City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 1 of 34 May 23, 2022 7 City of Lafayette
City Council
Capital Projects Assessment Committee (CPAC)
Meeting Minutes
Teleconference Meeting – Watch on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel at May 23, 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) Join the Meeting Remotely: Use the links below to join the meeting and provide remote live audio public comment.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84378685587?pwd=o6d-7uw5YHsk7fgBX-Dy_g9GsI4h9Z.1 Passcode: 811083 or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128; Webinar ID: 843 7868 5587 Passcode: 811083
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 2 of 34 May 23, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Gerringer called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Gerringer; Vice Mayor Anduri; Councilmembers Candell, Kwok and Dawson
Absent: None
Present: CPAC: Gary Huisingh, Chair; Lee Thompson, Vice Chair; Member Bob McClain
Absent: Members Ann Farrell and Mike Lohman
Staff Present: Mike Moran, Engineering and Public Works, Director; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Francine Kuykendall, Public Works Manager; Renata Robles, Senior Planner; Suzanne Iarla, Communications Analyst; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Candell) to adopt the agenda. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Candell, Dawson, Kwok and Gerringer; Noes: None).
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - (for Items Not on the Agenda)
JOHN BRIGGS said he and others are working on a 2024 ballot initiative that will create a law to say local zoning laws will override all state zoning laws.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recognizing Bob Athayde, Pianist and Stanley School Music Educator Recommendation: Receive and file.
Mayor Gerringer read highlights of the proclamation into the record, dedicating the weekend as Bob Athayde Weekend. Mr. Athayde has dedicated his professional life to enriching others through music and wished him well in his retirement after 39 years as a music educator within the Lafayette School District.
Bob Athayde, Pianist and Stanley School Music Educator, thanked the Council for their recognition and support.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
ROB STURM expressed appreciation to Mr. Athayde for his work in benefitting decades of students through music, cited his love for music and true passion, and wished him well in his retirement.
DON TATZIN spoke about his participation in the Stanley Symphonic Band with Mr. Athayde, thanked him and wished him well in his retirement.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 3 of 34 May 23, 2022 Mr. Athayde said the community can continue to hear him play at Bonehead Barbecue every Thursday from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. or at LA Finestra Restaurant in Moraga on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights.
Mayor Gerringer and Councilmembers recognized Mr. Athayde for his retirement after four decades of service to the community, and a round of applause followed.
C. Don Tatzin, Community Representative for State Senator Steven M. Glazer Legislative Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Don Tatzin spoke about updates with the legislature and said Senator Glazer is in Sacramento voting on a large number of bills right now. At the Council’s last meeting, the Council adopted positions on 7 bills, and he provided an update on each of them. All Senate bills have gone to the Senate floor and then will go to the Assembly. The Council also opposed three Assembly bills and of those, two have moved onto the Assembly where they will be voted on this week or next week, and one was held in the Appropriations Committee dealing with affordable housing impact fees for the density bonus units. This bill will most likely not proceed during this legislative year.
He said all of Senator Glazer’s bills have proceeded to the Senate Floor with the exception of one he authored as the Chair of the Senate Elections Committee. SB 843 increases the renter’s credit to $500 for single renters and $1000 per households and has had broad support. SB 911 would provide grant funding for public interest media. SB 1012 says if you are a park district your rules regarding fires have to be at least as restrictive as the fire jurisdiction or city in which you are located. The Fire Camp bill passed last year is still looking for funding and hopefully the $90 billion surplus will allow for that to happen. Bills have also been submitted by other legislators and some deal with reproductive health, another dealing with a limited employment compensation for workers who are excluded from the current workers’ compensation scheme which are generally those who do not have resident permits, and many others.
Councilmember Candell recognized Senator Glazer after learning he lost his office five times which shows great strength and integrity. He always voted for what was right and what his constituents would want him to vote on. She thanked him for literally hand-carrying the request for the audit of the RHNA numbers at HCD to every single audit member on the committee and got the emergency audit, and she wished him well for running for State Controller.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mayor Gerringer and Councilmembers thanked Mr. Tatzin for his update.
B. Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahn
Legislative Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Marilyn Lucy, Legislative Aide, apologized and said Assembly Member Bauer-Kahn is still in legislation session and not able to be here and provided an update on her behalf. The Capitol is running full steam ahead, bills have to get out of their house of origin this week and sessions tend to be extended. Her bill package addresses key topics such as protecting vulnerable eco-systems, abortion care, gun safety and gun violence prevention, as well as bolstering public safety.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 4 of 34 May 23, 2022 Summer is fast approaching and she spoke of drought and wildfire risks, sign-up for evacuation alerts and learn about other resources www.readyforwildfire.org and www.caloes.ca.gov. She introduced AB 2070 which requires utility companies to provide clear communication and notify local fire districts before any fire safety or mitigation services are conducted in a high fire risk area. She also introduced AB 2083 which protects constituents from having to pay for settlements that utility companies agree to.
She then described investments in the May revise budget for Cal Fire of $.37 billion and over 10,000 positions to combat the fire season, $83.1 million of one-time funding to help bolster Cal Fire’s fire protection resources through December 2022, and over $150 million to help enhance the Department’s capabilities to meet demands of wildland firefighting.
Regarding housing, the January budget proposed $5 billion in housing investments and the May revise adds an additional $500 million to help accelerate affordable housing production. The City of Lafayette worked to obtain funds from the State budget to begin the design of Safe Routes to Acalanes High School Project. Lastly, she relayed her Sacramento office and District Office in San Ramon maintain a very busy schedule but are able to meet with constituents.
Mayor Gerringer asked when communities will find out if their projects have been selected, and Ms. Lucy said she was unsure but can follow-up with her.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
ROBERT LAVOIE asked if Ms. Lucy could comment on progress for finding funding for affordable housing, given the $90 billion State surplus.
Ms. Lucy welcomed the opportunity to speak with Mr. Lavoy and asked to contact their office at 925-244- 1600.
Mayor Gerringer and Councilmembers thanked Ms. Lucy via Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan for everything she has done and continues to do for the City of Lafayette.
D. Capital Projects Assessment Committee (CPAC)
1. Capital Project Assessment Committee (CPAC) Annual Update Recommendation: Receive and file.
Gary Huisingh, Chair, CPAC, introduced Lee Thompson and Bob McClain and stated Mike Lohman and Ann Farrell could not be present tonight. They thanked staff and Councilmember liaisons Candell and Dawson and said the CPAC meets annually to provide guidance and oversight for the City’s capital projects and he gave the following feedback to staff as outlined in the report:
• In general, the Committee is in support of the proposed 5-year capital improvement program if the entire program can be funded.
• Safety for all transportation users is important and the Committee is in favor of funding the safety improvements near schools and the roundabout/Olympic Boulevard/Pleasant Hill Road modifications to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The Committee is in favor of the Palos Colorados impact fees being dedicated to these improvements.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 5 of 34 May 23, 2022 • The Committee is willing to dedicate the Palos Colorados fees for the projects mentioned above knowing that there are other development impact fees in the Lamorinda Fee and Finance Authority (LFFA) fund balance that can be used for other road maintenance and complete streets projects downtown.
• The Committee is aware that projects on streets located downtown (Moraga Road, Mt. Diablo Boulevard, First Street, Oak Hill Road, and Deer Hill Road) have been deferred until Lafayette completes the Downtown Specific Plan Update.
• In the future, committee members are willing to participate in a design review process for capital projects. Although staff has not in the past relied on CPAC members to provide a technical review of project designs, members are well-equipped to help improve any designs they review. • CPAC is aware that the proposed PTR projects listed in the 5-year capital improvement program are placeholders and that the actual projects will change based on funding and PTR priorities.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
JAMIE HESSION asked what happened to putting Vision Zero task force together before moving forward with any projects.
LAUREN HERPICH asked if PTR projects will be viewed as placeholders until the PTR Commission prioritizes them and/or has funding or she asked if downtown projects are on hold while the Downtown Specific Plan is being worked on.
ROBERT LAVOIE asked to explain more about the Moraga Road Improvement project for $3.3 million, asked if this was going to be displaced by the Vision Zero plan, asked if the road will be narrowed or would it impact traffic flow.
Public Works and Engineer Director Mike Moran responded to comments, stating the Vision Zero task force will be put together as part of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The City has awarded a contract for that plan which will take several months to do but will start when the City’s new Transportation Planner begins on June 13th.
Regarding the PTR projects, Mr. Moran said they have placeholders for these projects and the PTR Commission has held discussions and their projects flip around based on priorities and funding streams.
The projects identified are those PTR would like to accomplish and the actual order and funding sources will change year to year, but the department staff will work together with the PTR Commission on them.
Regarding the Moraga Road Improvement project, Mr. Moran said there is a good chance it could be displaced by Vision Zero, but staff does not know. The Council may recall this project was deferred when it was decided to update the Downtown Specific Plan because it will funnel right into the downtown. With safety improvements near schools discussions and how roads feed down the Moraga Road corridor, it will all tie together, so there will need to be public meetings held to discuss various options for Moraga Road.
Mayor Gerringer and Councilmembers thanked CPAC members for their review of the capital improvement projects.
2. Capital Improvement Program Update and Proposed 5-Year Projects City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 6 of 34 May 23, 2022 Recommendation: 1. Adopt the Proposed 5-Year Capital Improvement Program and allocate funding per staff’s proposed funding sources. 2. Authorize staff to file a Notice of Exemption for the 2022/2023 capital program projects.
Mr. Moran provided an overview of the staff report, described completed projects, on-going projects, staff analysis and recommendations, the proposed 2022/2023 Capital Improvement Program and revenue sources, five-year street maintenance and project list, fiscal impacts and the review process.
Staff recommends the Council: 1) Adopt the proposed 5-year Capital Improvement Program attached and allocate funding per staff’s proposed funding sources; and 2) Authorize staff to file a Notice of Exemption for the 2022/2023 capital program projects.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to the BART Pathway and asked if it is budgeted in the current fiscal year. Mr.
Moran said it had been budgeted in previous fiscal years and they have not spent it, so it is a carryover. $980,000 of it is from Measure J and there are development fees, a $12,000 pathway fee and a $12,000 City matching fee.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to the Rain Garden and the 99% design. The Council allocated a certain amount and he asked when an estimate will be received on this project and he asked how that will fit in the budget.
Mr. Moran explained that they know the estimated budget is significantly higher than their budget of $289,000. They will know once they open bids for that and then he would have to determine whether or not there is any fund balance from the last couple of years which can contribute towards that. He also thinks this project is scalable to reduce costs a bit.
Councilmember Kwok referred to Year 1 with the monies coming from the Palos Colorados impact fees.
He asked how much the total bucket of funds, the amount allocated by the Council for Vision Zero as well as to engineering staffing purposes. He asked if the $950,000 previously approved or he asked if this was a new request to be released from the Palos Colorados impact fees.
Mr. Moran said of the $1.3 million, the Council has approved $608,000. There is still the balance of this which has not been formally requested and this is the first “ask”. The $950,000 has not come to the Council at all. It just became a part of what was Olympic Boulevard resurfacing project. With discussions about roundabout safety improvements, Complete Streets and Vision Zero elements, they have a request to make those improvements and make those changes so this increased the cost substantially. He has no funding source for it and the only new funding for Vision Zero is the Palos Colorados impact fee.
Therefore, they are requesting the total of all of those fees to be spent on safety improvements near schools and Vision Zero components of the Olympic Boulevard project.
Councilmember Kwok asked and confirmed the initial amount of the Palos Colorados impact fees is approximately $2.25 million.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
JAMIE HESSION questioned what happened to the LSRP as she thought that had to be in place before applying for grants.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 7 of 34 May 23, 2022 Mr. Moran said the LSRP is a requirement for some grant sources like the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Honestly, it is a requirement for grants where the City will not compete very well.
Ms. Hession said she did not feel staff was making the Vision Zero task force a priority, thinks staff is making it harder than it has to be by not applying for grants where the City does not compete well, and asked to prioritize Vision Zero.
Mayor Gerringer agreed moving the task force along is important and staff is starting with the City in June who will be working on this and the consultant. Some of the projects with Palos Colorados funding the Council approved a couple of months ago during their updates to the budget, and these are settlement funds and not a grant. The Council chose to commit some of that to the road safety projects during the analysis by Toole.
Ms. Hession thanked Mayor Gerringer but thinks there are components of Vision Zero that are not being followed here which are political commitments, the action plan, cooperation and collaboration, multidisciplined leadership, community engagement, transparency, no data, and no equity. Lafayette is not even recognized as a Vision Zero community, and she questioned the oversight.
Mayor Gerringer said she can speak with Ms. Hession after the meeting and said the City is committed to moving the Vision Zero project forward and has reached out to the network.
CHERYL MACDONALD said she and others are very excited for the new Transportation Planner to start with the City, noting it has been a long time coming. She hopes the public is involved with the Moraga Road Improvement project and asked if Moraga will be involved in the Moraga Road Corridor Study.
Mr. Moran said he has spoken with his counterpart in Moraga. They know this is a project coming and more formally Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda are working on an update to an action plan and they anticipate Moraga Road will be re-designated as a route of regional significance similar to Pleasant Hill Road. Therefore, whenever changes are made to routes of regional significance, they hold discussions with counterparts.
Councilmember Dawson thanked Mr. Moran and CPAC members for the presentation, report and work on the proposed 5-Year CIP and supported dedicating the $2.25 million to Moraga Road improvements.
Vice Mayor Anduri thinks the City needs to maintain its pavement condition index level at 76, thinks the Rain Garden will be great project, recommended spending the $200,000 in the unfunded column for design so they have 100% design work on shovel-ready projects, and voiced support of knowingly committing the $2.25 million Palos Colorados dollars to Moraga Road. He also recognized that the City has carved out $1.3 million for the Vision Zero quick fix projects at the schools and he agrees with allocating the remaining $900,000 to the road projects.
Councilmember Kwok voiced support of the 5-Year CIP as presented, recognized that they are dipping into a special bucket of funds that he feels are special funds and that the City needs to be able to raise funds sustainably for the projects they undertake. He supports keeping the PCI high and hoped to be able to ask the public for assistance in future years to sufficiently fund its infrastructure given the City does not always receive settlement monies.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 8 of 34 May 23, 2022 ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Dawson) to 1) Adopt the Proposed 5-Year Capital Improvement Program and allocate funding per staff’s proposed funding sources; and 2) Authorize staff to file a Notice of Exemption for the 2022/2023 capital program projects. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
3. Adopt Resolution 2022-34 Authorizing Use of SB-1 Funds for Lafayette’s 2022/2023 Pavement Maintenance Complete Streets Project
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-34 Authorizing Use of SB-1 funds for Lafayette’s 2023 Pavement Maintenance Complete Streets Project.
Mr. Moran gave the staff report and presentation on the SB-1 reporting requirement for projects. The City is required to spend its baseline pavement maintenance funding plus whatever revenues received from gas taxes. The City received $400,000 to $500,000 in the past, and this year the City stands to receive approximately $700,000 this next year. The paving project would satisfy requirements which is Olympic Boulevard, St. Mary’s Road and Glenside Drive. It may be packaged as one or two projects, and the City must comply with its use of SB-1 funds.
Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 2022-34 authorizing the use of SB-1 funds for Lafayette’s 2023 Pavement Maintenance Complete Streets Project.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
JANET THOMAS thanked Mr. Moran for his tireless work, is excited to have the Transportation Engineer begin with the City, and said she has an idea for a project that would benefit Lafayette which is a quick shuttle to go back and forth during non-commute hours along the Deer Hill Road corridor to service the Terraces to BART and Happy Valley to Acalanes. She met with the Superintendent of Acalanes who is supportive, said they need help with parking, and asked the City to consider buying the small lot across from the Terraces which is for sale or leasing it to have an EV charging station and shuttle parking lot. She knows funds are restrictive, but the City needs to continue asking citizens to fund this through a tax.
LYNN MACMICHAEL echoed Ms. Thomas’s comments, thinks residents can go door to door to get people on board for a tax to make the shuttle happen, and said it would benefit many people.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Dawson) to Adopt Resolution 2022-34 Authorizing Use of SB-1 funds for Lafayette’s 2023 Pavement Maintenance Complete Streets Project. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gerringer asked if there were any requests for removal of items or public comments, and there were none.
A. May 9, 2022 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve.
B. 2022 Mandatory Review of Conflict-of-Interest Codes
Recommendation: Direct the City Manager to review the City’s Conflict-of-Interest Codes.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 9 of 34 May 23, 2022 C. Letter of Support for CCTA Grant Application for the USDOT’s Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) Competitive Grant Program: 680 Forward Program
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign and forward a letter of support for CCTA’s proposed 680 Forward program.
D. Revocable License Agreement with East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the revocable agreement (R/W X1787) with East Bay Municipal Utility District for the construction of a drainage inlet and storm drainpipe within the EBMUD aqueduct right of way.
E. Quarterly Financial Report – 3
rd Quarter, Fiscal Year 21/22
Recommendation: Receive and file.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Kwok) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A, B, C, D and E. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
7. OLD BUSINESS – None.
8. STAFF REPORTS – None.
9. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Francine Kuykendall, Public Works Manager
1. Core Area Landscape and Lighting District 1979-1 Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Recommendation: Conduct public hearing and adopt Resolution 2022-27 Confirming the Engineer’s Report, Diagram and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Core Area Landscape and Lighting District 1979-1.
Public Works Manager Francine Kuykendall gave an overview of the staff report regarding the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Core Area Landscaping and Lighting District 1979-1, and said staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 2022-27 confirming the Engineer’s Report, Diagram and Assessments proposed.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public hearing, and there were no public comments. She then closed the public hearing.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2022-27 Confirming the Engineer’s Report, Diagram and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Core Area Landscape and Lighting District 1979-1.
Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, Kwok; Noes: None).
2. Residential Lighting District 1979-2 Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Recommendation: Conduct public hearing and adopt Resolution 2022-28 Confirming the Engineer’s Report, Diagram and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Residential Lighting District 1979-2.
Ms. Kuykendall then gave an overview of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Residential Lighting District 1979-2 and said the public hearing is a requirement of the approval process. Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 2022-28 confirming the Engineer’s Report, diagram and assessments proposed.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 10 of 34 May 23, 2022 Mayor Gerringer opened the public hearing, and there were no public comments. She then closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed that this process raises $12,000 for the Residential Lighting District 1979-2 assessments. He asked how much time it takes for staff to do this work and questioned whether there is a different way to process this. Ms. Kuykendall said she can look into how much time it takes, but the law requires certain steps they must go through for the process for both Core Area Landscaping and Lighting District and the Residential Lighting District.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if it would make more sense to unwind the districts at some point and for the City to take on the costs in its budget rather than go through this every year, but said he is supportive of approval for both.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2022-28 Confirming the Engineer’s Report, Diagram and Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Residential Lighting District 1979-2. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Gerringer called for a brief break at 8:06 p.m. and thereafter reconvened the regular meeting at 8:12 p.m.
B. Renata Robles, Senior Planner
Draft Housing Element Update – The Housing Element is part of the General Plan, the City’s guiding policy document for land use and conversation. State law requires cities to update their Housing Element periodically to identify sites and programs to demonstrate that the community is capable of accommodating the housing unit quotas established by the State’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, amongst other requirements. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the project.
Recommendation: Hold a public hearing, provide feedback to staff, establish a final opportunity sites inventory, and continue the matter to the June 27th City Council meeting for action.
Director of Planning and Building Greg Wolff stated staff had previously presented the Planning Commission and GPAC’s recommendations and appendices. Tonight, the Council will see additional appendices listed in the staff report, including the Housing Element Opportunity Sites Inventory. He turned over the presentation to Senior Planner Renata Robles and Housing Consultant Diana Elrod.
Senior Planner Renata Robles stated the Council will be conducting a second review of the Draft Housing Element Update. She said she will provide a refresher on the overall Housing Element and projected timeline for the update, will discuss comments which were received at the previous Council meeting, review remaining Housing Element components, housing resources and sites inventory, review of the prior Housing Element, and public participation narrative. Staff is looking for a continuance to the June 27th Council meeting.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 11 of 34 May 23, 2022 Ms. Robles first provided a refresher on the overall Housing Element and timeline for the update. The Planning Commission and GPAC spent over one year reviewing and preparing the draft components of the document which is before the Council tonight. In early May, the Council conducted the first review of certain components and staff is looking to submit the first draft by the end of June and provide time for staff to respond to public comment and incorporate public comment into the Draft Housing Element and return it for Council review at the end of June.
The State has indicated they anticipate two, 90-day reviews of the document, starting with an initial comment letter which the City will need to make revisions and respond to comments and then submit again for another review, in the hopes of meeting the January 31, 2023 deadline.
She then described the Council’s review in early May, revisions made which are outlined in the staff report, edits made for clarification and adjustments based on the sites inventory, a request for data regarding overcrowding cost burden for the background data appendix; however, that data is not currently available. As other communities in the county release their Housing Elements, staff will look to those to try and seek out that information and incorporate it as needed in future revisions. There were other clarifications and expansions made to the remaining appendices. The Council recommended specific programs relating to ADUs which were incorporated as well as a change in the timeline for updating the DSP.
Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant, gave a PowerPoint presentation and said the Housing Resources and Sites Inventory Appendix includes 22 pages of information on housing resources, financial resources that could accrue to a developer of housing, especially housing that is affordable as well as administrative resources, i.e., the City of Lafayette and the County. It includes the inventory of sites with a detailed methodology, increased ADU numbers since the last version the Council saw, looked at affordability breakdown by every planning area, provided a non-vacant housing sites analysis, also talk about the AFFH analysis regarding the inventory and they revised the inventory based on a variety of changes.
Ms. Elrod then described RHNA and said Lafayette must find a way to accommodate those for enough land zoned at appropriate densities. She presented the 5th cycle of 400 units for RHNA and the current or 6 th cycle increased to 2100+ units. She then described the process staff conducted on a parcel by parcel level, noting that developing a plan for housing is not a mandate to actually develop sites. In fact, some sites will be developed with housing and other sites will be developed without being on the inventory and it is basically a mathematical exercise to say the City can accommodate these units at various income categories in their inventory with a buffer.
The City must make sure housing for affordable units is zoned for 30 du/acre or more. They cannot assume any site less than ½ acre can be developed for affordable housing. In the EIR they looked at a total of 3400 units and must consider the no net loss provisions. They wanted to make sure the bulk of the housing was located within the planning areas. There was a general understanding they could accommodate housing for 95% of zoned density in most places or 90% yield on Mt. Diablo Boulevard.
Ms. Elrod then described what can count towards RHNA projections which is anything that achieves a Certificate of Occupancy after June 30, 2022, and she described projects the City can count, but said they cannot assume any site that will be developed with density bonus units, nor are there provisions to allow the City to count SB 9 potential units right now. She then displayed and explained a slide that talks about zone density versus what is built on sites where they have found a number of developments have gone above zoned density, which she described, and which resulted in overall density at 111% of zoned density.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 12 of 34 May 23, 2022 The City must ensure new affordable developments and high density developments are proximate to goods and services and transit, looking at ways to make housing more affordable in these locations, understand neighborhood context and adjacencies, preserve open space, and the inventory has reviewed all of these factors.
Ms. Elrod then described thatsite identification was conducted by staff, by the GPAC, and the communityat-large, who offered additional potential sites for review. State Housing and Community Development (HCD) feedback was received that provided guidance on how to approach various kinds of sites and what the City would need to do to include certain sites. She described the variety of State criteria for sites, the buffer, the capacity needed in the existing inventory, and the goal to ensure there is enough capacity to accommodate lower income units so the City does not need to upzone or find new sites within the 8-year planning period. The City has always experienced under-production of low and very low income units given the cost to produce them and so the Council needs to consider whether to have a robust lower income buffer, noting they cannot count certain sites for affordable in the inventory, and there needs to be more backup sites that meet the criteria. Staff has also prepared a number of spreadsheets where people can play with the numbers and modify columns B and L.
Regarding GPAC’s recommendations, they wanted to include the 11 acres of the DeSilva Site and include DeSilva North, exclude Deer Hill Corridor, and include sites in Areas 1-6 and 13 with no change to density.
They wanted to project 240 ADUs at a distribution slightly different than what is before the City Council now, and they wanted to include the BART parking lots at 75 du/acre at 95% realistic capacity.
The Planning Commission recommendation is slightly different. They wanted to exclude the southern DeSilva site, include the northern DeSilva site, wanted to exclude Deer Hill Corridor, and they wanted to split the northern half of Areas 1, 3, and 5 and upzone them to 50 du/acre but leave those that are fronting on Mt. Diablo at 35 du/acre. At the time, they were looking at much lower ADU numbers of 112 units over the 8-year cycle, based on some interim guidance from the State. The distribution would have been 30- 30-30 and 10% above moderate, so it would be a different distribution of ADUs. Also, the PC recommendation would include the BART parking lots at 80 du/acre with 95% realistic capacity.
Ms. Robles called out this change in the downtown density, stating because the PC chose to exclude the DeSilva south site which is 11 acres and would have yielded about 300 units, it triggered the balloon effect where one area is squeezed and then the units must go elsewhere. Because of that, the PC got creative and identified this potential solution which would result in upzoning portions of the Downtown, but tried to be responsive to public comments seeking to retain the street front character on Mt. Diablo Boulevard, retain ground floor commercial space, but as a result had to upzone certain areas and went above the State mandated 75 du/acre at the BART parking lots.
Ms. Elrod said originally staff thought they could only get 14 units per year as ADUs, but the change in guidance has been in the number of units they can project as well as their income distribution. She also said the City Council revised the inventory the last time they met to exclude DeSilva South, include DeSilva North, exclude Deer Hill Corridor, and include sites in Areas 1-6 and 13, but no change in density and project 240 ADUs. This includes the BART parking lot at 80 du/acre with a 95% realistic capacity.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 13 of 34 May 23, 2022 Mr. Wolff then presented the revised inventory which was slightly different than what the PC had recommended based on new information on ADUs which is the next to the last bullet which he displayed.
The housing package the legislature passed a few years ago took some time but is gaining steam and making streamlining the process for ADUs. There has been a noticeable uptick in the last 3 years on the number of applications for ADUs as well as the permits and final inspections. With the increased ADU count to 240, there is approximately 30 per year over the 8-year cycle, which is well within the capacity y based upon the graph.
Vice Mayor Anduri said although this slide is headed “City Council Revised Inventory” and although it was said that the Council discussed his at the last meeting, the Council was not allowed to discuss this at the last meeting so what is on the screen is the staff recommendation. Mr. Wolff confirmed.
Ms. Robles stated as part of Appendix C there is also an overview summary of where these units ended up being allocated across this inventory. Staff provided percentages here as well and will incorporate that into the appendix which is more helpful to see than distribution.
Ms. Elrod then said the AFFH analysis is part of the effort to remove barriers to accessing housing in Lafayette. They must also ensure the opportunity sites identified in their inventory do not conflict or exacerbate any of those barriers so they cannot be identifying sites intended for low income housing that are concentrated in areas of racial and ethnic concentrated areas, which do not exist in Lafayette but is still an assessment they need to do.
Lafayette is a high resource community and by nature, all sites have access to those high resource areas, and there are no concentrated areas of segregation or poverty within Lafayette and so these sites will not necessarily exacerbate those conditions. However, there are analyses needed with regard to segregation and displacement and so there are some areas with higher levels of numbers of lower income households in the downtown likely due to older apartment buildings or where there are naturally occurring lower rents. Therefore, the City needs to ensure those groups are not getting displaced as sites may be redeveloped. But, the trade-off is that these are areas closest to goods, services and transit which is key, especially for affordable housing and maintaining lower costs, helping toward sustainability goals, and keeps new housing outside of fire hazard zones.
Ms. Robles then presented a new Appendix E, which is Review of the Prior Element. This was discussed when developing new goals, policies and programs. The City completed a number of goals, but many were on-going and not very actionable, which is something the State has identified as a key priority for this new Housing Element cycle. Many were converted to policies instead and staff found those were less effective because they were not actionable tasks to be completed by the City.
Finally, Appendix F is a summary of their engagement activities and outreach undertaken as well as key take-aways from those discussions. Many participants have voiced the desire to retain the City’s smalltown character. Housing affordability costs are also prominent in the community and they have also heard significant concerns about preservation of open space, capacity for schools and infrastructure to support new residents and housing, wildfire risks and evacuation, transportation, and how to make Lafayette an inclusive community while balancing all of these concerns and issues.
Ms. Robles concluded the presentation and said staff is available to answer any questions of the Council.
Staff recommends holding the public hearing and review the remaining components of the Housing Element of Appendices C, D with regards to the site inventory, E and F.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 14 of 34 May 23, 2022 Councilmember Kwok referred to an earlier slide regarding the schedule. The City is going to try and submit to HCD by approximately July 1st which would give them 90 days to provide their comments. He asked if it is October 1st the City would have 30 days to revise or react to comments to amend the City’s plan. Then, it is resubmitted by November 1st, and asked if this is correct. Mr. Wolff confirmed and said staff budgeted conservatively to allow for two, 90-day review periods.
Councilmember Kwok said if they resubmit on November 1st, he asked if HCD will take all of the 90 days to the end of January where there is no more time for the City to make further revisions. Mr. Wolff said staff would have the opportunity to revise the plan. When the process began there was one statutory review period for 60 days which was expanded during this effort. The guidance has said they are on average taking two, 90-day periods, and staff is trying to accommodate that to the best of their ability.
There is a grace period and staff will work expeditiously to turn around and make any necessary changes and resubmit timely. The majority of Southern California cities are still not in compliance, and the City is doing its best to accommodate what they have been told by the State.
Ms. Robles said it is not their intention also to submit it and wait. She has heard from other planners that have reached out to their reviewer about questions and issues, so hopefully they could have advance notice to start preparation before the comment letter is released.
Councilmember Kwok asked if the second review period was 60 days, and Mr. Wolff said he has not seen this published and confirmed it was two, 90-day review period.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the BART’s 80 du/acre. Some members of the public have commented they wish it would be 75 du/acre and he asked staff to explain the rationale for proposing 80 du/acre.
Mr. Wolff stated the one notable change between GPAC’s recommendation and the PC’s recommendation was that GPAC by a 6-5 vote voted to include DeSilva South site wherein the idea is that 11 acres would be upzoned to 30 du/acre and accommodating roughly 300 units. The PC did not want to do that upzoning at that location and thus wanted to accommodate those units closer to goods, services and transit. Going from 75 to 80 du/acre helps achieve the loss of units GPAC had on the DeSilva site. The City would meet its RHNA at 75 du/acre; however, the buffer would be reduced so the PC was cognizant of that buffer and recommended 80 du/acre.
Vice Mayor Anduri thanked staff for reaching out to him and voiced appreciation. He also disclosed he had a long meeting with Guy Atwood and Colin Elliott which was helpful as well. On page 10 of 11 of the staff report there are two charts that show the amount of the buffer with BART lots at 75 du/acre and at 80 du/acre. Below on Number 8 it states, “Provide for a buffer for low and very low income” and it uses different percentages than either of those charts. He asked if staff looked at this and have identified what the numbers should be.
Mr. Wolff said he did look and was not able to discern where the parenthetical numbers came from. They are not part of the 75 du/acre table above nor the 80 du/acre. Going back to GPAC’s recommendation and the excel worksheet these are not the numbers nor the PC’s. Therefore, he would strike the parenthetical numbers and rely on the two tables above.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 15 of 34 May 23, 2022 Vice Mayor Anduri said the average is still 29% which is not the number in either of the charts. He noted that one states 28% and one is at 80 du/acre it states it is 31%. He asked which one it is. Ms. Robles stated the tables are correct. The excel workbook included in the staff report matches the BART lots at 80 du/acre table on page 10 of 11. Therefore, it should read an average buffer of 31%.
Vice Mayor Anduri said at 75 du/acre it is an average of 28% and earlier in the report it talks about looking for at least a 20% buffer for the very low and low income, and in another area it talks about the fact it would be ideal if they could have 30%. He asked what would be the problem with going in with a buffer of 28% on the very low and low income, and 75 du/acre for BART given that the staff recommendation includes going in with 95% and 90% as opposed to 100% and 95%.
Mr. Wolff said it is very much a policy decision on the part of the Council. It goes to the degree of buffer and the comfort level. Just as the Council is doing financial budgeting, the direction to staff has always been to be to budget expenditures conservatively, and high and revenues low, which would leave them in good shape at the end of the year. The Council will notice that staff has not concentrated their eggs in any one basket by allocating 100% lower income anticipating an affordable housing project. Rather, they have allocated across all of the sites generally with the allocation that RHNA has been allocated to them which is an acceptable practice pursuant to HCD. This would not violate anything under HCD as their guidance is 15% to 30% buffer. It is really a level of comfort that the City Council would need to come to around not having to upzone mid-cycle and having to go through that process again during the cycle.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he appreciates the additional analysis that went into the ADUs, bringing it from 116 to 240. The Council has received public comments asking that they look at a higher number and he asked staff how comfortable they feel with the 240 and to provide analysis of public comment numbers.
Mr. Wolff explained that based upon the data they were able to pull and illustrate in the graph in tonight’s presentation, he is comfortable with defending the 30 ADUs annually over the term. To go above that he thinks the City would have less reliable data to project higher numbers. It may ultimately prove out but there has been clearly some pent-up demand which staff is seeing, but that upward curvature of the graph will start to moderate as that demand is starting to be satisfied. Given the costs associated with constructing ADUs, he did not think the City would necessarily see an uptick associated with trying to build ADUs as revenue-generating properties because of the timeframe for return on investment. Certainly, based on the trend staff has seen, he thinks 30 can be presented to HCD and they would be accepting of it.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked staff to confirm what the staff recommendation includes is no upzoning in the downtown. The only upzoning in staff’s recommendation is the State-mandated BART lots and the DeSilva North property. Mr. Wolff confirmed.
Councilmember Candell asked how the Council will be going through each of the appendices and asking questions. Mayor Gerringer stated given staff gave the entire presentation, Councilmembers should ask all questions now.
Councilmember Candell referred to BART and said she remembers hearing they could increase the yield on BART up to 100%. This was a comment and she asked how comfortable staff would feel if they went 75 du/acre and increase the yield to 100%.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 16 of 34 May 23, 2022 Mr. Wolff said he thinks this remains to be seen. He thinks staff is taking a conservative approach but modestly conservative with respect to yield. They have demonstrated through the data in the projects that they are seeing projects exceeding the zone density. They do not have that track record for 75 du/acre for the BART property and there is a competing desire on part of the community and City to accommodate substantial replacement parking, and costs associated with that. Therefore, it is not a large discount off of 100% so he thinks HCD would approach staff and ask, what assurances does the City have that it would be built at 100%? And that question goes away at 95%.
Councilmember Candell then referred to the Draft Housing Element 9B, Action 1.3 on page 31. It has to do with the policy to target inclusion of all types of affordable housing. The quantified objectives are the same as Action 1.2, which is design a regional loan forgiveness program. It seems these two actions would have different objectives and she asked to understand the justification for the regional loan forgiveness program as the only thing they could list for Action 1.3.
Ms. Elrod said this was provided by Root Policy which did a lot of work for the City on AFFH.
Vice Mayor Anduri said one problem with this is there is some language in the last two boxes which were duplicated, and Councilmember Candell said this is her concern. Ms. Elrod said she will have to go back and look at those because she is not sure they are connected, or it may be a typographical error.
Councilmember Candell said in the Actions, the Council was talking about housing vouchers and how they think owners and the public are not educated enough on accepting them or pushback against them. There was the thought of having an education program to educate homeowners on housing vouchers. She asked where that should go because it is not in the Actions.
Ms. Elrod said it should be in the AFFH Actions, and Councilmember Candell said she did not see it. Ms.
Elrod said she will include it.
Councilmember Candell said in a couple of different places they are going to do something “to the maximum extent feasible”. She is an engineer and is not allowed to write specifications like that because they are not testable. Her concern is what the City thinks is feasible versus what the State thinks is feasible.
They could be different things and if that is the case, she asked if they should change the language to be something that is not confusing with its interpretation.
Mr. Wolff invited the City Attorney to speak to this, but in the presentation and the writings, the State has found past Housing Element programs and their deliverable to be a little more amorphous and so has directed cities to have quantified objectives to the maximum degree feasible. Not everything is going to come down to numbers. So, he thinks they would be hard pressed to have all quantified objectives be empirical and you will have competing priorities, one having a satisfactory or a budget surplus to be able to respond to a natural disaster, for example. If monies were committed to paving roads you could pave more roads, but then that rainy-day fund will have been lost for an emergency. The same would go for housing.
Councilmember Candell referred to Appendix B under Restraints on Page B-22 and 23. There are fees and an argument that the multi-units are different than the single one. It makes the statement that the City’s existing fee levels are appropriate and do not generally constitute an undue government constraint and then they go into that next section. She asked if the City is required to do this by HCD or she asked if the City is imposing it on themselves even though they know they are okay.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 17 of 34 May 23, 2022 Ms. Elrod said the City is statutorily required to provide this information. They must demonstrate that single family housing is not disproportionately lower than multi-family housing in terms of fees levied.
Councilmember Candell asked why is says they do not generally constitute an undue government constraint on housing production. It seems that they say we are fine and then it says the opposite.
Ms. Robles said she thinks the distinction is that our fees are appropriate within the context of other similar jurisdictions in the County. She thinks the fee figures are similar to other cities but maybe not the costs across different housing types.
Mr. Wolff clarified that they were able to glean data from other jurisdictions in Contra Costa relating to fees for units and unit types. The City’s fees are definitely in the middle or below the middle in terms of costs per unit. Separate from that, how the City attributes its fees between multi- and single family, some are per square foot, but the majority are per unit. There is a disproportionate cost per square foot because multi-family tends to be smaller square footage. So, he thinks what staff can do is try to clarify that and highlight the fact the City is not a jurisdiction that has high fees. Then, they can try to craft a narrow program to see if they can refine internal fees to more equitably assess them based on square footage versus unit.
Councilmember Candell referred to the sites, many comments were received about using BART, especially the letter from East Bay For Everyone. Inclusive Lafayette has said the City may not be able to use BART in its inventory. The City does not say what it will do if they get to use BART and she asked if it should go into detail here in order to justify the inclusion into BART.
Mr. Wolff said if the Council is inclined to include BART he thinks it improves the City’s case to the State to elaborate more fully the steps the City is willing to take to make that happen.
Councilmember Candell referred to the letter from Willy and Melissa Thorne about the ADUs because Willy builds them. She asked if this could be included as a letter to help the ADU production justifications.
Mr. Wolff said this can absolutely help. He did not see the letter and asked if it was in the packet that came in today, and Ms. Elrod said yes, it came in late.
Councilmember Candell said under the AFFH Actions and a height action under Item 8.2.A, she asked why they need to relax height because everyone gets waivers and concessions.
Mr. Wolff said unfortunately this is not a clear mathematical solution to it. He thinks what they have acknowledged is that recent applications that have invoked State density bonus law have sought a waiver associated with building height. He thinks it behooves the City to acknowledge that and say as much to the State and to look at whether the City’s height limit is an undue restraint. Any height limit will always be a limit or constraint unless the City is willing to have no height limit. When focused on, the question is whether the height limit of 35 feet is constraining development along with the other factors of setbacks, open space, parking, etc. So, he thinks they can look at that and not make the assumption it is not a problem nor that it is an undue constraint but try to understand on the side of the development community what would be the sweet spot for a given product type and a given density that makes it buildable without having to request waivers and concessions.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 18 of 34 May 23, 2022 Councilmember Dawson said she wants to be sure the tables are consistent among the appendices and asked for a mechanism to ensure this. She asked and confirmed with Ms. Robles that Councilmember Candell was in Appendix G. The Fair Housing Action Plan is included in this Implementation Plan so staff has one document for that which is updated, and it is in two other places.
Councilmember Dawson said A.2 is similar in terms of “Evaluate and adjust the City’s inclusionary and density bonus programs”. Her concern with these types of actions is that they need to have objectives and something to measure it by and steer away from the study. If the objective is to do that, she thinks they already have their objective design standards and the State density bonus laws will naturally come into play. If they look at policy in terms of an affordable housing overlay policy with a certain amount of units that would be built on a particular property which the City designates, then there may be more reasons to “give” a little more. Otherwise, if they blanket it the City may not get the product they want in terms of affordable units.
Mr. Wolff asked if the idea is for an incentive program for a higher degree of affordability; that there may be increased height limits or reduced setbacks.
Councilmember Dawson said yes, and it would be a way of putting it into a policy where the City actually gets something for it that the City will be measured against in terms of achieving very low- and low-income housing. Mr. Wolff stated staff can look at this and determine if they can come up with a numerical objective standard and if not, then in advance of the Housing Element going in then as a function of that analysis.
Mayor Gerringer thanked Councilmembers for their questions and thinks if the Council is including BART, she suggested ensuring this is recognized by HCD. In looking at ways to investigate overlays and ways to be more proactive in the City’s Housing Element, there is a lot of good information and she suggested utilizing and commenting on what has been presented.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
ELIOT HUDSON said the draft Housing Element has been improved in substantial ways and he thanked the Council for directing those improvements. They are closer but not where they need to be to protect Lafayette while still complying with State law. Most important is that they have two meaningful periods for conversation with HCD and their proposal is based on HCD guidelines and approvals granted by HCD.
There will be time after the first 90-day period for reasonable adjustments as well as outreach to HCD during review periods. There is no reason to follow the line of logic to over-zone now in order to avoid the possibility of adjustments years down the road.
He asked to change the Community Characterization which is still not accurate. The comments for more affordable housing and the cost of housing overstate that position from surveys. Housing personal statements need to be adjusted because the only meaningful statements are not from people currently seeking housing in Lafayette but also from people who have worked hard in the past to gain housing. The stories submitted need to reasonably balance the statements from residents and not just those cherrypicked by staff. With respect to actual numbers, he referred the Council to the work of Colin Elliott and Mr. Lavoie. They have proven to be right on many points staff previously resisted.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 19 of 34 May 23, 2022 With respect to BART, the Council should keep it at 75 du/acre and yield at 100%. The ground floors will be suitable for low income and very low income. The current staff recommendation increases the size and density which will be opposed and hated by everybody in the neighborhood and will unnecessarily increase the mass of building that is entirely inconsistent with Lafayette. With respect to upzoning of DeSilva, this is not needed at this time and should be rejected.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if Mr. Hudson was referring to the North DeSilva property. The South DeSilva is not proposed to be upzoned by staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Hudson said this is correct and apologized he has been working on a trails property, so he referred to Mr. Elliott’s and Mr. Lavoie’s recommendations.
JOHN BRIGGS said he agrees with Mr. Hudson’s comments, said he also noticed the amount of staff time being used to do this which is unbelievable, and this is just the first large RHNA and thinks the next cycle will be even worse and take a tremendous amount of time. All of the laws are coming to the City with no regard to infrastructure costs. He said they are trying to get a petition going that will change laws where local zoning laws will override all State zoning laws. He wants to implore the Council to back this initiative because it will eliminate the expenditure of staff time doing mathematical exercises and get zoning back to where it belongs which is local control. Lafayette became a city simply to get local control back from the County and now it is worse where people in Sacramento telling them exactly how the City must look in the future. It should be up to the City in terms of what they want and hoped to get other cities like Lafayette involved. He cited wind, fire and traffic issues and said people will die because of these laws.
MAX HENINGER, Inclusive Lafayette boardmember, thanked staff for their work on the draft, knows it is not an easy task, said he works full-time with affordable housing and said 45% of total units must be affordable for households earning less than 80% of the area median income. The current draft assumes the City will be able to hit that threshold without any major new policy changes which is not realistic, noting only 4% of housing built over the last cycle was in that range. He thinks an affordable housing overlay would be a great idea and said they would like to work with the Council on that, suggested a City source for 100% affordable housing built by non-profit developers and to push for more affordability within the 2114 units.
KEVIN BURKE, East Bay for Everyone, referred to his letter sent to the Council, said he is interested in the City’s and other cities’ abilities to produce more housing, said right now in Southern California, 190 jurisdictions have submitted Housing Elements that HCD has found non-compliant, said they are finding that the cities are not producing maps of realistic sites, failing to affirmatively further fair housing, and based on Lafayette’s draft, it is preparing to lock in the same issues these cities are experiencing. The entire discussion of how much to produce is based on reverse engineering what the Council wants its city to look like in terms of density, and instead of looking at the chance for redevelopment of each site to how many sites to hit numbers, it is starting with the 35 du/acre, density cap, and then reverse engineer that to hit their RHNA target. Every site assumes a 45% BMR ratio and this is higher than anything ever built in Lafayette.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 20 of 34 May 23, 2022 Also, thanks to AB 1397, every single non-vacant site that was present in the last Element must permit development at 20% BMR, so the City must explain to HCD why a developer would build 45% BMR when legally you have to allow them to build only 20% BMR. There is no explanation of how this is going to happen. The City did no analysis of parking requirements and governmental constraints. Site F is a stone’s throw from the BART station and to build that site a developer would have to consolidate two lots and also figure out how to build 22 parking spaces on a 6,000 square foot lot. This is not physically possible when considering stairs, a driveway, pillars, a ground floor entrance and potentially ramps. He suggested considering adjusting the parking minimums. The BART site is also not realistic. He has a letter from BART staff today saying that rezoning the site enough alone is not sufficient to get it in the Work Plan for the next 10 years. HCD places very high weight from property owners and in this case, they will conclude BART is not planning to develop on that lot, and the City needs to go above and beyond and provide additional investment to BART.
Lastly, Southern California cities are starting to get sued, such as South Pasadena and they will ask to suspend Lafayette’s ability to approve non-housing permits and grant a judge approval to permit housing applications until a Housing Element is adopted. Finally, it will allow anyone to build unlimited density as long as projects offer 20% affordability, which is known as the “builder’s remedy”. He thinks the City wants to avoid that and he suggested getting serious about the site inventory.
ALISON HILL thanked the Council and staff for their work, said she is addressing her comments to comments heard, and said she moved to the City 53 years ago and it has changed a lot in that time mostly for the better and she would not want it to be the way it was in 1969. She voiced concerns when she hears people saying their elected representatives are not doing what they were elected to do. These are generally people who do not approve of the Housing Element and perhaps the City should say “no” to it.
She knows many people who strongly support more housing and affordable housing in Lafayette.
Unfortunately, they are less vocal than those opposed to it. The other concern is the City is required by State law to fulfill the various housing requirements with severe penalties if obligations are not met. What the state has is a serious housing crisis everywhere and especially affordable housing. She voiced concern with the rapidly increasing homelessness including families with children, seniors, and she applauded the City’s efforts.
COLIN ELLIOTT said he would like to return to the BART question and density on BART and said he was ambivalent at this point as to whether they use a 95% or 100% yield on BART. We are okay in numbers at a 95% yield because if you put BART density at the 75 du/acre and a 95% yield, you get a combined low and very low-income buffer of 28%. If you look at the PC recommendation, their recommendation was a 28% combined buffer. He is confused as to why they need to go to 31%. The PC was happy with 28%, the City can get there with 75 du/acre at a 95% yield. He questioned staff is making BART any more difficult than it is with the State. He thinks adding density there when they literally do not need to is an unnecessary risk and could open a Pandora’s Box, particularly down the road with density and heights they do not want. It is easy to get lost in the trees and not see the forest on this and he thinks staff has ended up this way.
Regarding the ADUs, he appreciates staff redoing the numbers to 240. He believes it could be higher and he would point out that there are 13 or so Housing Elements that have been approved in Southern California. He got through 7 of them and they were all using the same weighted approach on ADUs that staff is now using. His only other issue is to commend the consideration for affordable housing overlay zones which is an area where the Council can give additional benefits to developers who develop low and very low-income units and it will be important.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 21 of 34 May 23, 2022 PATTY BATTERSBY thanked staff and the Council for their work and time, said she is very concerned as a Glen neighbor is maintaining the semi-rural residential character of the town. She thinks taking the easy and conservative approach is not the way to go at this point. She voiced support of Mr. Elliott’s and Mr.
Lavoie’s proposals and thinks it is entirely reasonable under State mandates, and Lafayette is nowhere near where Southern California has been with the lawsuits. She urged the Council to take a strong approach on this, thinks the review periods are important for a very strong representation of the City, asked the BART density be limited to what is required by State law, asked the Council not to upzone the downtown which will destroy the district, and a tremendous amount of research has been done about ADUs and realized there is a redlined Housing Element draft dated May 13th and it shows that there are 20 ADUs that have been applied for through. If calculating this, it would be 60 per year or 480 per year for an 8-year cycle. They have talked to architects, residents, checked tax assessor records and feel ADUs have been under-counted. ADUs are being built for family members for no rent or very low rent so this should add tremendously to the numbers projected. She urged the Council to justify up to 60 ADUs per year and thinks this is a great way to achieve affordability.
ROBERT LAVOIE said he is pleased with evolution of the sites inventory, appreciates staff modifying things a bit, except for BART at 75 du/acre density as it is a wash between 80 du/acre and 95% and 75 du/acre and 100% yields. It comes out to 27% to 29%. He has heard if the City upzones to 80 du/acre this could make it more possible to get bonus densities whereas if you use the state-mandated 75 du/acre this is not the case, and he asked for clarification on this. The City can always increase it later if needed. Regarding comments on the yield, they can justify 100% literally everywhere in town except Mt. Diablo and offer 95% there, but it is basically offering an olive branch to HCD. As far as the buffers, they should be able to come in 15% to 20% on the low end especially when using 240 on ADUs which is low balling their number, and they will probably come in higher based on the actual numbers being built.
He has not seen any stories about ADUs, but these should be included in their story time at the beginning because ADUs are the real solution to affordable housing in Lafayette. People can age in place, allow adult children to stay in the community, considering a 2/2 condo is $2 million. The plan talks about concentrating affordable housing downtown and he does not think that is a real issue, and schools are all high performing. Regarding support of 60 ADUs per year, he thinks if they get into a pinch in the second round with HCD, he thinks this should be a backup plan.
CHRIS MICKAS thinks it is fair to say the strategy is to concentrate almost all of the upzoning at the BART sites. In many ways it makes sense and there are some unique advantages namely discounted leases. He is skeptical about the timeline slated for development because of BART’s TOD Work Plan. Lafayette has remained at the bottom of the priority list and stations are not planned for development until after 2030 outside of the RHNA cycle and unless this changes, HCD might conclude that development on these sites is unlikely and reject these opportunity sites. Frankly, he thinks HCD should be skeptical of Lafayette’s commitment to development of the BART sites, as Council has historically been opposed to AB 2923, publicly commenting opposition to the state taking local control and vocally opposed to development of the sites in the past. Their only real commitment has been the state-mandated upzoning and inclusion as an opportunity site which is mathematically convenient, and the City is specifically treating this as a mathematical exercise.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 22 of 34 May 23, 2022 So, unless the City proactively makes a case they want to be moved up in the plan, HCD may not look at this as a legitimate site. He thinks the City should be proactive because BART has limited resources and he does not know that upzoning will be enough. He also would like to see the public’s views about the City’s communications with BART as it seems there is a bit of a grey area between what Lafayette needs to do to make BART development feasible and what the City needs to do to show HCD it is actually committed to development of the BART sites. He thinks this site is critical to the Housing Element and future affordable development in Lafayette and suggested the information be made public.
JEREMY LEVINE said he thinks it is a shame that the Housing Element is being treated like a purely mathematical exercise. The City requested thousands of hours of the community’s time to give public input, surveys, workshops, etc. and they gave the City their vision. Regardless of mathematical exercise or vision document, HCD has described the Housing Element as a contract between the City and State to implement new policies. On March 8th Inclusive Lafayette sent a letter outlining their vision, with policy recommendations that were informed by their core philosophical tenant. People can only be included in a community if they are able to live there. People cannot live in a community without homes for them or receive benefits of this city’s work to promote anti-racism if there are no homes for them. He voiced concerns people have which is that they want gradual change everywhere along the Mt. Diablo corridor, some upzoning on the BART lots, DeSilva property and all of the study areas downtown. He struggles to imagine increasing allowable building heights by one-half story or increasing density by 10 acres on all of Mt. Diablo would be so bad. They envision incremental growth of dense mixed-use neighborhoods on both sides of the Mt. Diablo corridor, and they hope the City will incentivize mixed use.
Some people are concerned that if they upzone in downtown it will upset the jobs/housing balance.
Lafayette has lost a few hundred jobs in recent years; however, he has yet to see anyone present evidence that new housing actually displaces jobs. The City is losing jobs under its status quo zoning rules and regulations and it is not working. Lastly, Inclusive Lafayette thinks it is really important that the City finance affordable units and they think there are many opportunities for the City to find funding, such as the Pro Housing Designation created by the State.
LIBBY HENRY referred to her letter sent earlier today, said she does not believe the City’s mission statement should be taken lightly by anyone and she thinks it is really important to keep to it and at the same time it has been shown by many people and staff that they can meet the standards and still maintain Lafayette’s character. The vast majority of residents here do not want to see the entire downtown upzoned, has mixed feelings about the ADU issue, and she supports Mr. Elliott’s scenario on how to develop BART with 75 du/acre meets standards as well as the buffer rather than losing more jobs. She thinks 950 jobs would be lost with development in the downtown which can be verified by the Chamber of Commerce and she asked to forget about commercial development in the BART area.
CHERYL MACDONALD echoed comments of Ms. Battersby and Mr. Elliott, supports the 75 du/acre which is what the State requires and not necessarily upzoning BART at this time, supports the concept of waiting a bit to see what HCD reports back after the 90 days, and supports the Chamber’s thoughts on the downtown and did not want to lose the service industry and drive to other towns to get services.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 23 of 34 May 23, 2022 KRISTINE RASMUSSEN said she has been listening all night and she was involved with GPAC from the beginning but was speaking as a private citizen. She would really like to encourage the Council to select the sites as recommended by staff and Colin Elliott. She also thinks BART should be set back to the 75 du/acre which is State law, and she believes GPAC had a strong recommendation for this. Regarding ADUs she thinks this is the best way for the City to create truly affordable housing. Everyone would like to see affordable housing come to the City and she believes this is the most organic natural way of having it happen. They could add low income units throughout the City and in neighborhoods that would not be suitable for taller buildings and multi-family housing mostly due to fire, etc.
As an example of how an ADU would work for a low-income couple, her parents are retired, live in a house and would love to age in place. If they did not have ADUs available for them, they would be selling their house, have to pay half in taxes and then would have to take a mortgage out to get one of the expensive units downtown because there are no affordable units being created or not enough using high density housing. She would encourage the City Council to push the ADU numbers as high as they can and also to bring the plan to HCD and see what they say. In closing she asked the Council to approve the proposals put out by staff and Colin Elliott.
Mayor Gerringer closed the public portion of the hearing. She said after a break, Councilmembers can go through the documents one by one and she can raise questions that came out of the public comments and any additional questions. She also said the Council had talked about potentially having this on the Council’s June 13th meeting agenda for one more opportunity before the June 27th meeting and they can wait to decide this after the break.
BREAK
Mayor Gerringer called for a break at 10:17 p.m. and thereafter reconvened the meeting at 10:22 p.m.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he would like to make sure they get to Item 11.C and asked the City Attorney to open that item now and then return to the Housing Element.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said the Council usually opens items up and then start it so the Council can get to 11.C and then continue with this public hearing. Vice Mayor Anduri said the Council can probably address it in one minute.
Mayor Gerringer asked and confirmed the Council was amenable to moving up Item 11.C.
11. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Vice Mayor Anduri and Councilmember Dawson
Resolution 2022-35 appointing three members to the Banner Advisory Committee Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-35.
Vice Mayor Anduri stated he and Councilmember Dawson are liaisons for the Banner Advisory Committee and there are three long serving members of the committee whose terms are up. They all wish to reapply and are enthusiastic about continuing to serve. One public comment was received urging the Council to reappoint these members and they recommend that Larry Blodgett, Judith Klein -Flynn and Lori Lane be reappointed for another term on the committee. Councilmember Dawson concurred.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 24 of 34 May 23, 2022 ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Dawson) to adopt Resolution 2022-35 reappointing Larry Blodgett, Judith Klein Flynn and Lori Lane to the Banner Advisory Committee. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
Continuation of Item 9.B
Mayor Gerringer referred to Appendix C and asked Councilmembers for comments.
Appendix C; Opportunity Sites and Resources:
Vice Mayor Anduri had the following comments:
• He referred to page C-7 and said 3.2 talks about the Contra Costa County Housing Authority, how the City does not operate its own Authority, and the last sentence states “The HCCCHA also manages public housing units across the County.” Mr. Wolff confirmed earlier with him that the HCCCHA does not manage any units in Lafayette and he asked that it state that. • He also said if, for some reason, HCD’s reaction for the BART property is that the City is not in the BART TOD Work Plan when they have received 2114 units because the City has a BART station, on page C-7, Section 4, the Site Inventory Overview, second paragraph when talking about “Each jurisdiction is then assigned a portion of the regional need based on factors such as growth of population and adjusted by factors including proximity to jobs and high resource areas and access to amenities.” He asked to include “transit or transit station” or be specific and state “BART station” to make it clear which is one factor in how the City got assigned the 2114 RHNA.
Councilmember Candell noted the City received additional units because of it. Vice Mayor Anduri said it does not fit into the flow there but asked that it be worked in somewhere. • Vice Mayor Anduri then referred to page C-10, 5.4, second paragraph, he suggested removing all of the reference to the DeSilva South site.
• Similarly, on page C-14, under number 7; Opportunity Sites Approved by the Planning Commission, the first paragraph states, “The Commission’s changes can be summarized as follows:” The second bullet is “The proposed sites north of the BART station should be excluded from the inventory” needs to be deleted because that is not a change from the prior proposal. • He referred to the chart on page C-15, this chart was adjusted to show the totals under very low, low, moderate, and above moderate are all minus one of what they should be. For example, the 736 should be 737 on the total line, and Ms. Robles made this change on the chart she displayed earlier in the presentation.
• Vice Mayor Anduri said everything else he has is minor and he will send in an email to staff.
Councilmember Dawson had the following comments:
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 25 of 34 May 23, 2022 • She referred to page C-14 where Vice Mayor Anduri was referring to 14 where they go through the methodology of opportunity sites approved by the GPAC and PC and she asked if the City is sure BART will accept the City’s units being applied to them because they have it written into the explanation. She asked if this is something to leave in as part of the narrative because the Council is assuming it is going to be approved.
Mr. Wolff said from staff’s perspective if the Council would like to include BART they have work to do to make that happen and have HCD accept it, then the narrative should include that. If the decision changes at some point in the future, staff can revise the narrative, but he thinks the two should be consistent.
• Councilmember Dawson questioned if they should have that somewhere under actionable items where the City would be pursuing those discussions with BART which is not included now in Appendix G. Mr. Wolff stated staff can include this.
Councilmember Kwok have the following comments:
• He referred to page C-7 where Vice Mayor Anduri commented to add the reason the City included upzoning BART; he agrees this is a good way to set up the conversation with HCD. He suggested to further evidence that the reason the City has included upzoning of the BART lots is because the City has, during the process of challenging the RNHA allocation numbers, received a formal response that because Lafayette had a BART parking lot opportunity, that is why the City got the higher allocation. If the City received any written and verbal correspondence, could we append that as evidence to show that the City was given a number and told basically that “this is what the City must do”. He asked Councilmember Candell if there was written documentation.
Councilmember Candell and Mr. Wolff both confirmed there was justification in their methodology they could use. Councilmember Kwok said he actually thinks upzoning BART is a separate issue from whether BART puts the City in the TOD. The City upzoned the BART because they had to do it. He thinks the City has two avenues to have their numbers approved by HCDand that they should build the written case of why the number is there and why the City built it into their year-long process and, secondarily, he asked to try to pursue an avenue to get Lafayette into the BART TOD work plan.
• Vice Mayor Anduri said he thinks it either deserves a separate sentence or paragraph. What the second paragraph is trying to do on page C-7 under number 4 is telling the story of how they got such a large allocation. He asked to add the word “transit” as he was suggesting and add another sentence or two that drives home the point that “The City has a higher per capita than their neighboring cities because they have the BART station” and quote from whatever response they got from the appeal.
Councilmember Candell asked if they should also add wording about how HCD itself justified the new methodology for ADUs using the Southern California Housing Elements. It evolved over this process and why it evolved was because 6 cities have actual certified Housing Elements. She asked if this should be included here or elsewhere.
Mr. Robles stated in Appendix C there is a methodology narrative and staff expanded it a bit to further clarify the rationale behind ADUs, but they can incorporate more of that.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 26 of 34 May 23, 2022 • Vice Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed with the Mayor that the Council should go through each of the planning areas in the EIR and just obtain views on whether it should be upzoned or not or what should be done with it.
• He referred to the chart on page C-15 which lists the different areas and the Council could go through items 1-6 which involves keeping the existing zoning and then the opportunity sites that are in the attachments, and he supports that. Councilmembers agreed. • He then referred to 7A and said he would support going in with BART at 75 du/acre and the 95% yield. The PC had a 28% buffer and he thinks this is fine which is what they get with 75 du/acre and hesitates to go to 80 du/acre. The 95% yield is consistent with what they had before and while they could go to 100% he thinks it is better to go in at 95%.
Councilmembers Candell and Dawson agreed. Councilmember Kwok said he is supportive of either and does not actually think it is a material difference. He thinks it is symbolic difference. It does not matter from a developer’s planning whether they saw 80 or 75 which is basically a 7% difference. Symbolically, if they did 80 du/acre he wonders if it sends a different message in negotiations with BART that says they are going to do something beyond the minimum, which symbolizes this.
Vice Mayor Anduri agreed that this is symbolic value in the community which far outweighs the symbolism with respect to BART or HCD. If they went to BART and said they upzoned to 80 du/acre, he did not think it would matter at all to them.
Mayor Gerringer said she is supportive of 75 du/acre and 95% yield. It is when they get to the implementation and actions as to how they justify this is a valid opportunity site. As of right now, based on what they have read and what the law is that this is a doable site unless they actively make the commitment to work with BART and have strong programs and policies to make the case.
Councilmembers all agreed with going in with BART at 75 du/acre and the 95% yield.
DeSilva North and South Sites:
• Vice Mayor Anduri suggested the Council go with the PC recommendation to not upzone DeSilva South and to upzone DeSilva North, and the majority of Councilmembers voiced their support.
Councilmember Kwok said he would support the measure as written but would also like to offer an additional zoning of the area next to Orchard Nursery to zone it for potential further nursery and landscape uses in addition to the upzoning proposed today so that potentially that side of town can have a consolidation of those types of businesses if desired.
Councilmember Dawson recognized the letter from DeSilva management, which was an incredible offer, especially if the BART site is not approved. This could be a site where there could be a collaborative vision on what it could look like in terms of affordable housing and mix of units. She voiced emphasis on the need to protect commercial properties, as well.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 27 of 34 May 23, 2022 Vice Mayor Anduri said the decision on DeSilva South is a big decision, recognizing the GPAC came out one way and the PC came out another, and the Council seems to be affirming what the PC recommended. That is not the end of the discussion and he thinks now the Council needs to focus on what the City’s vision is for that property. GPAC will go onto consider the Land Use Element so he does not know if that is the proper body to say they should not change the zoning at this point, but what do they want to see for the City. He asked if the City might want to buy it and preserve the whole thing as open space, buy it and develop multiple sports fields, pickleball courts, or parking, and over the next year is the time to think about that.
Planning Area 13; the Dewing, Brook, Rosedale:
• Mayor Gerringer stated the recommendation is to not make any change in density in this area.
Councilmembers voiced their support of this.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed with Councilmembers that no upzoning will occur for anything north of Deer Hill.
ADUs:
• Vice Mayor Anduri said he appreciates staff’s work on this. He thinks, practically speaking, most of the City’s very low- and low-income housing over the next 8 years will come from ADUs. They provide housing throughout the entire City and not just in the downtown and he supports the 240 units. He said between now and the time the Council approves the plan, he asked that if staff looks at this again and concludes that there is a plausible argument to increase that number he would support that recommendation. If staff concludes there is not, he would also support that as well.
Councilmember Dawson said ARPA funds can be used for housing support and this is something that could be considered such as incentives for ADUs.
Vice Mayor Anduri said when they do this, they should remember they have $1.29 million in the affordable housing fund and they might be able to use ARPA funds, so that might be a persuasive step towards showing BART they are serious about doing this.
Councilmember Candell said she has always supported ADUs and she is thankful that HCD, ABAG and SCAG are finally saying they do provide some serious affordable housing. She hopes they can encourage family members as well as teachers or people who work in the City’s shops and incentivize them accordingly. She thinks it will be a game-changer once the templates for these are in place and are spreading at a price tag of about $150,000 to $200,000 across the state.
Mayor Gerringer also recognized staff’s work to track the ADUs.
GPAC and the PC:
• Mayor Gerringer stated the last item is that staff is recommending using the 95% yield everywhere except 90% along Mt. Diablo Boulevard, and Councilmembers confirmed.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 28 of 34 May 23, 2022 • Councilmember Kwok commented that he thinks the City will submit something now, but if they cannot get BART in and they have to find 800 units, they will have to return to this and look at what they would do to find 800 more units. As to the DeSilva South property which GPAC on a 6- 5 vote said “yes” and the PC suggested “no”, he thinks the PC’s position resonated with him which is to try to put the density into the downtown and not further away which would require more vehicle trips to drive and increase traffic, needs for parking, and by putting density downtown, they can preserve the DeSilva South site more as open space to preserve the City’s semi-rural feel.
So, he would rather focus on 1-6 as a solution rather than bringing that back up as a solution. • Mayor Gerringer said this is their first stab at presenting to HCD but if they come back, the Council will need to come back and look at all of those.
• Councilmember Dawson referred to some of the materials in public comment, particularly MidPen’s non-profit developer examples of policies. She pointed out that these were very much different cities from what Lafayette has available to them.
EXTEND MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to extend the meeting to 12 midnight. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
Mayor Gerringer wondered if comments will also be relevant as they move onto the Appendix D, E and F, particularly on the implementation plan. She asked staff if a vote should be taken tonight.
Mr. Wolff said they have seen the Council thus far take straw polls on opportunity sites and this could continue. The end of tonight’s discussion would require a formal motion and vote to continue the matter to June 13 or 27, 2022. This is the only formal motion needed. Staff will consider remaining direction as to what to bring back.
Appendix D; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and Fair Housing Assessment:
Vice Mayor Anduri had the following comments:
• He referred to page D-29 under Table 13 there is a reference to Table 14, but he did not see Table
14. • Councilmember Candell said under Appendix D there is a chart at the end on page 81, it is the same action under 1.2 and 1.3 that had the duplicate and need clarification, particularly on the objectives and timeline.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he did not understand this; “Develop a policy to target inclusion of all types of affordable housing”. Under objectives it states, “Increase equitable treatment of developments that serve low- and moderate-income households.” He asked for an example of this. Mr. Wolff stated there is a presumption that affordable housing projects may not be viewed or receive the same treatment as market rate. This is worth clarifying such as to “ensure equitable treatment” rather than “increase” it. He said staff will try to hone this action.
Councilmember Dawson suggested it state “target inclusion in all types of affordable housing” as opposed to ”of”. Ms. Robles stated should state “of”.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 29 of 34 May 23, 2022 • Mayor Gerringer said the Council also received public comment that they needed more specific timelines and measured deadlines and outcomes under 1.2, 1.3 and others. She assumes that staff is confident this complies with what HCD wants.
Mr. Wolff said he was not sure, but again, the housing crisis is not simply going to be a numerical exercise. It is about policies as well, so not everything can simply be numbers. It has to be articulated differently. He can talk with the consultant about programs 1.2 and 1.3 and determine whether this work has been accepted. Ms. Robles added that HCD pointed staff to Southern California jurisdictions with the AFFH analyses they liked, and they were not necessarily more detailed than this, and definitely more policy than quantified with hard numbers. • Councilmember Candell referred to Action 2.1 and said she is confused about this because she sees a pilot and a by right approval for low density attached housing that exceeds the BMR affordability. She looked at the Austin program and it seems like they have SB 9 now which is low density attached housing and a thought would be that now the League says the City can demand affordable units in an SB 9 project which is a way to get more affordable housing. She asked if there is some way to turn it into something that is more California-based here that would be helpful. Or, she asked if they want an entire program in Lafayette where they already has SB 9 that is putting in duplexes. If they incentivize affordable units in those, it might be easier.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if the Austin program is multiple attached dwelling units. He also did not understand this program. In looking under objectives, it states, “Increase development of accessible units beyond minimum requirements.” He questioned which minimum requirements this is referring to. Councilmember Candell said if that is the criteria beyond the minimum, is that the City make SB 9 affordable and somehow incentivize it.
Councilmember Dawson sees that half of the units would be affordable and then you get waivers.
Her thought is that it is a different metric than SB 9 so she agrees that maybe if they could house it in California to incentivize SB 9 attainment.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to the next box which is “Develop a pilot program with other jurisdictions and create more opportunities for lower income households to live in Lafayette.” He is not sure he understands this. He asked when this was before GPAC and the PC, he asked what comments they had on this and asked if they discussed it. Mr. Wolff said he did not recall comments specific to this action. Councilmember Candell thinks they would achieve this through ADU development.
Vice Mayor Anduri said they made the point that the entire City is an area of high opportunity, so this action area does not apply to Lafayette because they are not trying to move things out of areas of concentrated poverty into areas of high opportunity. Ms. Robles said for Lafayette it is not so much redistributing the concentration of low-income housing units. It is increasing the amount of them in the City’s high resource areas. She describes it as “smudgy” because it is so new and there are guidelines but HCD’s reviewers are having difficulty with that review process.
Each of these areas are required to be addressed as part of this analysis.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 30 of 34 May 23, 2022 Councilmember Candell said she would support changing this one to either be some aggressive ADU thing or some enhancement of SB 9 because SB 9 is all market rate. If they somehow get those to be affordable, it is another action item they could take.
Councilmember Dawson said there could be a metric to follow for ADUs year after year so that might be a good way to infill their high opportunity area. She asked if this captures what the intention here is. Ms. Robles said it might and staff will need to go back to Root Policy consultant team that has worked on a few of these and get their sentiment.
Vice Mayor Anduri said there is a strong reason for focusing this on ADUs which is in looking through these other action items there is nothing that really talks about getting housing outside of the downtown. So, in terms of spreading it throughout the community none of these actually do that. So, if they put in ADUs they actually are spreading the housing which would be good.
Councilmember Dawson said they could also add something relative to SB 9.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked the City Attorney where they are they on SB 9 and affordability requirements. City Attorney Subramanian stated they still need to do the nexus studies. The concern she raised in the past was making sure that if they were requiring any SB 9 units to be affordable they still need to prove these could be built and that they were not in effect creating a takings problem. So, it has more “umph” in it for the higher density SB 9 units than just the subdivision lot splits. But, it is part of that nexus review that will be coming up in the fee study aspect of things.
Mr. Wolff said if the question is whether this could be part of that global comprehensive fee study, he thinks it could be scoped in to include that.
Councilmember Dawson said then this places that Austin affordability unlocked into context then because that was the issue they were trying to overcome—the affordability of that extra unit or those multiple units. So, she thinks the City would need to figure that out to make sense. If HCD is good with the analysis of that, the City is doing that anyway so that could go under here.
Ms. Robles said they do want more of an action than a study especially with this, but staff will talk with Root Policy about what else they can fit in under this action area that might be more appropriate.
Councilmember Candell referred to also educating owners about housing vouchers. Ms. Robles stated she has a note about this.
Councilmember Dawson referred back to Action Area 3; the contributing factors states it is unclear. It could be related to support and resources. She thought they could base it on some of the things Ms. Robles mentioned before about the older homes at lower rents. She asked if this should be a contributing factor, so it does not have to be unclear.
Appendix E; Review of the Prior Housing Element
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 31 of 34 May 23, 2022 • Mayor Gerringer referred to “It should be moved to a policy”. She asked what the process is for that, recognizing they have had other things on updating policies and various codes, etc. Ms.
Robles stated they become policies in the implementation plan for the Housing Element and they are listed out. GPAC went through them and those they found to be more appropriate as policies were kept in as policies.
There were no further comments.
Appendix F:
• Councilmembers recognized staff for the good job, stating it is amazing the number of mailings and all public input.
• Councilmember Kwok added that as an advertising and marketing person by background, he likes visuals because seeing what was done in the appendix and if they showed the posters, linked to Youtube and hear the 27 videos it shows visually rather than having a person read through the paragraphs. The take-away would be that the City did a lot and he asked to think about visual assets to add in the Appendix.
Appendix G:
• Mayor Gerringer said she kept thinking they were going back to Appendix G; the implementation plan again. She guessed when they spoke about looking at other ways to incentivize other types of affordable housing development beyond ADUs and potentially looking at overlay zones and doing the Mt. Diablo Corridor Specific Plan, whether they should put actions into their implementation plan that says they are going to do those types of things. She asked if the Council should look at some of the recommendations from East Bay for Everyone and Inclusive Lafayette that had to do with findings ways to partner with affordable housing builders. They provided additional input on how to make as strong a plan as they can on this first piece, so she wants to make sure their action plans are truly actionable.
Councilmember Candell said she likes the overlay zones. She knows other cities have had vacancy taxes and this is just another thing to look at.
Mayor Gerringer said San Francisco was looking at this. She said the other comments in terms of affordable housing bucket and ARPA funds and being mindful of how they can provide incentives and whether there is a place in their plan.
• Vice Mayor Anduri referred to Belle Terre which took years to develop. They wanted to do something for senior housing, appointed a task force that had two Councilmembers, two Planning Commissioners, members from the Senior Services Commission and the idea was to figure out what type of housing was needed and what they could do to make it happen.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 32 of 34 May 23, 2022 He said there was direction from the Council to study it and make it happen. He is looking at page G-11 where it talks about the special population housing needs and it calls out the three groups; senior housing, the IDD community, and larger units. Under senior housing, it is developing an outreach program to build awareness of Age-Friendly housing options which may include ADUs, home sharing, etc. but it does not say study the need for senior housing and whether the City should implement another Belle Terre, or more of these. He asked if they should have a specific program on this that deals specifically with seniors. He would support doing this because they know there is a need.
Mayor Gerringer said her understanding in the previous plan is they had a senior housing overlay.
Vice Mayor Anduri agreed and said they upzoned to 45 du/acre throughout the downtown if it is for senior housing. But, they have to explicitly say one of their goals is over the next 8 years to create another affordable senior development given the need. Mayor Gerringer said when the plan comes back and in the interim, they can study some of this.
Councilmember Candell suggested expanding it to not just seniors but the general population and non-age restricted for 100% affordable housing. Mayor Gerringer said she wrote down both and the piece about connecting with non-profits to determine resources. Back to Councilmember Kwok’s reminder, she asked whether it makes their effort stronger that they are looking to find financing and funding in these goals and priorities.
Councilmember Dawson said Councilmember Kwok brought that up in terms of infrastructure. It is integrated but it is two different things they would raise money for specifically, but she thinks they do need to do this in a town of high resources over the 8 years.
Councilmember Kwok said he had a conversation with an affordable housing developer today who has done San Mateo properties where the City leased the land for $1 and they had $350 per square foot construction costs, built a three-story 100% affordable housing development by Delaware Street and Highway 92 where rents were $1,500 per month instead of $2,500 per month and this was a project completed 7 years ago. His advice to him as they looked at all action items is that the City should go to Bridge Housing and Eden Housing who are extremely sophisticated at building things and they will tell the City what to get rid of, change this and this, pave the way for them, and they can get their financing. It is not as hard as you think and if Bridge or Eden are invited in and open the door to their advice, they will tell the City what are its structural barriers to affordable housing, which would be helpful to know. As an action item, he questioned if it makes sense to have a subcommittee of the Council that focuses on housing. He thinks they need to take actions with BART to work on housing and other topics and wondered if a subcommittee could be formed to work on these topics.
Mayor Gerringer said staff would need to bring this back and it is definitely interesting. She asked if staff had enough direction to bring back these ideas in terms of the fair housing component of the implementation plan or adding it to the implementation plan to look at these other proactive items.
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 33 of 34 May 23, 2022 Mr. Wolff confirmed staff had good direction. Ms. Robles asked if a potential new program would be an overall study to better understand the general affordable housing needs across those different populations or just senior housing at this time. Councilmembers asked for a broader program and looking at proactive things the City can do to help it incentivize or find ways to overcome barriers to providing affordable housing. Part of it was the partnership with a nonprofit, the overlay zones, the needs assessment by Vice Mayor Anduri, and the vacancy tax brought up by Councilmember Candell.
Vice Mayor Anduri said what made the senior housing task force work was staff support, so this is another item where they must be careful in allocating staff. If they want to do any kind of affordable housing, it will take a lot of staff support so they cannot take a shotgun approach on it. They should pick one thing to do over the 8 years as their goal.
Vice Mayor Anduri said also when Councilmember Kwok said the $1 lease, he assumes it was City land leased to the developer, and Councilmember Kwok confirmed that it was the City’s land.
Councilmember Dawson said this was part of the MidPen examples too.
Councilmembers voiced great thanks to staff and Ms. Elrod for their hard work as well as residents for their input and participation.
• Vice Mayor Anduri asked for one more piece of direction and said it is coming back to the overall Housing Summary on page H-4; the opening paragraph, introduction and background of Our Story. He referred to the second paragraph: “The Housing Element is a statement of Lafayette’s vision and strategy for meeting existing and future needs in the community from 2023 to 2031.” This is Part A, but he thinks there should be a Part B they need to acknowledge which is part of Lafayette’s vision and strategy for doing Lafayette’s part to meet regional housing needs. He thinks it is pretty clear they would not be doing this if it were not for the RHNA. He thinks they need to say that. The paragraph goes on to state “The single most important goal of the Lafayette Housing Element is to achieve an adequate supply of safe, decent housing for all residents of Lafayette.” He would suggest adding “while making Lafayette a highly desirable small-town community with a semi-rural ambience.” He asked to add this in the beginning and layout the fact that they are doing this not to meet existing and future needs of the community but to do their part in satisfying RHNA and housing needs.
• Councilmember Dawson said for Appendix G she knows they have had many questions and Root Policy has written this section. She asked if Councilmembers were interested in having that person answer questions in finalizing the plan. Vice Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed Root Policy only worked on the AFFH piece.
Mayor Gerringer questioned a continuance date and spoke about potential agendized items.
Mr. Wolff said the earlier it is dialed in the better. He would rather not push it and wait for fear of needing to do additional worthy work that then pushes out their date further. Therefore, he recommended continuance to June 13th.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to continue the matter to the June 13, 2022 Council meeting. Vote:
5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
City Council & Capital Projects Advisory Committee Page 34 of 34 May 23, 2022
10. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR - None
11. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Mayor Gerringer reported that Community Day is right around the corner and there are over 100 volunteers signed up for a variety of projects.
Councilmember Dawson reported she will attend the PG&E Community Meeting for the gas pipeline testing tomorrow night, along with Councilmember Candell. Mayor Gerringer stated the Council was invited to this event, and Ms. Subramanian confirmed it will be held via Zoom and she said the entire Council can attend and participate individually and provide public comment as individual Councilmembers and/or residents and not the City Council as a whole.
B. City Manager’s Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
There was no report.
12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None
13. ADJOURNMENT – 11:57 p.m.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Teresa Gerringer, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk