34
35
Chair Lovitt opened the public portion of the hearing.
36
37
Lynn Hiden noted she has been on the Circulation Commission a long time and has worked with the Contra
38
Costa Transportation Authority and helped develop measure C. She said the letter from Guy Atwood is
39
accurate referring to the Christmas tree lot. She is appalled that the Commission is considering planning
40
residences in this smelly noisy location and suggested a park and ride or an extension to the Acalanes High
41
School parking area which could include landscaping. She also suggested directing traffic into and out of the
42
lot on Pleasant Hill Road via a right turn only. She reiterated the site is not suitable for homes or people.
43
44
Avon Wilson said she has been a Lafayette resident for 40 years and has served on the Traffic Commission,
45
the Planning Commission, the City Council and PC and has been a Transportation Authority member helping to
46
write measure C. She said she often spoke with neighboring jurisdictions about development that would
47
increase traffic in Lafayette and does not think the site is suitable for multi-family development. She said
48
ingress and egress would pose a significant problem and the intersection is already horrible. She also cannot
49
support an annex to the Acalanes High School parking lot either.
50
51
Allan Moore spoke on behalf of Anna Maria Dettmer who is the owner of some of the subject property. He said
52
this is a City-initiated down zoning and while some of it is harsh, the property owner agrees with some things
53
the City Council recommended. He said the City is directed through the General Plan to create a specific plan
54
for these properties. He noted that in 2004 the City decided they did not have the budget to do a specific plan
55
and so initiated a downzone in lieu of a plan. Mr. Moore requested the Commission approve the City Council
56
recommended density and not further downzone the property. He noted that portions of parcels 10 and 16 are
57
R-20 and rezoning to LR-1 0 is harsh and asked for LR-5 which would allow for a possible extra lot on the flat
58
portion. He also recommended that the flat area of parcel 27 should be visited by the Commission before
59
making a decision as it is not visible from Highway 24. He also corrected the reference that the current APO
Planning Commission
12 of 16
November 19, 2009
1
zoning was carried over from County zoning before incorporation saying that the County had it zoned
2
administrative office and neighborhood business. He said the APO zoning was designated by the City. He
3
understands the downzone and that it is called for in the General Plan but asked for a compromise to reduce
4
some of the harshness of the downzone.
5
6
Commissioner Curtin-Tinley asked Mr. Moore if the Commission accepted MRA for the bottom of parcel 27
7
what the top portion would be.
8
9
Mr. Moore recommended LR-5 on flat area or it could be R-65 which is one unit per acre.
10
11
Commissioner Humman asked for Mr. Moore's comments related to MRA versus MRT.
12
13
Mr. Moore believes the City Council recommended MRA to allow more flexibility in the use and he would agree
14
with that.
15
16
Commissioner Humann clarified that the density is the same between the two zones.
17
18
Mike Kim is the owner of lot 21 which contains the ropes course use and other programs which he intends to
19
continue. He requested the Commission not downzone his property in order to preserve the underlying value.
20
It
will impair his ability to refinance. The current split zoning R-20 and LR-10 allows for residential lots. He
21
does not anticipate creating higher density on his parcel and feels the larger agenda is the other parcels. He
22
requested the Commission keep his lot split zoned for four parcels and reiterated that he is not there to
23
develop, but this affects the value of his property.
24
25
Commissioner Ateljevich noted there are several ridgeline setbacks in that area and so he may not be able to
26
create four lots. She said the Commission looked very hard at the parcels previously and because of site
27
constraints decided not to keep the split zoning.
28
29
Commissioner Maggio asked how many buildings are on the property.
30
31
Mr. Kim said there is one house, two barns, several sheds, and yurts.
32
33
Commissioner Maggio asked staff if the zoning change would create a non-conforming use of the property.
34
35
Ms. Sinnette stated it would not as there is only one dwelling unit and the parcel has a land use permit for
36
recreational activity conducted there. The other uses like farming have been grandfathered in.
37
38
Chair Lovitt asked if the speaker also spoke to City Council regarding his concerns. Mr. Kim confirmed he told
39
the Council the same information.
40
41
Chair Lovitt read comments written on speaker slips into the record.
Wendy Guo wrote "I oppose to build high
42
density multi-family units on parcel 27". Liang Wang wrote "Please seriously consider the adverse
43
consequences of approving the 30 multi-family units on lot 27".
44
45
Marie Parti thanked the Commission for their volunteer time. She lives within 600 feet of the proposed multi-
46
family area and is surprised by some of the proposed uses in that area. She said the corner is impossible to
47
navigate and she cannot leave her driveway at 7:45am because of traffic and at 4:45pm it is congested as well.
48
She said it takes 29 minutes to get through the intersection with traffic and said it takes 44 seconds when there
49
is no traffic. She has trouble understanding how the Commission could support a plan that is inappropriate to
50
the site. She asked them to consider the adverse consequences and recommended a zoning of R-65 instead.
51
She noted the flat area of parcel was graded illegally.
52
53
Guy Atwood said his comments related to parcel 27 and the proposed increased density. He said he has an e -
54
mail from Leah Greenblat confirming Pleasant Hill Road and Deer Hill Road is the busiest intersection in
55
Lafayette.
He said people don't drive to the Downtown because they cannot get there from Pleasant Hill Road
56
and this condition should not be made worse by approving more multi-family in the community. He said the site
57
is not suitable as no one can walk or bike to or from this location. He said in 1967 when he was on the
58
Planning Commission they encouraged a low density impact. He noted he submitted a letter to the
Planning Commission
13 of 16
November 19, 2009
1
Commission and could support a rezone to R-65. He said the neighbors were not noticed of this hearing
2
because of distance from the project site.
3
4
Mike Henn spoke on behalf of Anna Maria Dettmer and obtained a copy of the land use permit LUP82-67 which
5
was approved in 1967 when the property was county jurisdiction. He said the permit approved a quarry
6
operation including rock crushing on parcel 27 which was controversial and went to court. Prior to the quarry
7
permit, G12-67 allowed for grading. He noted there was a period of eight years of approved grading and so he
8
disagrees with Ms. Parti that the grading was done illegally. He said a lot of rock was quarried for the widening
9
of Highway 24 and construction of BART. The level site has approvals. He referred to other comments
10
regarding the site being visible from the Viewing Evaluation Map locations. He believes the shelf area can
11
meet the substantially concealed provision when viewed from Pleasant Hill Road or Highway 24. He invited the
12
Commission to visit the site to verify this.
13
14
Commissioner Curtin-Tinley asked how many buildings are currently on the site.
15
16
Mr. Henn said the Laggis home is there and a row of outbuildings including rental office space. He said the
17
other buildings are not visible, but the house is.
18
19
Chair Lovitt closed the public portion of the hearing.
20
21
Ms. Sinnette reviewed the June 8, 2009 City Council minutes where they discussed MRT and MRA zoning.
22
The Council understood the density would be the same and that the main difference between MRA is that it
23
could allow a few additional uses that are not allowed in the MRT zone including community assembly and day
24
care.
She said both allow residential business and the caveat that allows the Commission to approve what it
25
considers appropriate with approval of a use permit. The MRA zone allows a 35 foot height limit and the MRT
26
allows a 25 foot height limit. She went over the purpose of the MRA zone and said it is for a varied and mixed
27
type of housing which remains consistent with the preservation of the semi-rural residential character. The
28
MRT zone is more appropriate with regard to the purpose which is to preserve the natural setting and open
29
space. Staff said MRT would still be appropriate and still comply with General Plan goals and policies.
30
31
Commissioner Mitchell noted that at 17 units per acre there would be a potential for 29 units on the 1 .76 acres.
32
He said R-65 and R-40 could allow only one unit.
33
34
Commissioner Maggio asked what the possibility of development is given visibility, potential for slides and the
35
30% slope. She said the flat portions it areas already have structures.
36
37
Ms. Sinnette stated it is hard to tell without a specific development application.
38
39
Commissioner Ateljevich said the Commission did do a site visit and not many building sites could be found.
40
41
Commissioner Curtin-Tinley said she is frustrated with the process and does not want to make a decision
42
without more information and without a development proposal as this is just speculation as to what might be
43
built here.
44
45
She referred to the public comments that Pleasant Hill Road is extremely busy and stated there is nothing the
46
City can do about it. She said the properties have their own constraints that will dictate development. She
47
made a motion to keep current zoning as is.
48
49
Commissioner Humann seconded the motion. He said he has been opposed to the rezone and cannot discuss
50
sensitivity of the site and not do a specific plan. He does not understand importance of rezoning when there is
51
no development application proposed. He is also frustrated.
52
53
Commissioner Maggio added that she is uncomfortable voting for high density on the tree lot.
54
55
Chair Lovitt confirmed with staff that the City's position is legal. He said the City has struggled with this issue
56
for years. City Council has provided guidance and he is inclined to agree with their recommendation.
57
58
Commissioner Ateljevich said the current zoning is horrible and it would be burdensome for anyone to come
59
forward with a proposal. She supports the City Council recommendation.
Planning Commission
14 of 16
November 19, 2009
1
2
Commissioner Mitchell noted that the property owners have never requested that the property remain APO
3
zoning and that they are fine with residential. He is not in favor of doing nothing after such a long study.
4
5
Vice Chair Chastain is also frustrated. He said the City should do specific plan but has settled for a constraints
6
study.
7
8
Commissioner Humann clarified this is purely a recommendation to the City Council.
9
10
Commissioners Maggio, Curtin-Tinley and Humann supported the motion. Chair Lovitt, Vice Chair Chastain
11
and Commissioners Mitchell and Ateljevich did not support the motion which failed (3-4-0).
12
13
Commissioner Mitchell moved to adopted Resolution 2009-17 with the revision recommending exclusion of
14
parcel 4 and approval of items one, two and three and changing the lower portion of parcel 27 to MRT. The
15
motion was seconded by Commissioner Ateljevich.
16
17
Vice Chair Chastain said the MRA zone has one dimension and there should be flexibility as to what might be
18
on the site. He said MRT limits the use to residential and MRA has more options.
19
20
Commissioner Ateijevich said ingress and egress to the site is horrible and would not want a use that would
21
create a lot of traffic.
22
23
Commissioner Lovitt clarified that a project will be subject to traffic studies when it is proposed.
24
25
Commissioner Maggio said it would make sense to wait for an application.
26
27
Ms. Sinnette stated that current zoning allows 35 dwelling units per acre and that the original motion by the City
28
Council was related to changing the APO parcels to residential. She also noted that the APO designation is not
29
subject to Hillside Regulations.
30
31
Commissioner Maggio asked why it is not subject to Hillside Regulations.
32
33
Ms. Sinnette noted only residential properties or uses are subject to the regulations.
34
35
Chair Lovitt reiterated the motion to adopt the resolution with staff recommended modifications. Chair Lovitt,
36
Vice Chair Chastain and Commissioners Mitchell, Ateljevich and Maggio supported the motion. Commissioners
37
Curtin-Tinley and Humann did not support the motion which carried (5-2-0).
4
----------8-----------
-----------------------------
--
------
--
---------------------------------
-
39
0TH-ER BUSINESS
40
VACANT & UNDERDEVELOPED LAND STUDY MAP
41
Recommendation:
Review the study map and provide feedback to staff.
42
Project
Planner:
Greg Wolff, Tel., (925) 299-3204 qwolfflovelafayette.orq
43
(Estimated Time 15 Min*)
44
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIVITY REPORT
45
None
46
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
47
None
48
ADJOURNMENT
49
Commissioner Curtin-Tinley moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Commissioner Mitchell and
50
carried unanimously (7-0-0).
51
Planning Commission
15 of 16
November 19, 2009
City
of Lafayette Staff Report
Subject:
GPO2-08, CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT), ANNA MARIA DETTMER
TRUST, MICHAEL &
SARA
KIM, ZBIGNIEW NAGLICKI LIVING TRUST,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (OWNERS): Amendment to General Plan Map I-i to
reclassify six properties located on Deer Hill Road as follows: 1) APN 232-140-004
from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural Residential Single Family, 2)
APN 232-140-010 from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural Residential,
3)
APN 232-140-016 from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural
Residential Single Family, 4) APN 232-150-021 from Low Density Single Family
Residential to Rural
Residential Single Family,
5)
APN 232-140-014 from
Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily to Rural Residential Single Family,
and 6) APN 232-150-027 from Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily to
Low Density Multi-Family Residential and Rural Residential Single Family.
RZO2-08, CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT),
ANNA
MARIA DETTMER
TRUST, MICHAEL &
SARA
KIM, ZBIGNIEW NAGLICKI LIVING TRUST,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (OWNERS): Rezoning of six properties located on
Deer Hill road as follows: 1) APN 232-140-004 from R-20 to LR-10, 2) APN 232-
140-010 from R-20 to LR-10, 3) APN 232-140-016 from R-20 to LR-lO, 4) APN
232-150-021 from R-20 to LR-10,
5)
APN 232-140-014 from APO to LR-10, and 6)
APN 232-150-027 from APO to MRA or MRT and
LR-5.
Consideration of an addendum to the 2002 General Plan Revision Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Background
The Planning Commission and City
Council have spent several years
considering
multiple alternatives
for General Plan and
zoning
amendments for seven properties in
the Eastern Deer Hill Road area at
numerous public hearings.
See
Attachment 1 for the chronology
and attachments 2 and 3 for
property ownership and current
General
Plan
and
zoning
designations. On June 8, 2009, the
City Council directed staff to
initiate General Plan and zoning
ATTACHMENT 5
amendments for six of the seven properties and established the project description.
The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on GPO2-08/RZO2-08 on November 19, 2009 and adopted Resolution
2009-17 recommending that the City Council approve the Project and certify the Addendum.
Project Description
The Eastern Deer Hill Road area has been of special concern to Lafayette because of its visibility and
open hillsides, its location as a gateway to the city, and its proximity to Lafayette Ridge and Briones
Regional Park.
Goal LU-i 3 of the General Plan states:
"Ensure that the Eastern Deer Hill Road area
near the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road is developed, where development is appropriate, in a manner
consistent with Lafayette 's community identity."
The project description for GPO2-08 and RZO2-08 is presented in Table i ("Project").
When the City
Council members established the project description, they also wanted an alternative for Parcel 27 to be
considered.
The alternative is presented in Table 2. It should also be noted that during the 2002 General
Plan update, the Planning Conmiission proposed an alternative to the General Plan which was evaluated
in the General Plan EIR.
Alternative 4 - Planning Commission Alternative generally maintained the
Rural Residential designation and the Low Density Single-Family Residential designation for the parcels
west and north of Deer Hill Road while designating the lands south and east as Rural Residential. The
proposed Project is a variation on or hybrid of Alternative 4.
Parcels 14 and 27 are zoned APO which is considered an "office district" in the Zoning Ordinance. Even
though these parcels are located in the hillside overlay district, they are not subject to the hillside
development regulations of Chapter 6-20 because they are not residential lots.
As currently zoned, they
would only be subject to Chapter 6-20 if the properties were to be subdivided or if a residential project
was proposed. If these properties were rezoned to a single-family or multi-family district, they would
become subject to Chapter 6-20. Also, the APO designation allows a wide variety of uses, including use
permit approval of multi-family dwellings at a density of
35
dwelling units per acre1, which may not be
compatible with General Plan goals and policies adopted for the Eastern Deer Hill Road area. See
Attachment 4 for more information on the APO district.
Table 1
Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations
Properties
Property
Current
Current
Proposed
Proposed
Owner
General Plan
Zoning
General Plan
Zoning
232-140-004
Naglicki
Low Density
R-20
Rural Residential
.5
acre
Single Family Residential
Single Family
LR-10
232-140-010
Dettmer
Low Density
Single Family Residential &
Split R-20
Rural Residential
_____________
R- 10
17.82 acres
_____________
Trust
__________
Rural_Residential_Single_Family
& LR-10
____________
Single Family
232-140-014
Caltrans
Administrative/Professional!
APO
_________________
Rural Residential
_____________
1.36 acres
_________
Office/Multi-family
____________
Single Family
LR-10
232-140-016
Dettmer
Low Density
Single Family Residential &
Split R-20
Rural Residential
_____________
LR- 10
38.14 acres
_____________
Trust
_________
Rural_Residential_Single_Family
& LR-10
____________
Single Family
232-150-021
im
Low Density
Single Family Residential &
plit R-20
_________________
Rural Residential
_____________
R- 10
20.75 acres
_____________
__________
Rural_Residential_Single_Family
& LR-10
____________
Single Family
_________________
_____________
The General Plan designation of Administrative/Professional!Office/Multi-family sets the residential density limit
of 35 dwelling units per acre per Map I-i, Land Use of the General Plan.
City Council Staff Report
Page 2 of 13
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
Januaiy 25, 2010
232-150-027
Dettmer
Administrative/ProfessionaL!
I
22.26 acres
Trust
Office/Multi-family
I
APO
See Table 2
See Table 2
Table 2
Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations for Parcel
27
Parcel
Proposed
General Plan
Proposed
Zoning
Alternative
27
upper portion
Rural Residential-S Single
___________________________________
GP: Rural Residential-lO Single
(west of drainage)
Family:
Up to .2 du/acre
LR-5
Family:
Up to .1 du/acre
20.49± ac.
Zoning: LR-10
27 lower
portion
Low Density Multi-Family
GP:
Low Density Single Family
(east of drainage)
Residential:
Up to 17 du/acre
MRA
Residential:
Up to 2 du/acre
1.76± ac.
_____________________________
_________
________________________________
Zoning:
R-65
Note that although the Eastern Deer Hill Road area contains seven parcels, the City Council decided not
to consider changing the General Plan designation of Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily and
the zoning of APO for the property located at the northwest corner of Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads
(APN 232-150-028).
Planning Commission Recommendation
On November 19, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applications. (See
Attachment
5
for meeting minutes.) The staff report recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a
resolution approving the Project as established by the City Council and described in tables 1 and 2 with
the exception of Parcel 04. Although the Planning Commission had previously been unable to come to a
consensus on a project description for the Deer Hill amendments, they did agree that the designation for
the .5-acre parcel 04 zoned R-20 should not be changed. A change to LR- 10 would render the property
nonconforming as to lot size and possibly yard setbacks
(50'
minimum). The property would be subject
to the City's nonconforming use regulations and possibly require a variance to yard setbacks for any
expansion or addition.
The Council members proposed the change to LR-1 0 because of concerns about
lot consolidation or adjustments that would expand the R-20 zoning. Even if the size or configuration of
the parcel was to change, the area zoned R-20 would not change unless a rezone request was granted. It
was stalTs opinion that rendering the property nonconforming with the LR-10 designation was not
necessary in light of the speculative nature of future lot adjustments and because such adjustments or
subdivision would require City review.
The Planning Commission agreed and is recommending that
Parcel 04 retain its current General Plan and zoning designations.
The Commission spent some time discussing the proposed MRA designation for lower Parcel 27. Some
Commissioners did not like the 35-foot height limit allowed by MRA and the non-residential uses that
could be allowed with use permit approval.
An alternative of MRT, Multiple-family Residential
Townhouse District, was suggested (See Table 3 and Attachment 6 for more information.)
This
designation had been presented at a previous Planning Commission meeting. Staff noted that MRT could
allow up to 17 dwelling units per acre and the purpose of the district is to provide medium density
residential for townhouse development.
The height limit is 25 feet, there is no lot coverage ratio, and
units must be a townhouse2 configuration, not flats.
2
The zoning ordinance defines "townhouse" as an attached or detached family unit with air space or air space and
yard space for each individual unit. Townhouse ownership may include ownership of common grounds or
facilities.
City Council StaffReport
Page 3 of 13
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
January 25, 2010
Throughout the previous Planning Commission hearings, several Commissioners expressed concern about
or opposition to General Plan and zoning amendments for these properties because of lack of information
and preparation of a specific plan.
A motion to deny the project and not pursue the amendments was
defeated by a vote of 3-4-0.
A motion to approve Resolution 2009-17, excluding Parcel 04 and
recommending MRT for the lower portion of Parcel 27, was approved by a vote of 5-2-0.
Description of the Parcels
Parcel 04.
Parcel 04 is zoned R-20, is 21,780 square feet in size and developed with a 1,128 square foot
single-family home built in
1952.
Its development potential under the R-20 zoning designation is only
one dwelling unit.
The proposed LR-l0 zoning would continue to allow only one dwelling unit but
would render the property nonconforming as to lot size and possibly yard setbacks
(50'
minimum). The
property would be subject to the City's nonconforming use regulations.
The Planning Commission
recommended that this property retain its current designations.
Parcel 10.
Although Parcel 10 has a relatively flat area adjacent to Deer Hill Road appropriate for
development, this 17.81-acre property is severely constrained by its 42 percent average slope. According
to section 6-2043 of the hillside regulations for subdivision, the allowed density for this sized property
with a 42 percent slope is .10 du/acre so regardless of the zoning designation, the maximum allowed
density would be one dwelling unit. Only a small portion of the parcel is within the setback of a Class II
ridgeline.
The proposed LR-l 0 zoning would continue to allow only one dwelling unit.
Parcel 14.
This parcel consists of a narrow, southward sloping site overlooking Highway 24. If the
property was zoned residential, it would be subject to Chapter 6-20, Hillside Development. Based on the
average slope of 30.9 percent, only one dwelling unit could be allowed on this property. Given the slope
of the property and narrow shape, it is likely that only one dwelling unit would be allowed on this 1.36-
acre parcel regardless of the zoning designation. Parcel 14 is not located within a ridgeline setback area.
The proposed LR- 10 zoning would allow only one dwelling unit.
Parcel 16.
Based on an average slope of 37 percent for Parcel 16, the maximum density allowed by the
hillside regulations for subdivision would be
5
dwelling units.
The property is currently developed with
two houses, at least one of which is currently vacant and has lost its nonconforming status. There is also
a telecommunications facility located onsite. This property has a well established drainage system and
has areas within Class I and Class II ridgeline setbacks. The proposed LR-10 zoning could allow up to
three dwelling units on this 38.14-acre parcel if it were subdivided.
Parcel 21.
This 20.75-acre property is developed with a single family residence and outbuildings
associated with a working small farm and livestock ranch. There is an active land use permit for a small-
scale commercial recreation use.
Most of the R-20 zoned portion is within the Class I ridgeline setback.
The maximum allowed density based on the property's average 34 percent slope is four dwelling units.
The proposed LR- 10 zoning would allow a maximum of two dwelling units.
Parcel 21 was one of over 100 properties studied as part of City-initiated GPO2-04 to reclassify certain
parcels throughout the City from Rural Residential Single Family (density of up to 0.1 du/acre, minimum
parcel size of ten acres) to Rural Residential-S Single Family (density of up to 0.2 du/acre, minimum
parcel size of five acres).
During the study, the Planning Commission visited the site to determine the
location and number of potential housing sites that would satisfy hillside development requirements such
as ridgeline setbacks and visibility. Based on this study, the Planning Commission recommended that the
General Plan designation for this property not be changed to RR-5 because it appeared that no more than
two housing sites could be developed that would comply with hillside development regulations.
City Council Staff Report
Page 4 of 13
GPO2-08/RZO2--08
January 25, 2010
Parcel 27.
This property is a 22.26-acre lot physically divided by a northwest/southeast trending drainage
channel and topography into a 20.49± acre "upper" portion west of the drainage channel and a 1.76± acre
"lower" portion adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road. It is developed with a residence and office buildings.
The area along Pleasant Hill Road has historically been used for seasonal Christmas tree sales. The
property is highly visible from many off-site locations and about one-third of the upper portion is located
within a Class I ridgeline setback. If zoned residential it would be subject to Chapter 6-20, Hillside
Development.
Based on the average slope of 24.3 percent for the 22.26-acre parcel, fourteen dwelling
units could be allowed on the property if it were proposed for subdivision under Chapter 6-20.
The 20.49-acre upper portion has an average slope of 20.2 percent, is located in a Class 1 ridgeline
setback and is highly visible from Highway 24. The 1.76-acre lower portion has an average slope of 12.4
percent, is located at the corner of the major intersection of Deer Hill Road and Pleasant Hill Road, and
outside the Class 1 ridgeline setback. Because of these differences between the upper and lower portions
and their defining separation by a drainage channel, Parcel 27 is appropriate for split zoning.
The
proposed zoning for the upper portion is
LR-5.
This designation would allow .2 dwelling units per acre
or a maximum of four houses. The alternate proposal of LR-1 0 would allow .1 dwelling per acre or a
maximum of two houses. The drainage channel was chosen as the demarcation between the two zoning
designations because it is a discrete feature easily transferred to a map rather than a random line drawn
across the property. It should also be noted that split zoning does not create a new parcel or separate
piece of real property.
The proposed General Plan designation for the lower portion is Low Density Multi-Family Residential
which could allow a maximum density of 17 dwellings per acre. The MRA district uses a sliding floor
area ratio (FAR) based on lot size to determine gross floor area for dwelling units. The FAR for this
76,665 square foot site is .63.
Based on a density of 17 dulacre and a FAR of .63, 29 dwelling units
totaling no more than 48,298 square feet could be allowed3.
The proposed alternate General Plan
designation of Low Density Single Family Residential could allow up to 2 dwelling units per acre. The
proposed
R-65
zoning designation could allow one dwelling unit per 65,000 square foot lot or one house.
The Planning Commission recommendation of MRT could yield 29 dwelling units as well but they would
have to be in a townhome style.
Maximum height is 25 feet and there are no minimum standards for
FAR, lot area or setbacks. The MRA and MRT districts are described in Table 3 and in Attachment 6.
Table 3
Comparison of
MRA
and MRT Zoning Districts
MRA -
Multiple-Family Residential District A
MRT
-
Multiple-Family Residential
Townhouse District
Purpose
Provide for a varied mix of multi-family
Provide for medium-density residential for
residential within the core area of the City
townhouse development consistent with the
consistent with the preservation and enhancement
preservation and enhancement of the City's
of the City's semirural residential character,
semirural residential character.
Development
Development regulations are intended to require
regulations are intended to require carefully
carefully conceived plans to preserve natural
conceived plans at a physical scale to ensure
settings, open space and the environment;
attractive architectural treatment compatible
enhancement of the tax base; beneficial use of
with nearby residential areas; preserve natural
available land; and provide for development
settings, open space and the environment;
consistent with the goals and policies of the
enhancement of the tax base; beneficial use of
General Plan.
available land; and provide for development
This density is a mathematical calculation only and does not take into consideration rights-of-way, site constraints,
or development standards such as parking, landscaping, and setbacks.
City Council Staff Report
Page 5 of 13
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
January 25, 2010
consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan.
Typical
Single and multi-family dwellings.
Townhouses.
Allowed Uses
Use permit required for: community assembly
Use permit required for: eleemosynary &
and education, day care, eleemosynary &
philanthropic institutions, convalescent
philanthropic institutions, convalescent homes,
homes, boarding homes and uses which the
boarding homes.
Planning Commission has found to be
_______________
_____________________________________________
compatible to the above uses.
Allowed
up to 17 dwelling units per acre4
Shall conform to General Plan density range
Density
for the area.
Building
35
feet.
25 feet
Height
___________________________________________
Development
Sliding FAR of
.25
to .64 depending on lot size.
________________________________________
No minimum standards for lot area, setbacks,
Standards
Small size, studio, and one-bedroom units
and lot coverage. During the design review
encouraged.
Maximum lot coverage of 35%.
process conditions may be imposed to assure
Side yard of 10 feet; 20 feet for 3-story building,
adequate privacy and general appearance &
relationship to the natural and man-made
elements of the environment.
Open Space
Minimum of 45% of ground level to be
Minimum of
50%
of the ground level, not
landscaped.
including parking areas, to be maintained as
______________
___________________________________________
open space devoted to landscaping.
Parking
1 bedroom unit: 1.0 spaces
1
bedroom unit: 1.5 spaces
2 bedroom unit: 1.2 spaces
^2 bedroom unit: 2 spaces
^3 bedroom unit: 1.5 spaces
1 guest space per each
5
units
1 guest space per each
5
units
1 required space per unit to be covered
1 required space per unit to be covered
Conformance to the General Plan
When the General Plan was updated and adopted in October 2002, it recognized that the Eastern Deer Hill
Road area was an important planning area for the City. As the General Plan states:
This area, particularly the triangular shaped parcel south of Deer Hill Road, is the .'nost signficant
undeveloped property in the community because of its high visibility, its location as an entryway to the
community, and its proximity to major thoroughfares as well as regional open space. For these reasons,
any development that occurs should be consistent with the semi-rural character of the community. This
area deserves a careful and detailed analysis of all the opportunities and constraints that will form the
basis offuture land use decisions. It is therefore recommended that a specfic plan be prepared for this
area immediately following the adoption of the General Plan.5
Accordingly, the General Plan contains the following goal, policies and program:
Goal LU-13:
Ensure that the Eastern Deer Hill road area near the intersection of Pleasant Hill
Road is developed, where development is appropriate, in a manner consistent with
Lafayette's community identity.
With corresponding General Plan amendment to Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Lafayette General Plan, p. 1-22
City Council StaffReport
Page 6 of 13
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
January 25, 2010
Policy LU-13.1
Preserve and enhance the semi-rural single-family residential character north of
Deer Hill Road where not adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road.
Policy L U-13.2
Consider options for development south of Deer Hill Road and north of Deer Hill
Road where adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road.
Program LU-13.2.2: Prepare through a community planning process an Eastern
Deer Hill Road SpecijIc Plan that includes the following requirements:
a) Protect and enhance the rural character of the area north of Deer Hill Road
where not adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road.
b) Preserve prominent views.
c) Include development standards that maintain the semi-rural character of the
area and the community.
d)
Utilize the property south of Deer Hill Road to help communicate the image of
Lafayette as a semi-rural community.
The Project proposes General Plan designations of Rural Residential which is classified as "Natural and
Scenic Land Uses" for three properties north of Deer Hill Road not adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road
(parcels 10 16, and 21). This General Plan designation and the corresponding zoning designation of LR-
10 are consistent with Policy LU-13.1.
Regarding Program LU13.2.2, the proposed Project is not a Specific Plan as recommended in this
Program.
However, the City has determined that the program is not a set mandate, but rather one means
to implement the policies under Goal LU- 13. The General Plan states that "programs state actions to be
taken to implement the policy," which is in turn defined as a "general direction that the City elects to
follow to meet its goals." The General Plan further clarifies that the "programs listed in [the] Plan are not
exclusive; rather they are a set of actions that the city should take to implement a goal and policy. There
may be other mechanisms to implement the same goals and policy."6 The extensive planning process,
including numerous opportunities for public input outlined in Attachment 1 and required by State law for
the current application, is an equivalent mechanism for implementing Goal LU- 13 and the two policies
under that goal.
The upper portion of Parcel 27 is proposed for a General Plan designation of Rural Residential-S which is
consistent with Programs LU-13.2.2 (b) and (d).
Although not adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road, the same
can be said for Parcel 14 which is proposed for Rural Residential. In suggesting that options be
considered for development south of Deer Hill Road where adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road, Policy LU-
13.2 recognizes the importance of balancing the goal of maintaining and preserving Lafayette's semi-rural
community identity with the more developed context of this area adjacent to Highway 24 and Pleasant
Hill Road, a heavily traveled, regional arterial, Acalanes High School, and a gas station.
A proposed
General Plan designation of Low Density Multi-Family would allow a low intensity multi-family
development within this context.
The proposed General Plan and zoning amendments must also comply with the General Plan Housing
Element and Housing Element Law. Current law (Government Code
§65863)
prohibits a city from
downzoning residential parcels to a "lower residential density" than that used by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) in determining whether the city's housing element
complies with Housing Element Law, unless the city identifies and zones sufficient, additional, adequate
and available sites with an equal or greater development capacity to achieve no net loss in housing
development capacity. If the city has adopted a housing element for the current planning period which is
6
Lafayette General Plan, p.
5.
City Council Staff Report
Page 7 of 13
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
January 25, 2010
found by HCD to be in substantial compliance, "lower residential density" means a density below that
used in the element's inventory for potential housing sites.
According to the current Housing Element7, the RHND for the 2002 Element is 194 units, consisting of
105 units affordable to above-moderate income households, 42 units affordable to moderate income
households, 17 units affordable to low-income households, and 30 units affordable to very-low income
households.
The certified Element determined there is adequate vacant/underdeveloped land zoned to
allow development of this number of units, including the target number of units for Extremely Low, Very
Low, and Low Income households. Table 31 of the Housing Element identifies vacant/underdeveloped
parcels that could allow up to 439 units of multi-family development.
While the Project would reduce the
allowed residential densities on the subject properties, none of the five parcels were used in the inventory
for potential multi-family housing sites and their potential residential densities were not relied on to
determine compliance with Housing Element Law. Given the data in the Housing Element, the City has
adequate vacant land that can be developed to meet its immediate and future housing needs even if the
proposed Project were approved. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Government Code
§65863
and
the findings contained in
§65863(b)
do not have to be made.8 The proposed Project would also be
consistent with other portions of the General Plan, including Housing Element policies.
Consistent with State law that housing elements be revised every five years, the City has prepared a new
Housing Element. The Housing Element was approved by the City Council on December 14, 2009 and is
currently under review by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The Housing
Element identifies 27.2 acres of land that would allow up to 716 units of multi-family development, well
above the 361 new housing units allocated by ABAG in its Regional Housing Needs Allocation for
Lafayette.
This inventory of available sites does not include any of the parcels in the Project area. As
such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the current and revised housing elements.
Compliance with the California Environmental Ouality Act (CEQA)
Upon the advice of the City Attorney, the environmental impacts of this general plan amendment and
rezone were studied in an addendum to the 2002 General Plan Revision's certified environmental impact
report ("EIR"). CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary, but no significant, new or substantive impacts or changes that
would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred since the preparation of the EIR.
As an addendum to the General Plan EIIR, this document provides a planning-level environmental
analysis of the development potential which could be allowed by the proposed General Plan and zoning
amendments; development which may or may not be built. State CEQA Guidelines instruct that
environmental review of a planning-level document need not contain the level of detail required for
Lafayette's Housing Element was adopted in October 2002 and found in compliance with State Housing Element
Law by HCD on January 2, 2003. The City was commended for identifying sites commensurate with its share of
regional housing need.
(b)
No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, reduce,
or require or permit the reduction of, the residential density for any parcel to, or allow development of any parcel
at, a lower residential density, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (g), unless the city, county, or
city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following: (1) The
reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element; and (2)
The remaining
sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional
housing need pursuant to Section 65584 [Department of Housing and Community Development regional housing
needs determination].
City Council StaffReport
Page 8 of 13
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
January 25, 2010
review of a construction project, for example. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15145, subd. (a) ("[t]he degree
of specificity required ... will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying
activity"].)
As explained in greater detail in the Addendum, it is not reasonably foreseeable at this time
that an applicant will come forward with a specific development application for the subject properties,
Appropriate site-specific environmental review will, therefore, be required once actual housing is
proposed for development.
The addendum concludes that the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts that were not
identified and assessed in the EIR and finds that the General Plan policies and programs that are listed as
mitigation
measures for each of the defmed Project impacts would, at a program level of analysis,
continue to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures would be
required at the program level for any of the impacts. See Attachment 7 for the Addendum.
CEQA states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached
to the final EJR.
However, the Planning Commission reviewed the document at their November 19th
meeting.
They had no comments and are recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum. If
the City Council decides to approve the Project with a zoning designation of MRT for the lower portion
of Parcel 27, the Addendum would not have to be revised. In analyzing the Project, the Addendum used a
proposed multi-family density of 17 dwelling units per acre which would not change with the MRT
zoning designation.
Lamorinda Program Management Committee (LPMC)
According to the Lamorinda Action Plan, all General Plan Amendments within the Lamorinda
community are subject to review by the LPMC to determine that the proposed amendments are consistent
with the Action Plan. On September 14, 2009, the LPMC considered GPO2-08 and based on the analysis
contained in the staff report, determined that it is consistent with the Lamorinda Action Plan.
Public Notice
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Contra Costa Sun on January
15,
2010 and posted in
three locations around the Project area on January 12, 2010. Pursuant to the Lafayette Municipal Code
and California Government Code, notice of this public hearing was mailed on January 11, 2010 to:
V
the affected property owners and their identified agents;
V
property owners within 500 feet of the Project area;
Lafayette
Homeowner's Council, Springhill Valley Association, Springbrook Neighborhood
Association,
Brown Avenue Homeowner's Association, Northridge Park Homeowner's
Association and Acalanes Valley and Ridge Neighborhood Association.
V
Contra Costa County, the cities of Orinda, Walnut Creek, and Pleasant Hill, and the Town of
Moraga;
V
Lafayette School District;
V
East Bay Regional Park District;
V
Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
V
East Bay Municipal Utility District;
V
Association of Bay Area Governments;
V
Caltrans District 4; and
V
Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission
City Council Staff Report
Page 9 of 13
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
January 25, 2010
Native American Tribal Consultation
Government Code
§65352.3
requires local governments to consult with Native American tribes when
adopting and amending their general plans. The Native American Heritage Commission identified a list
of four tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the Project area. Invitations to
participate in consultation on the Project were sent to representatives of the AmahlMutsun Tribal Band,
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Muwekma Ohione Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, and The
Ohione Indian Tribe.
None of the tribes responded to the invitation or requested a consultation with the
City.
Public Comment
Eight comment letters were submitted as part of the Planning Commission public hearing on the Project.
Most of the comments addressed the nature of the Project, area access and circulation, trip generation, and
cumulative impacts.
See Attachment 8 for these comment letters.
Correspondence received after
November 20, 2009 can be found in Attachment 9. These letters contain similar concerns and opposition
to the Project.
Response to Comments on the Project
Nature of the Project:
Some of the comments indicate confusion about what the Project is, particularly as
it relates to Parcel 27.
GPO2-08/RZO2-08 is not a development application proposing the construction of
multi-family development and none of the parcels are being "re-zoned" to allow multi-family residential.
In addition to allowing office uses, the current zoning designation of APO for the 22-acre Parcel 27
allows multi-family residential development with approval of a use permit. The density for any proposed
residential
would be set by the General Plan designation of Administrative/Professional Office/Multi-
Family which allows up to
35
dwelling units per acre. The proposed General Plan designations of Rural
Residential-S Single Family for the upper portion of Parcel 27 and Low Density Multi-Family Residential
for the lower portion of Parcel 27 would reduce the allowed residential densities to 0.2 dwelling units per
acre and 17 dwelling units per acre, respectively. Therefore, the overall yield for Parcel 27 would be less
than currently allowed under the existing General Plan designation, thereby resulting in less
environmental impacts upon buildout of that parcel than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR (as
documented by the Addendum).
Access and Circulation:
It is acknowledged that some of the subject properties, particularly Parcel 27,
have access constraints.
However, no development is proposed by the current Project, and it is not known
whether any specific proposal for development of the affected parcels is imminent. Furthermore, any
proposed development would be subject to a hillside development permit and would be reviewed on its
own merits for design, conformance with development standards such as height, setbacks, parking, etc.
and be reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act for potential
environmental impacts related to aesthetics, traffic and circulation, geology and soils, biotic resources,
noise, etc. If a future project is found to have significant impacts, impacts will have to be mitigated
though project redesign (which may include reduced density) or the implementation of mitigation
measures.
Trip Generation:
Some comment letters cite potential trip generation levels of 300-400 trips per day from
the parcels affected by the proposed Project. According to Table 4 in Appendix C of the Addendum, the
parcels affected by the Project could generate 364 daily trips under their proposed General Plan land use
designations and zoning. However, this is a significant reduction as compared to the 1,831 potential trips
allocated to the Project area in General Plan EIR.
City Council StaffReport
Page 10 of 13
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
January 25, 2010
Response to Comments on the Addendum
Only two comments were specific to the Addendum.
Although CEQA does not require that an
Addendum be circulated for public review or require responses to comments, responses to the two
comments have been prepared. See Attachment 10 for a full text of the comments.
Comment 1.
The comment states,
That General Plan, in our view, required a Specific Plan for the Eastern Deer Hill Road
Area.
The Addendum confirms that the reason no Specific Plan was prepared was
because of "budget constraints ..." in other words, the City did not have the money and
had "other priorities." The required Specific Plan has not been prepared as directed.
We
believe, therefore, that the Addendum is defective and environmental review should be
delayed until a Specific Plan is prepared and until environmental review is drafted for
such Specific Plan.
Response:
To implement Program LU1 3.2.2 of the General Plan, a specific plan for Eastern Deer Hill
Road should be prepared through a community planning process. Although the Project is not a Specific
Plan, the City has determined that the program is not a set mandate, but rather one means to implement
the policies under Goal LU-13.
The General Plan states that "programs state actions to be taken to
implement the policy," which is in turn defined as a "general direction that the City elects to follow to
meet its goals."
The General Plan further clarifies that the "programs listed in [the] Plan are not
exclusive; rather they are a set of actions that the city should take to implement a goal and policy. There
may be other mechanisms to implement the same goals and policy."9 The extensive planning process,
including numerous opportunities for public input since 2003, and required by State law for the current
application, is an equivalent mechanism for implementing Goal LU-13 and the two policies under that
goal.
Additionally, approval of this Project does not prevent or a preclude preparation of a Deer Hill
Road Specific Plan in the future by the City or property owners.
Comment 2.
This comment states that the Addendum takes a simplistic approach in confirming that
impacts of the Project are reduced because fewer units will be allowed. This analysis ignores the true
impacts of this particular downzoning: (i) less housing as required by the Housing Element and state law;
(ii) loss of infill sites close to public transit (BART), which is encouraged by extensive state and local
legislation.
Response:
As noted elsewhere in this staff report, the Project does not conflict with the Housing Element
and state law and findings to
