Barbara and I just sent the email below to Lafayette City Council.
“This is from Barbara and Preston Padden. In our opinion, the Lafayette planning process for new developments needs to be reformed. In particular, the Council needs to make it clear to planning Staff that they work for the citizens of Lafayette, not for developers.
The Silo subdivision provides a good example of what is wrong with the current process. The Cornerstone application for the Silo subdivision promised something different as described in their website, which is still available at the link below.
https://silolafayette.com/the-community/neighborhood-by-design/
In their presentation to the Lafayette Planning Commission, Cornerstone promised wood frame and farmhouse home designs, a large central park in the middle of the community, a horse pasture, an organic restaurant and the “crown jewel“ of the Silo community, a citizen supported agriculture farm right in the Silo neighborhood that would supply fresh produce to the organic restaurant. Cornerstone emphasized these features in the Daily Camera article below.
https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/11/05/lafayette-looks-toward-sustainability-with-silo-subdivision/
And these unique features were the key to Planning Commission approval despite citizen concerns over traffic, as described in the Daily Camera article below.
https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/11/30/lafayettes-silo-subdivision-plans-move-forward-amid-conflicting-visions/
After Cornerstone got its approval, they flipped a majority of the lots to national home builder Lenar. Lenar has now finished phase 1 and what they built bears absolutely no resemblance to the glorious promises that were used to secure approval for the development.
Recently, Lenar approached the Lafayette City staff in a series of meetings to request amendments to the approved PUD. The original applicant Cornerstone apparently was not involved. The voting and tax paying Citizens of Lafayette were given no notice of these private meetings between Lenar and city Staff. Nor were citizens given an opportunity to observe those discussions.
The sketch plan that emerged from those private meetings between Lenar and city Staff were presented to the Planning Commissioners last Wednesday evening, April 9. The amendments included the elimination of most of the unique community elements that were the foundation of city approval for this development. The large central park was gone. The horse pasture was gone. The citizen supported agriculture farm was gone. The organic restaurant was gone. In other words, everything that made Silo special was gone. At the Planning Commission hearing a Lenar representative made repeated references to their desire to move toward a more “traditional” development rather than the special features that had created enthusiasm among the planning Commissioners who had approved the project.
At the April 9 hearing numerous citizens spoke at the beginning during “Public Comment”. All were opposed to the revised plan. Several residents who had purchased in Silo 1 used the term “bait and switch“ to explain their opposition to the amendments.
We were among those testifying in opposition. Planning department Staff denied us the right to use the large video screens in the hearing room to display sharply contrasting photos of what Cornerstone had promised, and what Lenar had built. This denial of the screen use despite the fact that in previous years we had been allowed to use the screens public hearings at the Planning Commission hearings regarding 40 North. Our tax dollars paid for those screens.
After Public Comment, city planning Staff made their presentation, using the video screens, and urged the Commission to approve the amendments that gutted the special community features that Cornerstone had promised - amendments that came out of the secret meetings between Lenar and planning Staff.
Then it was Lenar’s turn to make their case, using the video screens denied to mere citizens. The Lenar representative , pointing to a graphic on the screen, claimed that even with the elimination of the Central Park, Silo still would be 45% open space. A Silo 1 resident behind us began whispering, “not true”. Finally she stood up and explained to the Commissioners that in order to get to the 45% number Lenar was taking credit for a separately owned pasture separated from Silo by a fence! She was instructed to sit down because “Public Comment” was over. City planning Staff made no comment.
The Silo representative at the podium did not respond to the blatant sleaziness of claiming credit for a separately owned and fenced off pasture , but simply stated that even without the pasture, the development would exceed the minimum required open space.
We urge the Councill to undertake an overall review of the Lafayette planning process. In particular, we believe citizens must have notice of, and an opportunity to observe what have been private meetings between developers and city staff. A simple notice on the Planning Department website and the opportunity for a limited number of citizens to sign up to sit in and observe, would be sufficient. And, in Planning Commission hearings, there must be some opportunity for citizens who have taken the time to come to the meeting to correct and rebut representations made by developers during their presentation. This is especially important since in the case of Silo, the city Staff did not speak up.