City of Lafayette Staff Report For:

City Council

By:

Catarina Kidd, Contract Planner Greg Wolff, Senior Planner Christoplier J. Diaz, Assistant City Attorney

Meeting Date: Subject:

. JantJary 3 0 ^ 2 ^ 5 ; HDP20-13, GR07-13 & TP12-13 Steve & Linda W i g h t (Owners), LR-10 Zoning: Request for: (1) a Phase II Hillside Development Permit for a new two-story, 9,638 sq.ft. single-family residence w i t h an attached 3 car garage w i t h a height of 28.5 feet and a 365 sq.ft. garden room (gross 10,003 sq. f t ) ; (2) a Grading Permit for the movement of 6,610 CY of earth (3,580 CY cut/ 3,030 CY of fill/310 CY net off-haul); (3) a Tree Permit for the removal of 19 native trees; and (4) consideration of adoption of a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impacts on a vacant 13.66 acre parcel located in the Hillside Overlay District and a Class II Ridgeline Setback at 1240 Monticello Road (APN 245-070-014).

The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) of Environmental Impacts was posted on April 1 1 , 2014 w i t h the public comment period closing on May 12, 2014. Subsequent public hearings were held for the subject application to discuss specific concern topics of the project including aesthetics, traffic, hydrology, geotechnical concerns, construction management and evaluation of the project relative to the findings required for approval within the Lafayette Municipal Code. Extensive comments from members of the public were received regarding both the project as a whole and the draft IS/MND. The City Council directed staff to revise the IS/MND to expand the discussion section in greater detail and to add technical information received and revisions made during the public hearing process. Attachments: 1. Letters received 2.

Revised draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts

15

January 14, 2015 CORRECTED COPY RE: HDP20 Wight Project TO: City of Lafayette, City Council; cc. Maria Subramanian, Tony Coe, C. Kidd, and G. W o l f f FROM: Richard & Barbara Sutliffe, 3671 Nordstrom Lane, Lafayette, CA 94549 SUBJECT: Request denial of Wight Project...AGAINI Dear Mayor and Council Members: Andersson, Anderson, Mitchel, Reilly and Tatzin; First, a comment on the City Counci! Meeting on December 2, 2014: What happened? W i t h no notice to the citizens of Lafayette, the City Council did a complete turnaround and instead of approving the denial of the project as planned, the Council reversed itself and voted to give the applicant more time to make some undefined changes to the project in order to get it approved. Our question is simple: Who do you, the Lafayette City Council, represent? Do you represent the more than 600 citizens who have asked for denial of this project based on its non-compliance w i t h Lafayette Municipal codes and Lafayette Planning Guidelines...or do your represent the Wights and their attorney? We citizens deserve an explanation. To say we are disappointed in the City Council and the Lafayette staff is an understatement. Simply put, the Wight project is wrong for the Glen and Rose Lane neighborhoods and it is wrong for Lafayette. At 17,000 square feet of building and hardscape it is significantly too large for its environment. It is visible from many points in the area. It violates the letter and the spirit of the Lafayette Ridgeline ordinance. Also, due to its size it will have a significant impact on drainage in an already very unstable area. Furthermore, it will require an inordinate amount of heavy construction traffic through the Glen neighborhood's narrow roads posing significant health and safety issues. These points have all been made repeatedly throughout the many years of hearings. It is also not compatible w i t h the surrounding neighborhood and it sets a precedent for future building in Lafayette. It has been said at Council meetings that the Wight project is "like trying to put a square peg in a round hole". That is true. Why else would so much time have been spent on trying to "mitigate" problem after problem with this project? The many "mitigations" to make it acceptable only point out more strongly that this project is wrong and should be denied. In our view, the City Council has worked so hard to try to make this project work that it has lost its perspective and can no longer see the forest for the trees. The applicant has refused to downsize it to an appropriate size for the ridgeline site and refused to work with the neighborhood to improve the project except in very minor ways which do little to solve the real underlying problems. The applicant and his attorney have drawn this out for a very long time in an attempt to wear down both the Council and the neighborhood. Has the Council forgotten how fundamentally wrong this

project is? How it violates Lafayette planning guidelines and the 2002 Lafayette Ridgeline ordinance? No number of mitigations and extra requirements can make this acceptable w i t h o u t a complete downsizing and redesign of the project. Once this project is approved, it's too late. The horse is out of the barn and the Glen Rd and Rose Lane neighborhoods can look forward to at least t w o more similar projects in the same location and six to ten years of heavy construction w i t h its traffic, noise, danger and drainage problems. We have heard Council Members state that this "does not set a precedent for similar (mega) projects in other Lafayette neighborhoods and on Lafayette ridgelines." Who are you kidding? There are t w o more lots above this one to be developed and countless other similar lots in Lafayette neighborhoods and ridgelines. By approving this project the City Council gives a green light to future similar projects. Please take this opportunity to stop trying to "make a round peg fit in a square hole". Take your responsibility as Council members to represent the citizens of Lafayette and its ordinances and planning guidelines. Unless very substantial changes are made to downsize this project significantly, it should be denied once and for all. Sincerely, Richard & Barbara Sutliffe

Catarina Kidd kathy steinbrecher Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:47 PM

From: Sent: To:

'Glen Zamanian'; Mitchell, Mark; Tatzin, Don; Andersson, Brandt; Anderson, Mike; Reilly, Traci Catarina Kidd; Wolff, Greg; Subramanian, M; Coe, Tony; [email protected] RE: [Glen_Road_Lafayette] LETTER OF CONCERN AGAINST WIGHT DEVELOPMENT HDP20-13

Cc: Subject:

Very well written. Thank you From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf O f Glen Zamanian' [email protected] [Glen_Road_Lafayette] Sent: Monday, January 26,2015 10:38 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Glen_Road_Lafayette] LETTER OF CONCERN AGAINST WIGHT DEVELOPMENT HDP20-13

LETTER OF CONCERN AGAINST WIGHT DEVELOPIVIENT HDP20-13

January 2 6 , 2 0 1 5

Dear

Lafayette City Council,

concern about the proposed Wight development (HDP20-13) and to ask you to reject their current application for a proposed 10,000 plus square foot home. I a m w r i t i n g again t o express m y f a m i l y ' s

T h e n e i g h b o r h o o d has a p p e a r e d a t n u m e r o u s m e e t i n g s a n d s u b m i t t e d a p e t i t i o n w i t h w e l l over 100 signatures. The

majority of local home owners have voiced their opposition and even paid for and conducted 1

their own geotechnical survey. None of this has had any impact on the process. In fact the "enhanced" Construction Management Plan has been submitted and it is quite revealing as it demonstrates the magnitude of the Wight project. It would appear that three years is a likely duration for the construction, rather than the shorter interval in the report. The impact on the Glen neighborhood will be intense.

T h e mass o f t h e p r o j e c t , w i t h its associated r e - g r a d i n g a n d c r e a t i o n o f a huge hardscape area w i l l cause e r o s i o n i n t o creeks. M y backyard creek has t e n d e d t o silt u p w i t h past c o n s t r u c t i o n projects a n d I have t w i c e h a d t o d o e m e r g e n c y clearance o f t h e culvert in t h e creek. Rainfall data f r o m t a k e n f r o m t h e Glen area shows h u g e variations y e a r t o year a n d m o n t h t o m o n t h .

W h e n t h e soil has been s a t u r a t e d f r o m a m o n t h o r t w o o f

h e a vy rain in t h e past, a t h r e s h o l d is reached w h e r e t h e n e x t rain has caused significant m u d a n d debris f l o w s . The average D e c e m b e r , January, a n d February rainfall o f m o r e t h a n five inches p e r m o n t h has varied u p t o m o r e t h a n t e n inches per m o n t h in w e t years. The hills liquefy u n d e r t h o s e circumstances, w i t h b r o w n , m u d d y m a t e r i a l f l o w i n g d o w n o n t o s u r r o u n d i n g l o w e r areas.

A t t h e e n d o f t h e day w e are n o t t r y i n g t o p r e v e n t t h e W i g h t s f r o m b u i l d i n g a house-everybody

has a right

to

build. All t h a t w e are asking is t h a t t h e house is keep t o a reasonable scale a n d t h a t all e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n s are addressed (Including t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t h e PGE 4 0 0 psi m a j o r gas t r a n s m i s s i o n p i p e line, t h a t crossing t h e W i g h t p r o p e r t y ) . I respectfully ask y o u t o decline t h e i r c u r r e n t design p r o p o s a l u n t i l all concerns have been addressed.

Sincerely,

Glen Zamanian 1 1 7 9 M o n t i c e l l o Rd 9 2 5 330-1912

i = This email is f r e e f r o m viruses a n d m a l w a r e because avast! A n t i v i r u s p r o t e c t i o n is a c t i v e .

2

Catarina Kidd From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Lynley Sides Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:50 AM Glen Zamanian; Mitchell, Mark; Tatzin, Don; Andersson, Brandt; Anderson, Mike; Reilly, Traci Catarina Kidd; Wolff, Greg; Subramanian, M; Coe, Tony LETTER OF CONCERN AGAINST WIGHT DEVELOPMENT HDP20-13

Dear Lafayette City Council, I am writing again to express my family's concern about t h e proposed Wight d e v e l o p m e n t ( H D P 2 0 - 1 3 ) a n d to ask y o u to reject their current application for a proposed 10,000 plus square foot h o m e . The neighborhood has appeared at numerous meetings and submitted a petition with well over 100 signatures. The majority of local home owners have voiced their opposition a n d e v e n paid for a n d conducted their o w n geotechnical survey. N o n e of this has had any impact on t h e process. In fact t h e " e n h a n c e d " Construction M a n a g e m e n t Plan has been submitted a n d it Is quite revealing a s it d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e magnitude of the Wight project. It would a p p e a r that three y e a r s is a likely duration for the construction, rather t h a n the shorter interval in the report. T h e impact o n t h e Glen neighborhood will be intense. The mass of the project, with its associated re-grading and creation of a huge hardscape area will cause erosion into creeks. My backyard creek has tended t o silt up with past construction projects and I have twice had to do emergency clearance of the culvert in the creek. Rainfall data from taken from the Glen area shows huge variations year to year and month to month. When the soil has been saturated from a month or t w o of heavy rain in the past, a threshold is reached where the next rain has caused significant mud and debris flows. The average December, January, and February rainfall of more than five inches per month has varied up to more than ten inches per month in wet years. The hills liquefy under those circumstances, with brown, muddy material flowing down onto surrounding lower areas. At the end of the day we are not trying to prevent the Wights from building a bome-everybody has a right to build. All that we are asking is that the house is keep to a reasonable scale and that all environmental concerns are addressed (including the integrity of the PGE 400 psi major gas transmission pipe line, that crossing the Wight property). I respectfully ask you to decline their current design proposal until all concerns have been addressed. Sincerely, Lynley Sides 1135 Glen Road 925-451-1249

1

Catarina Kidd From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Donn Walklet terra-vista.com> Monday, January 05, 2015 5:02 PM Catarina Kidd Inputs for the revised Wight project MND Issues of Concern by Glen Neighborhood to HDP20-13 on 8-23-2013.pdf; Doug Flett Wight storm water drainage 9-8-2014.pdf; Flett Hydrology Review 7-25-2014.pdf; Cranmer Slide.pdf; 2745-1 Monticello Rd - Off Site Project Considerations report 5-7-2014.pdf; SELLECK geophysics and geology report .pdf; Wight Project Landslide Risk 9-9-2014.pdf

Catarina, Happy New Yearl I am forwarding various documents that have been submitted previously for CC, DRC, and PC meetings concerning the Wight project knowing that they may have been lost in the shuffle. Collectively, these inputs and others from the Glen neighborhood need to be considered and inciuded in the NMD process going forward. First, I have attached the t w o reports from our geotechnical (Alan Kropp & Associates) and hydrology (Doug Flett) consultants which combined describe the complexity of the Wight project related to drainage and landslide risk. In that regard, I bring to your attention (below) a quote from the original Wight geotechnical report which would appear to contradict the most recent analysis and runoff engineering f r o m the Wight team: " I t is probably not possible to discharge the collected runoff into street storm drains and consideration may be given to discharging it into some type of dispersal system. If so, we suggest that the dispersal system be installed on the east side; we do not recommend discharging the runoff into the swales that lie below the building site on the west side of the property." ~ i.e.. towards Rose Lane. Jenson-Van Lienden (page 12), August 16,2007 As a sample of the related complexity of the Wight parcel south facing slope above Hastings Court, I have attached a letter proposal from Woodward Clyde and Associates to Joe Cranmer (3682 Hastings) in 1969. The severity of this slide repair is indicative of the unstable geology above Hastings and Hilltop which has been virtually ignored during this entire process except for the reports from Kropp and Flett. Likewise, the controversy regarding the Woodall project on Hilltop has revealed w h a t is well understood in the neighborhood as an unstable slide situation. There is substantial subterranean drainage from the Wight property which activates landslides during very heavy rainfall years ~ see the attached Selleck email. None of this critical information is addressed in the previous NMD or any of the reports of the Wight's technical team. Will any of the proposed drainage modifications at the building site or along the access road aggravate this unstable situation on the south facing slope of t h e Wight property? All the above landslide risk is related to periodic extreme rainfall events (as noted by Michael Rosenblum in his submissions to the CC) in which the soils/sedimentary rock liquify ~ see the attached "Landslide Risk" document. There is a past history in the Glen of these events, w i t h catostrophic results. The NMD needs to site these extremes in its analysis. Finally, i have attached my summary (Issues of Concern) from August 2013 document which highlighted the areas of the NIVID which were previously not or inadequately addressed. From the "health, safety, and welfare" perspective, few of 1

t h e issues discussed in my document have been mitigated adequately. It would appear that most of these issue are directly related to the scale of the project and can only be address by a major redesign where environmental issues become a higher priority, which would appear to be consistent w i t h the emphasis of the current staff denial document. Thank you for your consideration and attention to these inputs to the MND process going forward. Respectfully submitted,

Donn Walklet 3 6 7 5 Nordstrom Lane Phone:

925.299.6933

Mobile: 925.212.2448

2

Catarina Kidd From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attadiments:

Mark Cameron Friday, January 02, 2015 4:28 PM Catarina Kidd Donn Walklet; Mark Cameron Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in Wight 1-2-2014 MAC 2014-04-07 Lafayette Design R&J\&N Com. Itr.pdf; [UntitledJ.pdf; 2014.05.05 City of Lafayette Letter.pdf; Exhibit Two to 2014,05.05 City of Lafayette Letter.pdf

Catarina, What is the tentative timing of completion of the new DMND re Wight and will it be before or after the January 26 hearing? I and others would greatly appreciated more than a week of notice on this important project. Who is preparing the new DMND? i am attaching above a few key letters I previously sent regarding the past DMND and request that any revised DMND address past-expressed concerns, particularly the concern that various categories be identified as "significant impact; mitigation required" rather than "no significant impact" if and where the facts warrant. I also hope the new DMND will consider and analyze plan changes (proposed by the Wights after my letters above were submitted), including but not limited to increased grading volumes (and decreased off-haul), whether a different house could mitigate significant environmental impacts, whether less impervious surface could mitigate Impact upon the admittedly inadequate existing Monticello drain, whether significant impact or erosion and slide risks may impact the hillside between Wight and the Rose Lane drainage basin inlet far below and whether redirecting substantial f l o w to the Rose Lane basin itself has significant impacts (and whether there has been reasonable notice to that neighborhood), whether the prior DMND contemplated drainage retention systems on site which were later removed f r o m the plans, and the "take" of four protected trees due to the large house footprint on a relatively small building area, etc. Will the DMND preparer closely review and consider past comments directed to the earlier DMND or do neighbors also need to resubmit? Thank you for letting me know next week. Mark Cameron as an individual

1