The Lafayette Planning Commission at a continued public hearing voted 4-1 to deny a land-use permit for a proposed Circle K convenience market in the city’s West End commercial district, rejecting staff’s recommendation that would have approved the conditional use with conditions.

Staff presented the application as a request for a land-use permit to allow a convenience market in an existing, vacant commercial building in the West End Commercial land-use designation. Staff said the site is within a half-mile of the Lafayette BART station and therefore, under state law (AB 2097 referenced in the record), the city can require parking but the applicant was proposing no off-street customer parking and instead proposed using rear employee/delivery parking and on-street angled spaces being installed under the Mount Diablo surface seal project. Staff recommended the project be found exempt from CEQA and supported an approval resolution (Resolution 20‑24‑03) if the commission could make the required findings; staff also provided an alternate denial resolution for the commission’s consideration. Staff noted the applicant revised recommended operating hours and staff proposed limiting hours to 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.

Why it mattered: Commissioners and residents said the proposal raised specific operational and public-safety concerns that could produce ongoing enforcement needs. Multiple neighbors and nearby business owners told the commission they expect delivery trucks and double parking to block lanes and bike facilities, and that enforcement of those behaviors would be difficult. The commission’s denial means the applicant may appeal to the City Council within 15 days; council review would be de novo.

Most important facts
- Staff recommended approval subject to conditions (staff prepared both approval and denial resolutions); staff proposed revised hours of 7 a.m.–11 p.m. and a CEQA exemption (Resolution 20‑24‑03). The applicant originally applied for 5 a.m.–1 a.m.
- The site is within a half-mile of Lafayette BART, a factor staff cited in parking/vehicle trip analysis and state-law parking considerations (AB 2097 referenced).
- Traffic analysis and public testimony diverged: the applicant/architect and traffic consultant described many trips as “pass‑by” and said U‑turns and existing traffic patterns allow access; neighbors and the long‑time local business owner Diamond K said the study’s conservative trip estimates could mean substantial new on‑street activity. The traffic consultant, Steven Donovan, said, “I was over there for about a good solid hour this afternoon. I didn't see any queues going back past where that median opens up to a point where it would prohibit any U turns.” The Diamond K owner, Bill McGrath, told commissioners he was concerned about the study’s trip table and cited a higher daily trip estimate in the consultant's materials: “1,574 daily trips.”
- Public testimony and written letters focused on truck deliveries, double parking, noise and crime. Trudy Moore, president of the nearby HOA, said the neighborhood opposed the use and emphasized safety concerns: “7 11 has had 3 burglaries, 3 robberies in the last couple of years.”
- After deliberation commissioners voted to adopt the denial resolution (Resolution 20‑24‑07), 4 in favor, 1 opposed. The commission chair explained that an appeal to the City Council must be filed within 15 days and that council review would start de novo.

What commissioners discussed and why they denied the permit
Commission debate concentrated on whether the commission could make the required findings for approval. Several commissioners said they could not make findings related to public safety and enforceability of conditions. Commissioners and staff discussed enforcement mechanisms and the difficulty of reversing an entitlement once it “runs with the land” if operational conditions later are not met. Staff and the applicant said code enforcement and the city’s normal enforcement processes could address violations; several commissioners said that process would still impose ongoing resource demands and may not prevent repeated double parking or unsafe deliveries.

Applicant and traffic analysis
The applicant’s architect described the proposed store as a short‑trip convenience market aimed at local residents and workers and said the owner would manage vendors to avoid front‑in deliveries. The applicant offered to work with Public Works on on‑street striping and said deliveries would be limited to the rear and to daytime hours. Traffic consultant Steven Donovan (CJDAM Consultants) explained the study’s approach distinguishing “pass‑by” trips (drivers already on the road who stop briefly) from new trips; he urged that many expected trips would be pass‑by and that the traffic modelling used conservative ITE assumptions. Donovan also described observed U‑turn activity and said a future signal would provide opportunities for U‑turns.

Public comments
Neighbors, homeowners’ association representatives and nearby business owners opposed the permit. Opponents cited three recurring themes: (1) deliveries and double‑parking would block travel lanes and the bike path; (2) convenience stores can attract crime and late‑night calls for service; and (3) existing nearby grocery and convenience options met resident needs, so the store was not necessary. Diamond K family owner Bill McGrath described longstanding local business ties and said he feared the new store’s traffic patterns would reduce customer access to his business.

Commission action and next steps
A motion to approve the project (Resolution 20‑24‑03) was made during the hearing but did not receive a second. Later the Planning Commission voted to adopt a denial resolution (Resolution 20‑24‑07) 4‑1. The commission clerk announced that an appeal to the City Council must be filed within 15 days; council review would be de novo.

Votes at a glance
- Denial (Resolution 20‑24‑07): Passed 4–1; details recorded in the meeting minutes and transcript. The commission announced standard 15‑day appeal rights to the City Council (de novo review).

Ending
The applicant may appeal the commission’s denial to the Lafayette City Council within 15 days; council review would start anew, accepting written materials or new studies the parties choose to submit.