Goal #7 of Lafayette’s housing element reads “Promote access to affordable housing opportunities for persons with special housing needs such as … very low to moderate income household.” Yet not a single policy or program under this agenda item describes specific strategies to increase affordable housing production. Or housing production of any sort, really. 

​

When I brought this discrepancy up to the GPAC, nobody responded positively. In fact, one GPAC member implied that encouraging affordable housing production is not “real world or smart.” Most members seem reluctant to consider substantial upzoning of any kind. 

This meeting did not directly focus on the housing element, but it did discuss

1. Implementation of SB 9. The Council and much of the public commenters seemed interested in trying to use zoning overlay districts (specifically, Lafayette's creek overlay and hillside overlay) to exempt a larger portion of Lafayette from SB 9's provisions.  

2. Potential tax increases, which may partially fund affordable housing if passed. Most council members seem supportive of a new tax to raise revenue, after a long community input process naturally. 

3. The local control initiative, which Mayor Candell wants the city to endorse with an ordinance. They ended up striking that agenda item for a later meeting

​

P.S. This is Jeremy Levine, but my name is still not in the Watchdog report system. 

See meeting agenda at https://lafayette.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?clip_id=afc62694-1bc6-11ec-9f1e-0050569183fa. GPAC deliberated on housing element goals, which generally align with state mandates. 

​

Few public commenters, and everyone but me was neither pro- nor anti-housing. 

Staff and GPAC members reported on Community Engagement meetings.

Mayor Candell again objected to the process. She is concerned people are being pushed into suggesting higher densities than they actually want. 

​

The meeting largely focused on further engagement, making sure all stakeholders are being reached. 

​

There wasn't overall much discussion of housing.

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier spoke at the council meeting (not about the housing element, this is just a side note). 

​

Planning staff presented 2 scenarios -"Distributed" and "Downtown Only". Planning staff. 

​

Both scenarios include "scattered sites" - ADUs and single-family zoning. Studying scenarios so council will understand impact. Not recommending re-zoning anything at this time. 

​

The number is 2,114. Both scenarios include buffer. 

​

Planning staff noted that many jurisdictions in the bay area objected to their allocation numbers. 

​

Councilmember Anduri, asked is anything we're doing tonight precluding GPAC from studying any area or recommendation. Planning staff answered no.

​

Anduri asked if approval tonight will lock in a 62% buffer. Planning staff answered that the final decision about the buffer will be forthcoming.

​

240 for ADUs, 250 for "The Terraces"

​

Planning staff reported that over 2009-2018, Lafayette averaged single digit applications. in 2019 got into double digits, 2020 ~30, to date in 2021 already 20. 

​

Planning staff mentioned a few time that a scenario could include 20 Units/Acre on the BART site. Is that true? 

​

Mayor Candell, asked how / why we need to get near 115 du/acre in the "Downtown Only" scenario. Can density bonus be counted toward RHNA - planning staff said no, because it is a developers choice to use. 

​

GPAC will finalize preferred direction 6 months from downtown.

​

Mayor Candell asked how does producing housing outside our housing element play into the calculations? 

​

Planning staff noted that they will need BART site up-zoned before the housing element is finalized if it's going to be part of the element. 

​

Mayor Candell stated that in the last round there 8 sites in the element and 10 sites not in the element that got developed. She stated that developers have no obligation to look at the housing element sites. The Mayor's biggest concern is that they will up-zone too much. 

​

The Mayor questioned seemed to suggest more opportunity sites be added to bring down

​

Planning staff noted stepping down the density seems desirable, to not have a dramatic drop-off from 3-4 stories to single family zoning. 

​

There are some areas in town where 0 opportunity sites have been identified. 

​

ESA (consultant) was brought on to the call and asked what would happen with an area that is suggested for up-zoning, but has 0 opportunity sites. ESA answered they'd have to take the up-zoning into account. 

​

Planning staff stressed that they have to be realistic about what sites will be re-developed. 

​

ESA stated that it could be a worthwhile exercise to evaluate what sites will likely retain their current use. 

​

ESA stated that the EIR has to paint some broad brushes. You don't want to go parcel by parcel by parcel. 

​

ESA stressed they’re trying to identify a likely scenario. There is going to be opportunity for refinement, not necessary for the EIR. 

​

The Mayor asked about the DeSilva site. Planning staff 

​

The Mayor asked what happens if the city “over-produces”? What happens to the EIR if Lafayette doubles its. If new projects come up in addition to the allocation, additional CEQA analysis may be required. 

​

The mayor stated / asked if it’s very difficult to down-zone after areas have been up-zoned. The city attorney stated that no net loss makes it difficult to down-zone. 

​

Council asked about the BART site. Planning staff stated that if the city decided to up-zone, staff would engage with BART to discuss Lafayette's position on the list. The staff position is it's not a 0% chance of development. 

​

Mayor Candell does not want to up-zone downtown. Mayor hopes the capacity can be met at Deer Hill and BART. 

​

Councilman Burks stated stated that he will never vote for any up-zoning in Lafayette. He will not vote to advance the EIR this evening. He thinks they should keep fighting the state on RHNA

​

Studies of both options for EIR advanced with Mayor Candell and Burks voting against. 

Housing Element 101: Community Organizations 

​

Overview of process

​

Question about whether density bonus units can count towards RHNA. Staff says NO.

​

Question about increasing group open space requirements. 

​

Daniel Hogue, who works for a developmental disability nonprofit called Las Trampas, advocated for very low income IZ and ground floor commercial space. 

​

Question from EB4Er Bryan Alcorn about moving up Lafayette in the TOD queue. City has not talked to BART yet.  

CEQA Scoping

On March 8, 2021 City Council will consider adding a "downtown-only"  option for the CEQA analysis scope. Seems like a potential AFFH violation. 

​

Opportunity Sites

​

Big focus on BART site. City may be opting into AB2923 process.

​

Very high fire zones were under discussion.

​

The GPAC is having a walking tour at some point.

​

One of the commissioners, Michael Kim, is a developer or otherwise well-acquainted with residential development. He was advocating for a form based code. 

They talked about process for outreach for the general plan update. 

​

GPAC requested staff bring initial site list to next meeting (in 2 weeks). GPAC also expressed interest in getting feedback from community on how site list should be crafted.  Not specific sites but principles.