City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 1 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
7 City of Lafayette
Minutes
City Council Meeting
General Plan Advisory Committee, Planning Commission,
Public Art Committee
Teleconference Meeting – Watch on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel at February 28, 2022 http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube Submit public comments to [email protected] 6:00 p.m. before or during the meeting.
To protect public health, our residents, officials, and staff, and aligned with the Governor’s recent executive order N-29-20, certain teleconference requirements of the Brown Act have been suspended, including the requirement to provide a physical location for members of the public to participate in the meeting. Here is how to participate in the meeting and provide public comment:
1) Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube. An archived, on-demand video of each meeting is maintained on the channel as part of the public record.
2) Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public can provide public comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] (for City Council meetings). Those e-mails will be distributed to the members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3) Live Remote Public Comments: Members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing. You must download the Zoom app or software. Zoom meetings can be accessed by telephone, computer, or smart device. When the Mayor invites public comment for the item on which you would like to comment, please use the "raise hand" feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) to alert staff you have a public comment to provide. Each speaker is allowed three (3) minutes to speak.
Any graphic a speaker wishes to use as part of public comment must be emailed to [email protected] for City Council meetings by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Zoom Webinar joining instructions will be posted on the meeting agenda prior to the start of the scheduled meeting. 4) At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81044227854?pwd=SENaSWliQUVYdHlwYXVjS0xwdmpvZz09 Passcode: 382285 or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128; Webinar ID: 810 4422 7854 Passcode: 382285
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 2 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Gerringer called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Gerringer; Vice Mayor Anduri; Councilmembers Candell, Dawson and Kwok
Absent: None
Planning Commission: Chair Radonich, Vice Chair LaBonge, and Commissioners Farzan, Huisingh, Maggio, Mason and Sturm
General Plan Advisory Committee: Chair Cervantes, Vice Chair Pease, Blumenfeld, Lee, Needel, Rasmussen, Singer and Wotherspoon Public Art Committee: Chair Horn, Members Fujimoto
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Sarah Allen, Assistant Planning and Building Director; Jonathan Katayanagi, Parks, Trails and Recreation Director; Mary Bruns, Senior Transportation Coordinator, Suzanne Iarla, Communications Analyst; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Anduri) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
4. 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Joint Session with the General Plan Advisory Committee and Planning Commission A. Sarah Allen, Assistant Planning Director and Renata Robles, Associate Planner Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared and was published on February 18, 2022 beginning the 45-day public review and comment period, which will end on April 4, 2022. Written comments can be submitted during the comment period to [email protected]. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 7, 2022 to receive oral comments on the DEIR.
Recommendation: Receive a presentation from Luke Evans, ESA, providing an overview of the Project, Project Alternatives, and potentially significant impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR.
GPAC Chair Jim Cervantes and Planning Commission Chair Radonich introduced members present.
Assistant Planning Director Sarah Allen introduced Luke Evans from ESA.
Luke Evans, ESA, provided a PowerPoint presentation and an overview of the project, project alternatives, and potentially significant impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 3 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Vice Chair Matt Pease referred to the air quality issue and the impacts during construction. He asked how much the air quality diminishes after construction.
Mr. Evans said once the project is built and people are living in the projects there are specific thresholds the BAAQMD has established for operational air impacts. The analysis found that the impacts would be less than significant. These would be higher density than typical which tend to generate less VMT and less emissions overall. The net air quality emissions in the City would go up given the building of more homes and more vehicles on the road, but on a per capita basis and per unit basis it would actually go down.
Vice Chair Pease asked if there is a long-term health risk for those people occupying units near Hwy 24.
Mr. Evans stated they conducted a health risk assessment for this and he read the summary of findings on PM 2.5 concentrations above the cumulative thresholds and would add to existing emissions, but given the small percentage of total risk and concentrations attributable to projects, the projects would be below project level thresholds with the implementation and mitigation. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Vice Chair Pease referred to the third alternative which was development right at the transit center at BART. It looked as though it extended into Happy Valley beyond the scope the City Council set. He asked if this is a realistic alternative or he asked if he was obligated to come up with an alternative.
Mr. Evans said theoretically, it is realistic. One of the things they are supposed to do is look at things they could do to the project that would lessen identified significant effects. When looking at these, the only one that could be potentially changed would be VMT. If the idea is presumed that development within a half mile of a transit station would be less than significant for VMT, then that alternative could potentially eliminate that significant and unavoidable effect. He then described transit priority areas extending up into the Happy Valley Road and areas outside of the planning areas considered previously.
Chair Jim Cervantes said he spoke with a member of the public who indicated there was a broken link in the download of the DEIR, but then it was fixed. Given the timeline for review and the April 4th deadline, he asked if this affects the response deadline timing.
Director of Planning and Building Services Greg Wolff stated staff has discussed this and noted that one of the outreach and notifications link said people can visit the website at www.lovelafayette.org/CEQA to find the document. When clicking on this, it did not work for one individual but when it was posted and tried it, it functioned for all staff. This was a few days after the 18th when it was published, and it has been resolved. In speaking with the City Attorney, the one glitch for one person is not a trigger for extending the deadline, and also not a requirement under CEQA but rather a best practice to be posted on the website.
Councilmember Candell cited having difficulty finding the DEIR in the meeting documents for this meeting and she asked for a way to pull it out of the staff report and other documents. She asked if the 45-day public review period could be extended.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 4 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Mr. Wolff stated CEQA prescribes the minimum publication and staff published the DEIR on the 18th for a 45-day review period. Most everything the City does goes above and beyond in terms of notification. It has also been in the Weekly Roundup and a multitude of social media and public outreach links. Staff also has statutory deadlines with respect to the Housing Element update which are also increased so the City will clearly meet its obligation under CEQA.
Councilmember Candell stated the Planning Commission will meet once on March 7th, and she asked if the public will receive another opportunity to comment closer to the end of the 45 days to add to public comments.
Mr. Wolff said this is the first meeting which the Planning Commission is attending and this meeting itself is not required under CEQA, but staff is providing notification, with the ability to attend, listen in, etc. Staff does not anticipate the need to schedule another Planning Commission meeting because the entire 45- day period is open for the public to submit their comments in writing and up until the deadline which will go into the record.
Councilmember Candell asked for the process to make modifications if comments come in.
Mr. Evans stated at the end of the comment period, they will compile all comments, respond to each of the comments individually, and will prepare a Response to Comments document. If they find someone raised a comment that specifically addressed the adequacy or inadequacy of the EIR, they will address this in the FEIR and would revise the EIR accordingly before it is published, finalized and certified by the City Council.
Councilmember Candell stated the City has had other EIRs done that talked about housing near Hwy 24 that came up with different results. For those living close to the freeway, there is a deed restriction and a requirement for MERV filters in their homes, and she sees no mention of that here.
Mr. Evans explained that yes, the health risk assessment is a very data-driven model and that HRA was completed and information is available as an appendix to the EIR. If it was not, he could provide this, but there is an air quality appendix that had the results of the HRA in it.
Associate Planner Renata Robles pointed out that the appendices are on the www.lovelafayette.org/CEQA link. Mr. Evans noted there is an appendix for the Notice of Preparation and comments received, an appendix for air quality, for biological resources, for noise, one with various spreadsheets, as well as one for the VMT analysis.
Councilmember Candell referred to emergency vehicles and response times and said their Con Fire representative spoke to the Council about the fact that with taller buildings there is need for a ladder truck in Lafayette. She did not see any comment relating to this in the report and she asked if this is something the City could ask for.
Mr. Evans said as far as those sorts of issues involving emergency services and physical impacts to the environment, this would be a physical impact that would have to be analyzed. It would be difficult for them to know about that currently because none of the units have been built, they would not know the location for a fire station, etc. so it is speculative for them to cite any physical effects.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 5 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
What they have learned is that there are no additional fire facilities expected to be needed as part of this Housing Element update. But this does not mean there might not be more equipment or space needed for personnel and a ladder truck. When the time comes, there will need to be some additional analysis to determine what the environmental effects of retrofitting that station or building a new one would be. It is not part of this EIR but a facilities question that the City would have to work with the local fire department on.
Councilmember Candell referred to evacuation routes and the City of Oakland Fire District and she noted they are banning ADUs and SB 9 in their vulnerable hillsides, similar to Lafayette’s Happy Valley Glen, Happy Valley areas, etc. She asked if any simulations or advanced modeling were done for those evacuation routes.
Mr. Evans said this is on-going and not a part of CEQA. The City has contracted with Fehr and Peers to do that analysis as part of the Safety Element update. There are a couple of State laws, AB 747 and SB 99 recently passed that require that information to be included in the safety analysis and for jurisdictions to update that type of analysis on a periodic basis. So, this work is being done and will be available to help with the Council’s deliberations.
Commissioner Mason said since the PC will be on the front line of addressing the EIR comments, people will not like it. He asked if it is possible to add a second meeting closer to the deadline. He fears that under the public comment periods, any meeting from now until the end of the deadline can be hijacked in discussing the EIR and the PC will not get to its business. Alternatively, he asked if they could switch the public comment period for the duration of this to the end of the meeting so the PC can get their regularly scheduled work done first.
Mr. Wolff acknowledged the concern; however, CEQA requires the City to have one public hearing with the PC to take oral public comments but the entirety of the 45-day period is open for the public to submit comments in writing. City Attorney Mala Subramanian also confirmed the Chair could adjust the agenda accordingly if the Commission wished to do so.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to the evacuation part of the report, stating on July 12th the Council was asked to increase the budget for the EIR, and he recited: “The majority of the budget increase stems from mandatory requirements under CEQA, including transportation analysis using VMT, evacuation analysis and incorporating the second scenario throughout all aspects of the EIR.” So, the evacuation analysis was one of the three reasons why they increased the budget by $161,000.
The next paragraph states, “Staff has also met with ESA and Fehr and Peers regarding new requirements under State law related to evacuation analysis. Staff and residents are understandably concerned about the risk of wildfire in the community and the ability to evacuate if necessary. It is important to understand the existing conditions and potential impacts from new development and measures that could be implemented to mitigate those impacts.” He said he could not find any of this in the DEIR and asked staff to point him to this.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 6 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
He then noted Section 4.17-11 states, “While additional traffic volumes could be expected with the construction of more housing the City would be required to periodically update its emergency response and evacuation plans as required under AB 747 and the City’s General Plan. This periodic re-evaluation addresses these changed conditions and would adjust the evacuation plans accordingly, thus rendering the impact less than significant.” He said there is no analysis and he again asked if it was included in the DEIR.
Mr. Evans said this is a complicated issue and there are some legal nuance here. He explained the threshold in CEQA is whether or not a project would conflict with or impair the execution of an evacuation plan. These other items mentioned, i.e., the budget request that went through last summer for the additional funds for Fehr and Peers, this was to conduct the evacuation analysis he had spoken with Councilmember Candell about, SB 99 and AB 747 which have a great deal of very detailed requirements as to how a City or jurisdiction must analyze and prepare for evacuations. This work is on-going and will be coming out in the next several weeks and available to the Council.
The question would be, would the Housing Element Update under the current situation impair the execution of an emergency evacuation plan, such as hinder traffic flow or create obstruction to an evacuation route, which would be a significant impact. The City has many requirements for projects during construction that require a traffic management plan and other things to keep that type of thing from happening. As that analysis indicates which was just read, every so often as a requirement of the new State laws the City must revisit its evacuation plans and see if conditions have changed and make changes accordingly.
As it stands now, the Housing Element Update would not interfere with the implementation of an evacuation plan. This is the legal answer he alluded to and this is really the criteria. The answer is “no” because the assumption would be that the City would have a plan in place which it does and that plan would not be hindered or obstructed by implementation of the Housing Element Update and that plan would be updated periodically per requirements of State law, and therefore, would remain current and effective.
Councilmember Anduri said he thought the City was going to get something more when he approved the budget allocation. He reviewed the minutes from that meeting, and based on Councilmember Dawson’s comments, his comments, and at the time, Mayor Candell’s comments they all expected something more.
Mr. Evans stated the information the Council will be receiving as part of this analysis will be robust and will have a lot of information to help the Council to make decisions. That is forthcoming and will be part of the Safety Element update, but it is not a part of the EIR. Fehr and Peers is the subcontractor to ESA, and this is why that work was rolled into their subcontract, and it is not really related to the EIR effort.
Councilmember Anduri said confusing to him was that it was discussed entirely within the context of the EIR when the Council discussed it in July, but he will await the report.
Commissioner Farzan referred back to a potential second meeting for the public on the EIR. If there is a vote on this, he would also be in favor of giving the public another chance to comment. This is something that affects the City for many years and if there could be extra time for the public to weigh in, this would be it. Unless there is a legal requirement that they cannot have an extra meeting, he would support holding another meeting.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 7 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Commissioner Maggio said in addition to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified with regard to aesthetics and traffic, there were a number of other impacts listed that were deemed mitigatable.
Among them is a possible need for additional fire and police protection, not enough parkland per resident based on the City’s 5 acre per 1000 resident guidelines, increased roadwork and utility infrastructure. She asked how is that decided. She asked if it is decided by the City based on the development as it occurs or how is the City anticipate this utility infrastructure. It takes a long time to build infrastructure and if they are waiting until the shovel is in the ground on a project they could really be behind and building the infrastructure could lag the completion of a project and pose issues. She asked what are the procedures for the City to anticipate what they will need in infrastructure before projects are built.
Mr. Evans said from a CEQA perspective, at this point this is a program level document. It is looking at a wide array of things that could happen. They do not have any proposals right now for anything. There are some pipeline projects but there are no proposals out there for 3500 new units in the City. So, until these are received, they cannot tell where they will be, what kind of utilities would be required, what type of roadway improvements might be needed, etc. So, the presumption is that as those projects come out, those needs would be identified. If there were any environmental impacts from a CEQA perspective of enlarging a road or extending a water line, it would be analyzed at that time. This work would be rolled into that project, and he turned to Mr. Wolff to talk about process.
Mr. Wolff explained that staff refers out projects to all utility providers and many others and they respond back. Over an 8-year span, they have to plan for meeting RHNA plus the buffer and the utilities are aware of that and currently have that in their plans. This is not unique to Lafayette but includes all of the Bay Area where utilities are planning for the 441,000+ units. So, as part of the overall General Plan Update, the City will have additional conversations with each of the utilities. To his knowledge, they do not have detailed information yet on CIPs for one or more of the utilities that would be necessary to upgrade their facilities to accommodate the growth. Thus far, they have indicated the ability to serve, but that might shift a little bit based on if and when a given project is proposed. So, there are obligations at the time of the project to extend a water or sewer main or electrical service. The City is also requiring undergrounding of overhead utilities whenever possible.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
ELIOT HUDSON referred to evacuation and said it may not be possible to adequately evacuate some City areas, encouraged the Council to reject an approach that “assumes away” real problems which occurred with the Terraces’ EIR, voiced disappointment with the direction staff is emphasizing to GPAC with the Housing Element, and likened the City as looking like Walnut Creek.
CHERYL MACDONALD voiced support of having another PC meeting to provide people with the ability for additional public comments.
MAUREEN voiced support for an additional PC meeting with a single item for additional public comment which would not interfere with other items. She has always found it surprising that the City has no historic resources registry and/or inventory and thinks this is worth considering.
SHERRIN also voiced support for a second PC meeting and would not encourage moving public comments to the end of the meeting.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 8 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
ROBERT LAVOIE said if the CEQA report concludes there are significant and unavoidable impacts due to aesthetics, he suggested GPAC, City Council and the PC consider this carefully when contemplating any increases in zoning. He also asked what caused the impacts. Density bonus law results in 55-foot heights where 35-foot limits are the norm. He thinks current zoning is adequate, asked if the finding would be the same if the current zoning at 35 units/acre were retained and with density bonuses or he asked if it would change.
DAWN EAMES voiced support for a second meeting for additional public comments before the April 4th deadline.
DAVE BRUZZONE said he and Joan Bruzzone are concerned with housing plans at the BART station with 75 units/acre, noting that BART cannot accommodate its current traffic needs let alone the additional parking needs that would be required for units which impacts the Plaza Center. He asked if the EIR analyzed this as there are significant overflow parking impacts created by BART already.
Mayor Gerringer asked if the impacts be the same if the City kept the current zoning and she asked what the assumption or criteria used in the EIR on the zoning.
Mr. Evans said there would not be a significant effect because they would not be changing the existing additions, which provide for 35 units plus density bonus up to a certain level. As for the other question he believes the question was how they landed on the numbers as far as zoning proposed. He did not create the numbers. City staff and Ms. Elrod worked through those, but he said basically the numbers derived were those needed to meet the RHNA allocation.
Councilmember Candell asked if the City Council should weigh in if they want another PC meeting.
Ms. Subramanian confirmed that the Council and the PC could briefly speak to this and determine whether they wish to direct staff to schedule another meeting.
Mayor Gerringer summarized that they heard from a couple of public members, Councilmembers and Commission members they would like to hold a second meeting, and she asked that staff bring forward a plan to hold a second PC meeting to receive public comments. She thanked everyone for their comments and participation and concluded the joint session.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – 7:00 p.m. (for Items Not on the Agenda) ALISON HILL, speaking on behalf of the DEI Committee, she announced that their Community Conversation #4 will take place on March 10th from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m., as co-sponsored by the Lafayette Homeowners Council and the Lafayette Library Foundation. It will be a live meeting in the Don Tatzin Hall and people will need to present their vaccination verification and be masked. She said students, realtors, neighborhood groups and City representatives will be present to talk about the theme of Welcoming Newcomers, ideas to help newcomers to apartments and high-density complexes, and there is information on the City’s website.
Vice Mayor Anduri thanked the group for holding the event and for COVID protocols.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 9 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
LEAH DENMAN, Lennar Homes, provided an update on The Brant on Mt. Diablo Boulevard, which is a mixed-use community of 66 homes, 2 retail spaces, public parking and other amenities. They have 10 below market rate homes offered for sale to be offered in the lottery.
JULIUS NYANDA, Housekeys, said Housekeys is the program administrator to offer these 10 units to income eligible households. Those interested can visit www.housekeys14.com/thebrant and must qualify to meet requirements of the program, which he described, including review of income, asset documentation, household eligibility, mortgage information, the drawing and ranking, the deadline of March 2nd at 5PM, the overall process, noted information can be obtained on the City’s website and said they are excited to see this move forward. There are approximately 1500 people who have entered for some opportunities and about 108 people have entered specifically for these properties, and 220 people on the interest list.
Councilmember Candell thanked Ms. Denman and Mr. Nyanda for their presentation. She said she visited the website of www.housekeys14.com/thebrant. Underneath it states the HOA fees are $743.56/month.
She asked if those applying under the program receive a discount on these dues.
Ms. Denman said the units will all be sold so they will be deed restricted. They will always be an ownership project. The HOA dues are based on units and not based upon income, given residents will have access to all amenities that a non-BMR unit would have.
Mr. Nyanda further explained that part of the way prices are calculated is they take the income limit and ensure the person is paying no more than 1/3 of their income towards the housing payment. Included in those assumptions is the HOA.
APRIL ROVERO, Chair, Contra Costa County Medication, Education and Disposal Safety (MEDS) Coalition, thanked the Council in advance for recognizing the month and for supporting prescription drug abuse awareness month as the month of March. She briefly described the work of their coalition and said this month’s focus is on education about drug safety and to take specific actions to curb the nation’s substance use disorder and overdose crisis. She then gave overdose death statistics from 2020 to 2021 of those affected based on data from the CDC, described an increase in fentanyl overdoses, asked to lock up medications, dispose of them properly, cited disposal locations, and asked to visit their website at www.cccmeds.org.
6. PRESENTATIONS
A. Public Art Committee – Annual Goals and Accomplishments Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign an Agreement between the City and Town Hall Theatre to use a portion of Town Hall Theatre’s site for the installation and display of rotating public art exhibits by local artists and to receive and file the Annual Goals and Accomplishments.
Jenny Rosen stated 2021 was a very good year for the committee where local artist’s work could be displayed in physical spaces. She introduced Chairperson Yukie Fujimoto who will provide a PowerPoint presentation after which time they can answer any questions regarding their recommendation to authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement with Town Hall Theatre to provide a second venue for local artists to show their work.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 10 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Yukie Fujimoto, Chairperson of the Public Art Committee, introduced Committee Members as Dave Dondero, Vice Chair, and members Carolyn Considine, Patrick Dunne, Erling Horn, Susan Loria, Janice Peacock and Sandra Wolfe, and said Ms. Rosen’s staff report outlines a list of their accomplishments and she highlighted a few of their projects via a PowerPoint presentation, as follows:
Lafayette Library and Learning Center
• Pamela Fletcher – New Expressions – October 7 – April 13, 2022 • David Lew – Freedom of Abstraction – April 13 – August 31, 2022 Town Hall Theatre Collaboration:
• Molly Gleason-Kodama – Molly’s Birds, A collection of portraits in gouache - March 7 – April 18, 2022
• Michael Robinson – Moods for Moderns, Contemporary figurative paintings – April 18 May 3, 2022
Virtual Art Galleries:
• Virtual Art Gallery – Pamela Fletcher, New Expressions – Online December 2021 • Virtual Gallery for Young Artists – Ava Tran, A Different Style of Living – Online February 2022 Lafayette DEI Mural 2021:
• Unity in Diversity – Lafayette resident Lara Dutto in collaboration with Three Thirty-Three Arts, a local non-profit, installed Unity in Diversity on the eastern wall of a privately-owned building at the northwest corner of Mt. Diablo Blvd. and Oak Hill Rd. in August 2021.
Gifts and More:
• Greg Moeller birdhouses
• Big Belly Receptacles
Development:
• On the recommendation of the Public Art Committee, the City Council unanimously approved the installation of two new works of public art that will each add a unique spirit to the City’s public art collection. The mosaic tile work and the free-standing sculpture are a result of the City’s public art requirement and will be prominent features at The Brant, a mixed-use development currently under construction on Mt. Diablo Blvd. at Dolores Drive. ➢ Mosaic Artist Aileen Barr
➢ Art & Design Team Wowhaus
Dandelions:
➢ Artwork by Kinematics Lab – David Cole and Michael Brown Lafayette Town Center Pathway and BART Bike Station
Madison Park:
3483 Golden Gate Way at First Street – Various displays Potential Public Art Programming:
• Utility Box Art Program
• Murals Program
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 11 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Looking Ahead:
1. The PAC may work toward updating the City's 2013 Public Art Master Plan which hasn’t been updated since its inception.
2. The PAC will continue its work to attach a minimum level of public art requirement to the concession waiver under chapter LMC §6-3611 regarding State Density Bonus applications to minimize the impact of Density Bonus concession waivers on public art. In addition, the PAC will seek to eliminate the sunset provision (LMC § 6-2612) to extend the term of the PAC indefinitely.
3. The PAC may explore creating and implementing programming, such as a Utility Box Art Program and a Murals Program.
Mayor Gerringer and Councilmembers thanked the Public Art Committee for their presentation and report.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
DAVID CLARK said he is on the Creeks Committee and at the Ad-Hoc Committee meeting they talked about other things including the Rain Garden on the adjacent parcel and how it might fit into the plan. A presentation was made regarding options like murals on the insides of the channelized creeks and they hope this will be the first of many collaborations with the PAC.
MARY ANN HOISINGTON thanked the PAC for their work and reminded everyone that art is how people see it. She is concerned about the mural, does not understand it, said it offends her every time she drives by it, and she hoped the City does not consider further degradation of the town with murals.
ERLING HORN said he enjoys serving on the PAC and commented that he was nicely jolted from a snooze at the end of the public comment warning sign, which he said he likes.
Vice Mayor Anduri thanked Dennis Markam and the Town Hall Theatre for agreeing to being a second gallery.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Dawson) to authorize the City Manager to sign an Agreement between the City and Town Hall Theatre to use a portion of Town Hall Theatre’s site for the installation and display of rotating public art exhibits by local artists and to receive and file the Annual Goals and Accomplishments.
Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gerringer asked if there were any requests for removal of items or public comments or requests for removal of items, and there were none.
A. Minutes – February 14, 2022
Recommendation: Approve.
B. Resolution 2022-12 Establishing the Rate Per Equivalent Runoff Unit for FY 2022-23 and Requesting the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Adopt an Annual Parcel Assessment for Drainage Maintenance and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 12 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-12.
C. Resolution 2022-13 Ordering the Preparation of a Report Proposing the Levy Assessments for FY 2022-23 for the Core Area Landscaping and Lighting District 1979-1 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-13.
D. Resolution 2022-14 Ordering the Preparation of a Report Proposing the Levy Assessments for FY 2022-23 for the Residential Lighting District 1979-2 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-14.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A, B, C and D. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Gerringer called for a brief break at 8:08 p.m., and thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 8:13 p.m.
8. OLD BUSINESS
A. Sarah Allen, Assistant Planning and Building Director City of Lafayette Mission Statement Update
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-16 approving the draft Mission/Vision Statement as recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee Mission Statement subcommittee.
Assistant Planning and Building Director Sarah Allen gave the staff report, background and most recent update of GPAC’s Mission Statement process. Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 2022-16 approving the draft Mission/Vision Statement as recommended by GPAC’s Mission Statement Subcommittee. She noted an amendment to the resolution that formally adopts the Mission Statement by way of an additional sentence after the ‘Whereas’ clause.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
ELIOT HUDSON stated the current draft incorporates important aspects of the priorities voiced by the broad Lafayette community, and he asked for the Mission Statement’s adoption.
GRACE DIXON commented that she agrees with Ms. Russell’s urging that the word, “recreation” be included in the Mission Statement, provided some suggestions and edits for the phrase, “life-long learning that respects semi-rural ambience that is guided” to be changed to “Lafayette’s vision is to be a welcoming inclusive, safety, family-friendly city for residents and visitors alike, that respects and preserves its magnificent natural setting, with excellent schools, and a commitment to life-long learning and active recreation. that respects and preserves its magnificent natural setting. ……..governments to make ensure Lafayette remains a highly desirable small town with a semi-rural ambience. We are that is guided by these principles.”
Mayor Gerringer said the Council received a couple of times the idea of whether they have captured the recreation facilities aspect. She asked if parklands capture the suggestions received in the last two discussions.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 13 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Councilmember Kwok said the first sentence states the City’s vision is to become a family-friendly city which he believes encompasses the things that would make the City family-friendly. In addition, the bullet point that states “build and maintain effective infrastructure” those facilities would be city owned and operated also defines what services the City would offer to provide a family-friendly city and include recreation, etc. Therefore, he questioned whether they should add more words onto this document, is happy with what is presented, thinks they already included these concepts, and did not believe changes should be made.
Mayor Gerringer said the GPAC Subcommittee talked about the risk of excluding versus including, and she thinks the language relates to the infrastructure for parklands, and she echoed Councilmember Kwok’s comments.
Councilmember discussion ensued regarding replacement of “that” with “and”, and Vice Mayor Anduri provided a grammatical analysis of the sentence and recommended approving it as is. Councilmembers concurred and also concurred with Councilmember Kwok’s comments.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2022-16 approving the draft Mission/Vision Statement as recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee Mission Statement subcommittee.
Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
9. STAFF REPORTS
A. Jonathan Katayanagi, Parks and Recreation Director
Lafayette Community Foundation Downtown Parkland Acquisition Fund Recommendation: Direct the Parks, Trails and Recreation staff and City Attorney to work with the Lafayette Community Foundation to draft a Memorandum of Understanding for a Lafayette Downtown Parkland Acquisition Fund.
Parks and Recreation Director Jonathan Katayanagi gave the staff report which outlines a potential fund for parkland in the downtown and a number of limiting factors the City faces when acquiring parkland. He introduced Cheryl Noll, President of the Lafayette Community Foundation and PTR Commissioner Grace Dixon. Staff recommends the Council direct staff and the City Attorney to work with the LCF to draft an MOU for Lafayette Downtown Parkland Acquisition Fund.
Mayor Gerringer announced that she and Councilmember Candell serve on the LCF Board and the City Attorney will provide an update. Ms. Subramanian stated the board positions are unpaid and the Foundation is a 501.c.3 and there is no conflict under the FPPC rules, nor do they believe there is a contract should the Council move forward with a contract or MOU with LCF under Government Code 1090 for a non-profit unpaid officer when the foundation or non-profit work primarily supports the City. This type of donation would be for park purposes that would support the City. Therefore, both Councilmembers can participate.
Vice Mayor Anduri said in a situation where the appraisal is $100 but the seller is not going to go below $120, he assumes this fund can address that. However, if the foundation were to put the money in separately, he asked if the foundation would be acquiring an interest in the land separately, which they could later donate to the City.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 14 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Mr. Katayanagi said as they step into the next phase of this and going into the MOU, these details will be worked out.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked how large a fund is contemplated that would be necessary to be effective. Mr.
Katayanagi said they have also not worked out these details. He would imagine the fund could grow to larger numbers as potential opportunities became available in the community.
Councilmember Kwok asked and confirmed this would be a fund that would be set up by the LCF so donors could potentially receive a tax deduction and also confirmed that donors would be members of the community and no City monies would go into this fund.
Councilmember Dawson asked how would funding come about. Mr. Katayanagi deferred to Ms. Dixon, but the LCF has a donation setup for those wishing to donate on a regular basis into those specified funds as well as joint efforts and the City being able to promote certain efforts.
PTR Commissioner Grace Dixon stated this is a brand-new project and she did not believe they have identified all different ways to raise funds ironed out. But it could be an on-going fund where families could contribute, i.e., $100 per month to knowing they are doing something tangible in order to make parks happen. They have started to have family-friendly events, and this could be advertised where proceeds would go to downtown parkland acquisition, as well as other ideas which would increase funds.
Cheryl Noll, President, Lafayette Community Foundation, said the LCF and Board support Mr. Katayanagi’s recommendation to move forward. Regarding questions, they have not gone through the many scenarios about potential possibilities and they will do that in working with the City Attorney to come up with an MOU. Regarding the funds, the LCF has set up “directed funds” in the past and this will be a directed fund for parkland and the public will know exactly where the donations will go and ultimately with clear parameters. The fundraising activities will come in the future and can also be partnered with the City and LCF.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
LAUREN HERPICH said as a former PTR Commissioner and downtown resident, she voiced support for a creative solution, recognized the work of Commissioner Dixon and Mr. Katayanagi for coming up with this idea, said the City is quickly outgrowing their small patch at Lafayette Square and needs to look at additional park spaces, especially for the downtown.
DAVID CLARK said he likes this potential solution, understands it needs to be reviewed in detail and is another tool, but it would help address the problem expressed so many times. He thinks it is an out-of-the-box creative solution and he voiced support to move forward.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to direct the Parks, Trails and Recreation staff and City Attorney to work with the Lafayette Community Foundation to draft a Memorandum of Understanding for a Lafayette Downtown Parkland Acquisition Fund. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Mary Bruns, Senior Transportation Coordinator
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 15 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Public Hearing - Submitting Two 5310 Federal Grant Applications to Fund the Lamorinda Spirit Van
Recommendation: Conduct public hearing, adopt Resolution 2022-15 certifying that no nonprofit organizations are readily available to carry out the services currently provided by the Lamorinda Spirit Van. Authorize staff to submit two 5310 Grant Applications that if approved would fully fund the purchase of a new mini-van and provide operating funds.
Mary Bruns, Senior Transportation Coordinator, gave the staff report regarding making time for agencies to show up to say they would like to do the work that the Lamorinda Spirit Van is doing. If no agencies show up to indicate this, as a public agency, they can move forward with two grant applications; one is for a replacement vehicle grant and one is for operating funds.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if staff is asking the Council to hold a public hearing and certify tonight that there is no other organization to do this or whether they need to have an additional public process. Ms. Bruns stated staff sent out 85 letters and a number of emails, as well as posted an ad in the Contra Costa Times inviting people to step forward. She asked that the Council adopt the resolution certifying that no nonprofit organization can carry out the services provided by the Lamorinda Spirit Van so they can apply for grants.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public hearing.
LAUREN HERPICH said she is interested in learning more about what is needed for more funding. She has learned that in talking with friends and public members at the Lafayette Elementary School that there is a large contingent of families on the west side of town who would love to create a van/carpool from the Highland Street area by the Veterans Memorial Hall down to the Lafayette Elementary School, and it might be a revenue generating idea for the Spirit Van.
Mayor Gerringer closed the public hearing.
Ms. Bruns suggested that at some point, they will have another gathering in order to implement the AgeFriendly community which is the work of the Senior Services Commission. This might be a great opportunity to bring this idea up at that time because they would like to get the public involved and discuss it.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2022-15 certifying that no non-profit organizations are readily available to carry out the services currently provided by the Lamorinda Spirit Van. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Candell, Dawson, Kwok and Gerringer; Noes: None).
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Dawson) to authorize staff to submit two 5310 Grant Applications that if approved would fully fund the purchase of a new mini-van and provide operating funds. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
B. Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director and Jean Eisberg, Contract Planner City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 16 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Assembly Bill 2923 Implementation Options – AB 2923 requires upzoning of the BART-owned parking lots to a minimum residential density of 75 units/acre and five stories by July 1, 2022.
The question before the City Council is whether to direct staff to prepare draft zoning regulations and objective standards for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider at a future date.
Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare draft implementing zoning and objective design standards for future consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings following public notification.
Recusal: Councilmember Kwok recused himself from participating in the item because this matter relates to the upzoning of the BART and his residence is located near the BART station. He is awaiting a formal response from the FPPC, and, out of an abundance of caution left the meeting.
Director of Planning and Building Services Greg Wolff stated the item relates to AB 2923 which requires the City take action to implement the TOD standards as published by BART in its TOD plan by July 1, 2022 or, if the City takes no action, that they would go into effect by default. The question before the Council is whether or not to direct staff to prepare draft zoning regulations and objective standards that the PC and Council can consider adopting or not adopting. Directing staff to prepare them would not obligate a decision.
He also clarified there are two questions relating to the BART Station; one relating to AB 2923 and implementation of the TOD standards which is before the Council. A follow-on and separate decision is to whether or not the City would like to identify those parking lots as housing opportunity sites. This question is not before the Council and while they can discuss it this question is a follow-on question that will come to the City Council once the GPAC and PC have had the opportunity to complete their work and make a recommendation to the Council.
Planning Consultant Jean Eisberg gave a presentation regarding options for implementing AB 2923 related to rezoning of the BART-owned properties, and staff is seeking direction about whether to prepare draft zoning regulations and objective standards for the PC and Council’s consideration. The questions are:
1. Should the City proactively rezone the properties consistent with AB 2923 or allow those standards to become effective by default on July 1, 2022; and
2. Should the City do any additional planning studies that are not required by State law but are good planning practices if they are looking for a project on these sites. If so, when should these studies be done.
Ms. Eisberg then provided an overview of AB 2923, discussed options for compliance, informally discuss the housing sites inventory without action being taken tonight, public comments received, and provided the recommendation as outlined in the staff report.
Vice Mayor Anduri said the hardest part here is the relationship between decision 1 and decision 2. He asked and confirmed with Mr. Wolff that while a decision does not need to be made tonight, the City is facing a July 2022 deadline.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 17 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Vice Mayor Anduri said one aspect of SB 330 is that if you upzone, then you cannot downzone unless you find another location in town to upzone. It is clear that if the City proactively upzoned to 75 unit/acre and in the unlikely event that AB 2923 sunsets without being extended he asked if the City would be foreclosed from downzoning. He believes the answer is “yes”.
He said if they let this happen passively and then AB 2923 sunsets, given the fact that the City did not proactively upzone, he asked could they then downzone.
Ms. Subramanian said this will be an untested question because this is a unique situation in the law that requires it to be automatically upzoned whether the Council takes action or not. She suspects if they tried to downzone and say SB 330 did not apply they would see if they could defend that in court, which may prove challenging.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to page 3-1 in the back of the EIR there is a statement to the effect that if BART sites are not rezoned BART’s TOD requirements would still apply. If the City could not use the sites to accommodate any units to meet Housing Element requirement and those units would therefore have to be distributed elsewhere. He asked if this is the understanding of where they are. If this is the case, then he thinks it has a big impact on the Council’s decision.
Mr. Wolff said if the City were to take no action with respect to AB 2923 and the TOD standards went into effect by default, staff believes that based upon BART’s 10-year work plan and Lafayette being identified beyond that 10 year plan into the 2030’s, they would be hard-pressed for HCD to accept the BART site as an opportunity site to accommodate RHNA if it is not foreseeable that development could reasonably occur within the next 8 years.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to the EIR and said there are several places where it refers to the BART sites.
On page 2-6 it states, “Because these BART lands are within a very high fire hazard severity zone the City has the option not to rezone the BART sites and to accommodate the same number of units that could be provided on the BART property somewhere else.” He asked if this is correct.
Mr. Wolff said no, there was an initial understanding and hope on the part of staff and the public that SB 330 allowed some relief or option to the City to accommodate that zoning elsewhere. They could do that solely under a RHNA circumstance, but staff directly asked BART if there is an exception which would allow the City to do that and BART has advised there is nothing in the statute itself. They offered no insight as to the applicability of SB 330, but SB 330 is protective of developers and property owners’ interests and not the City’s interests. Therefore, it does not give the City the authority to not upzone. So, the TOD standards would go into effect if the City chose not to upzone.
Vice Mayor Anduri noted that this statement appears four times in the EIR and he suggested ignoring it.
Mr. Wolff stated staff will communicate that to ESA to make that correction in the FEIR.
Vice Mayor Anduri said if they wanted to include units at the BART station in the City’s RHNA numbers, he asked what steps would they need to take. There are a number of options for a decision tonight, and if they want to include anything in RHNA, they must be proactive and upzone. But, given BART’s work plan, he asked what steps would they need to take to assure they could count part of the units on the BART site in the City’s RHNA numbers.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 18 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Mr. Wolff said that is not prescribed anywhere, but HCD has parameters regarding opportunity sites and it is staff’s understanding they would need to approach BART to indicate local support for a project within the 6th cycle and not continue to presume a future implementation that would be in the 7th or 8th cycle.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked who the City has to persuade for the units at BART to count. If the City were to go to HCD and say the City wants to move forward, he asked if they would say they would not give the City any credit until they hear positively from BART. Part of this is trying to gauge in making this decision how practical it is to get the result the City wants.
Mr. Wolff said to his knowledge there are no other city which has dealt with this issue previously. AB 2923 only applies to Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties. There is no prescriptive way of knowing and staff has received preliminary feedback on potential opportunity sites after meeting with HCD and he did not believe the BART site was one of them. The key factor will be housing production in the next 8 years in whether or not HCD is accepting of it as an opportunity site. BART does have parameters around how to entertain unsolicited proposals that they have not put out an RFP for, but HCD will need to see some level of indication from Lafayette that the site is reasonably foreseeable for residential development in the 6th cycle. That would mean the City would need to indicate so to BART.
Ms. Eisberg added that generally, BART’s process is that they have the City on the TOD work plan and then they work with the City to prepare a RFP to get developer interest, and that is when the project becomes more real and this is where staffing issues come into play for them to handle more than one at a time in any one year.
Ms. Subramanian clarified an answer she gave to Vice Mayor Anduri. She was looking at the exact language of SB 330 which goes back to the question about if the City reduces density later under SB 330 would the City have to upzone should AB 2923 no longer be in effect. The exact language relating to reducing density to a less intensive use on land within an existing zoning district below what is allowed under the land use designation in zoning ordinances that are in effect as of January 1, 2018. So, she thinks if they went back to this current zoning or what is in effect now which is January 1, 2018, there is an argument that the City did not reduce it to a less intensive use. If they dropped below that, it would be different but if the City upzoned to deal with AB 2923 and then came back down to what is currently zoned, there may be a way to avoid this issue.
Vice Mayor Anduri said this is only in the unlikely event that AB 2923 is not extended. Ms. Subramanian agreed, and said this is also how SB 330 is worded now. She noted SB 330 was set to expire and was extended.
Councilmember Candell said she would like to understand the real nuances of the City upzoning versus the State upzoning, not including the objective standards work. She asked if the City will still be able to enforce things like reviewing the project, CEQA and talking to BART if the State rezones versus the City rezoning.
Ms. Eisberg said CEQA is still required so the rezoning will not address CEQA per se. The rezoning will not address the discretionary process although it is conceivably possible that a streamlined project would come in, but it is highly unlikely. BART sees itself as a partner in this and is not trying to force something through.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 19 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
So, although the City wants to have objective standards she thinks they could still anticipate there is a partnership. What they see from other communities is that cities are weighing in on the RFP that BART is producing. This is part of why in their recommendation they suggest doing some goals and objectives that provide more subjective language around what the City’s priorities are. She then described how the City might want to have some transitions with development which could be put into objective standards as long as the City meets the 75 units/acre.
Councilmember Candell asked if that is rather part of the objective standards and not part of the zoning.
Ms. Eisberg said it could be either one. Right now, the objective standards are in the City’s zoning ordinance so it is a matter of a straight height limit versus having some step back standards in all zoning, including the design standards, but there may also be design standards that talk about what is happening in the front setback or porches versus courtyards, etc. So, there are some straight development standards versus design standards, but they are likely both within the zoning ordinance.
Councilmember Candell asked if they could put objective standards on the BART lots regardless of whether the City upzoned it or the State upzoned it. Ms. Eisberg said yes, right now the downtown objective design standards do not apply to this site so they would need to extend it to these parcels. The City would create its own standards for the BART lots regardless of the City rezoning versus the State default standards as long as they are still meeting the 75 units/acre limit.
Councilmember Candell said if they upzone the City gets one chance of doing it right because they cannot then downzone it. AB 2923 could sunset; however, there is the Constitutional Amendment that might get placed on the ballot in 2024. If that passes, if the City had rezoned it, they cannot undo it but if the State upzoned it, the City might be able to return it to existing zoning today without any action.
Mr. Wolff said he thinks the City Attorney advised that since the 75 units/acre and 5 stories was not in effect as of January 1, 2018, the zoning is single-family and in either case whether TOD standards go into effect by default or the City upzones, under SB 330 the City could return to today’s current condition and not be in conflict with SB 330. Ms. Subramanian added that if the Constitutional Amendment passed or AB 2923 lapsed, the City could adopt some regulation that would then supersede AB 2923 requirements.
Councilmember Candell said if they go through this and decide they only want to put parts of the parking lots into play, this will not affect it. Mr. Wolff said staff’s recommendation would be to have the City’s approach to all of the BART-owned land but not to upzone part of it. Regarding opportunity sites, the Council could parse that out and have it phased, for example.
Councilmember Candell referred to not having to make a decision tonight. She asked if this is a bit premature because GPAC has not weighed in on whether the sites will be used or not, as well as the public process coming forward. Mr. Wolff said there is nothing that would force the Council to make a decision tonight on this; however, the City will soon get to the point where they will not be able to implement before July 1, 2022 given the lead times necessary to implement new zoning. Pragmatically, staff is within 4 weeks of that date and it would be pushed at this point.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 20 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Councilmember Candell asked that given that, she asked if the City can implement all of these nuances in objective standards without doing the upzoning by the City. She asked if this would buy them more time to do this right. Mr. Wolff said effective July 1st the TOD standards could go into effect pursuant to State law and the City could choose at some subsequent date or simply not decide to apply those objective standards. So, they could follow July 1st. There is no requirement for the City to adopt objective standards applicable to the BART sites, but this is a best practice staff recommends.
Councilmember Dawson asked if the City could have a trigger overlay policy sort of thing where they would not necessarily upzone or apply standards unless there was a reason to, as BART is looking for the City to come to them. She thinks being proactive and acting on staff’s recommendation makes sense, and they can put aside that decision to upzone. She asked if the Council and staff would be considering hiring a consultant to put together these objective standards.
Mr. Wolff said in part it depends on how the City desires to approach it. If it is pulling from the existing downtown objective standards there is less involved.
Councilmember Dawson said she sees the standards for the BART lots as unique, given implications and how these parcels impact other parts of the downtown.
Ms. Eisberg said this second level is laid out on page 11 of the staff report and there are some general cost estimates likely from consultants so this is part of the recommendation--to comply with AB 2923 and to look at extending standards that made sense from the existing downtown objective standards.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he would like to be clear. His understanding is that if the City decides not to be proactive and it goes to 75 units/acre by default and the BART TOD requirements would go into effect. He asked if then the City cannot change those in a way that ‘weakens’ them, and the City will be locked into those requirements.
Mr. Wolff said he believes the City needs to comply with the TOD standards either proactively or retroactively. The timing of it is not the issue of degree of compliance. It is regardless of whether the City takes steps in advance of July 1st or after July 1st. Whatever the City would impose would have to align with and allow for those TOD standards.
Vice Mayor Anduri said it could be different from those standards, and Mr. Wolff said he would say it could be more refined. Vice Mayor Anduri said if the BART TOD passively goes into effect he asked if the City could then refine them later. Mr. Wolff said yes, and Ms. Subramanian said the only restriction is that the City can update zoning until the time that the District enters into an exclusive negotiation agreement with the developer for an eligible TOD project, and given comments from Ms. Eisberg, this will not be anytime soon.
Vice Mayor Anduri said if the City proactively upzones and they do a baseline or modest amount of objective standards the City wants, he asked and confirmed that anytime in the future, staff could expand on those with the caveat that the City Attorney has laid out.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 21 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Vice Mayor Anduri said he understands that GPAC will make its final decisions on March 15th and if the Council were to defer its decision they would at least be making their decision on the meeting after GPAC on March 28th which would still give staff 3 months to prepare the zoning measure. He asked what would be wrong if they wanted to use part of the site for RHNA numbers starting now on a specific plan that they would not enact before July 1st on what Lafayette would like to see on the 11 acres. This would be a much more detailed designed plan for what they want, such as more family housing, more parking, more open space such as plazas or parklets. If they would prepare that design and take it to BART and indicate this is what the Lafayette community really wants, he asked what would be the downside in doing that.
Mr. Wolff said he sees no downside in a specific plan. The only downside to delaying a decision on whether to implement some baseline zoning and objective standards is that the timing of it and their effectiveness before July 1st. They could follow-on after that date. The Council and the BART Board has obligations to the State to report on local jurisdictions’ level of compliance with AB 2923. There are various deadline dates with an effective date of July 1st, but he does not think there is a significant risk of a project being submitted if they are not in effect as of July 1st, but if that is the City’s intended compliance date and wanting to have objective standards in place or zoning in place, this is one month out and he is considering the timelines associated with implementing zoning and objective standards by ordinance, given 30 days of effective date with a first and second reading with public notification. So, it is about 2 ½ to 3 months to bring those into effect once they are drafted and endorsed by the PC and City Council.
Councilmember Candell said she understands the timeline is necessary for zoning changes. She asked what is the timeline to adopt objective standards by July 1st without a zoning change. Ms. Eisberg said the City is not required to adopt any objective design standards. The only things the City is required to do are development standards that are listed in the statute. BART is open to objective design standards, has indicated they will honor them as long as a project can still meet that 75 units/acre threshold. So, the City is not required to do any of that by July 1st.
Councilmember Candell asked if the objective design standards have the same legal requirements for adoption. Ms. Subramanian said typically the City has done it by ordinance so it would follow the same process Mr. Wolff mentioned earlier where the PC would make a recommendation to the Council, the Council would introduce the ordinance, hold a second/final reading and implementation would be 30 days thereafter.
Councilmember Dawson asked if this has any bearing regarding the City’s non-compliance with AB 2923.
Mr. Wolff said the State would be notified by BART as to the City’s efforts or non-efforts, what zoning is as of today and as of July 1st, and whether or not it conforms with AB 2923. However, there is no indication there would be enforcement action because the TOD standards go into effect regardless of City action.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
ELIOT HUDSON said he submitted a letter suggesting the Council might proceed with drafting a provisional zoning regulation, but this was on the assumption that if the City did not do something before the deadline they would be precluded from doing it later. Since that does not appear to be the case, he withdrew his suggestion. He recommended it be provisional only if and for so long as AB 2923 mandatory zoning is in effect. But, if the City does not have to, it should not.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 22 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
He noted one factor for BART in prioritizing sites it may rezone is whether a community wants development. Accordingly, the City needs to be as clear as possible that they do not. He would not worry about what might happen if AB 2923 is extended and there are other ways that AB 2923 might not apply in the future such as a voter initiative overriding it. Therefore, he asked not to deprive residents of the benefits if AB 2923 does not apply to the City in the future and to do the absolute minimum.
CHERYL MACDONALD referred to how density bonus law applies to projects and said if it is a 3-5 story building she asked if there is a possibility that density bonus, concessions and waivers could make the buildings taller such as 5-7 stories. She also said when she was at the BART station, the shuttle or transit buses were only for ends of the line which would be Pittsburg/Bay Pointe. GPAC discussed this and she asked if the City wanted to provide transit she asked if this would be paid for by the City or through possible grants.
ROBERT LAVOIE asked if the City is required also to increase the density outside the BART parking lots as well or just upzone the lots only. If the City must upzone the whole area, this would be a strong motivator not to be proactive about upzoning. If they allow the default zoning, he assumes it would only be the BART lots because they do not have authority over anything else, so this might be preferable. There is already not enough parking downtown and he thinks they have a sufficient number of homes to cover the City’s RHNA allocation without BART with current zoning based on several models he has looked at.
Mayor Gerringer replied to Ms. MacDonald’s question; that under State density bonus law, heights could be increased. Regarding shuttle or transit buses being for the end of the line, she asked staff how this would take place and be paid for.
Mr. Wolff said BART provides bus bridges when the tracks are being maintained and trains are not running or whenever there is an interruption. He thinks it skips the stations and goes to the end of the line. For Lafayette, there is CCTA bus service of County Connection between Lafayette’s station and Orinda’s station via St. Mary’s College. There have been additional bus routes in the past, but these have been cut.
These would be operated and funded by County Connection.
Mayor Gerringer referred to Mr. Lavoie’s question about not being proactive and asked if the City has to increase the density outside of the BART parking lots under the distributed scenario. She thinks upzoning will take place per statute whether the City does anything about other parts throughout the City.
Mr. Wolff said when staff proposed growth geometries for the Council’s consideration they identified 15 different areas and 12 of those were put forward into the EIR. They identified the two BART parking lots as Area 7. They envision that as being its own discreet area, subject to zoning, density and other standards.
Then, the area to the west, north and east; the Deer Hill corridor is Area 8 which is step down zoning from the higher density BART station and then maintaining the single-family zoning from that point out into Happy Valley and surrounding areas. So, there is no obligation to upzone outside of the BART parking lots under the distributed scenario.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 23 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Mayor Gerringer said she is trying to understand being proactive and the suggestion to move forward with what the Council believes it needs to do to have staff move forward to bring back a draft for implementing the zoning and objective design standards for further consideration. She still thinks there are reasons to do that and move forward, recognizing that it does potentially waste staff time and it ensures the City has that analysis done, the ordinance is before the Council and the PC has the ability to review and ready design standards by July 1st.
She was not sure she understood what the “trigger” is because her understanding is that it will happen on July 1st by statute, and she questioned what triggers the City implementing theirs if it is not in connection with upzoning.
Councilmember Candell said her trigger to do this the right way is the result of GPAC’s work where they are obtaining community feedback on opportunity sites and whether there is interest to develop at the BART lots. She cannot make her decision on what to do until that happens. How the City positions itself is based on all of the results from the GPAC’s work which is not yet done.
Council discussion ensued regarding staff’s recommendation, waiting versus moving forward given GPAC’s decision on March 15th, staff’s ability to adopt standards after July 1st and start working on the standards, the feeling there is not a downside to have staff return with the analysis for zoning and objective design standards, opportunities to move forward to set up the process, positioning the City to be ready to move forward, staff’s work plan and Ms. Eisberg’s ability to complete work for the PC and the Council, potential delays because of differing views of the PC and Council, letting zoning go into effect without taking action, questions regarding rezoning sites as part of the Housing Element and being able to include units in RHNA and taking proactive steps so RHNA numbers count, assumptions that GPAC will recommend using BART for units and strategizing steps to move forward which allows staff to start preparing, and the suggestion to receive an update on March 28th after GPAC has made their recommendation.
Mr. Wolff noted staff believes it is a low risk if they do not meet the deadline of July 1st but emphasized staff would still maintain its recommendation.
Vice Mayor Anduri moved to direct staff to prepare draft implementing zoning and objective design standards for future consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings following public notification.
Councilmember Candell asked for an amendment to include direction to staff to return to the City Council after GPAC meets.
ACTION : It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to directstaff to prepare draft implementing zoning and objective design standards for future consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings following public notification with an update on March 28th before going to the Planning Commission and after the GPAC meeting on March 15th. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, and Dawson; Noes:
None; Absent: Kwok).
Rejoined/Noted as Present:
Councilmember Kwok rejoined the meeting and was noted as present at 10:40 p.m.
11. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR – None
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 24 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
12. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked to agendize for Saturday’s meeting an item to authorize the City Manager to purchase a Ukrainian flag and arrange to have it flown from a flagpole under the City’s management.
Councilmembers voiced support.
Councilmember Dawson reported the news of Bob Athayde retiring who brought a lot to the community and asked for a way to honor him. Mayor Gerringer stated she and the City Clerk are working on this as well as other proclamations.
Mayor Gerringer stated Saturday’s meeting will the Council’s goal setting session from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Nadine Levin will facilitate the discussion and the session will be recorded and streamed on U Tube.
B. City Manager’s Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Ms. Srivatsa stated she had no report.
13. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Email from Jay Lifson, Executive Director of the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, requesting permission to use Lafayette Plaza for Lafayette’s first “Lafayette Community Day” on Saturday, June 4th from 8am to 4pm including No Parking on Plaza Way from 8am to 5pm.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-11.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Dawson) to adopt Resolution 2022-11. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
B. Email from Matthew Smetak, Vice President Communications of the Thirty-Second District PTA of the California State PTA, requesting a proclamation celebrating 125 years since its founding.
Recommendation: Approve a proclamation celebrating 125 year since the founding of the PTA.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Dawson) to Approve a proclamation celebrating 125 year since the founding of the PTA. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
C. Email from Clove Cross requesting a proclamation recognizing March as Prescription Drug Abuse Awareness Month on behalf of the National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse (NCAPDA).
Recommendation: Approve a proclamation recognizing March as Prescription Drug Abuse Awareness Month.
City Council, Planning Commission, GPAC, Page 25 of 25 February 28, 2022 Public Art Committee Meeting
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
CLOVE CROSS thanked the Council for approving the proclamation recognizing March as Prescription Drug Abuse Awareness Month.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Dawson) to approve a proclamation recognizing March as Prescription Drug Abuse Awareness Month. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes:
None).
14. ADJOURNMENT – 11:00 p.m., in honor of the brave Ukrainian Citizens and in thanks to retiring Lafayette Librarian Vickie Sciacca.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Teresa Gerringer, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk