City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 1 of 19 June 27, 2022
7 City of Lafayette
City Council
Design Review and Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Teleconference Meeting – Watch on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel at June 27, 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/87629781234?pwd=QVY4WDY4WG5hMWlaYm4vcEpXbHlnZz09 Passcode: 422489 or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128; Webinar ID: 876 2978 1234 Passcode: 422489
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 2 of 19 June 27, 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 and Kwok
Absent: Councilmember Dawson
Present: Planning Commission: Commissioners Radonich and Huisingh
Present: Design Review Commission: Commissioner Gray
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Renata Robles, Senior Planner; Joshua Muller, Assistant Planner; Noah Rumbaoa, Planning Technician; Lara Chamberlain, Planning Department Assistant; Suzanne Iarla, Communications Analyst; Christopher Diaz, BBK Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Kwok) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Dawson).
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - (for Items Not on the Agenda) – None.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Planning Department Workplan 2022/23
Recommendation: Approve the Planning Department Workplan Planning and Building Director Greg Wolff introduced Chair Radonich and Chair Gray to provide an overview of the Workplan as it relates to the PC and DRC.
Anna Radonich, Planning Commission Chair, provided highlights of the work of the Planning Commission and described the following themes which include affordable housing, single family development in the Hillside Overlay District, the General Plan Update and a Planning Commission recruitment.
John Gray, Design Review Commission Chair, provided highlights of the work of the Design Review Commission, stating the majority of work has been design review for new single-family homes, additions, projects that would have significant exterior change. They had a few multi-family projects this year but less than the previous year, as well as a few commercial projects.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 3 of 19 June 27, 2022
Mr. Wolff recognized the work of the Council, Commissions, Committees and staff and then gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Planning and Building Department’s Workplan. He reviewed planning applications, staffing, the Housing Element update, the Mission Statement update, State mandates, review of FY 2021-22 task list, draft FY 2022-23 task list, and asked that the Council review and support prioritizing: 1) mandated tasks, 2) Council high-priority tasks, and 3) those tasks needing a modest effort to complete.
Vice Mayor Anduri thanked the Commissions and staff for the great work. He asked what is the relationship between Number 16 on next year’s list and Number 13 on last year’s list. Mr. Wolff explained they are one in the same.
Vice Mayor Anduri said Number 13 indicates they will get the changes in Q3 2022. He asked if this means they will be carrying out Number 16.
Mr. Wolff said staff has begun work on it, but it is not yet finished. There is additional work needed although it is not State-mandated and not a high priority policy item for the Council. However, the Council can modify this to a high priority. Since work has already begun, staff would be happy to not table it further and complete Number 13 in Q3 of this year.
Councilmember Kwok asked how many vacancies the department was currently trying to fill. Mr. Wolff said there are two additional positions which are not filled, and he confirmed the budget has the department staff number at 10 for the entire year.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the tree ordinance and he noticed the workload is marked at high. He asked what makes it high versus a medium or low amount of workload.
Mr. Wolff explained anytime there is a change to local law, requirements around that are significant in terms of public hearings and public notice. Historically, when staff has undertaken similar ordinance updates an ad-hoc committee was formed, meeting with arborists and the community with several public meetings for months, researching best practices, and then bringing it forward to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Councilmember Candell applauded staff for the lofty list and workload. She referred to Figure 1 on page 4 of the document about the OTC applications. They did not get the 2021 bar on the chart and she asked if the trend on ministerial approvals is accelerating. She asked to add that and send it out.
Mr. Wolff explained that the lack of a bar in Figure 1 is not an oversight. It is a function of the on-line portal launched last year and it is not a feature that is part of that portal, but making it a feature to go back to the previous year is something staff will set as an internal process moving forward for next year.
Staff can provide the gross number of ministerial approvals done but cannot parse it into hillside development permits and design review.
He also neglected to state earlier that staff will add another row to reflect SB 9 applications under the types of applications. Thus far, 4 applications have been received for lot split and none have been deemed complete and acted upon to date.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 4 of 19 June 27, 2022
Mayor Gerringer referred to the number of vacancies in the Planning Department, she noted staff was advertising for the two outstanding positions and confirmed there are two contract planners that are not regular employees, and she asked and confirmed this is how the department has worked to fill the gap.
Mayor Gerringer asked and confirmed Commissioners had no questions, and she then opened the public comment period.
CHERYL MACDONALD asked if the SB 9 projects were listed on the City’s website.
CONRAD BREECE said he was not able to comment earlier but has a noise complaint. He contacted the police because a band was still playing at 12:45 a.m. in Happy Valley.
Mayor Gerringer thanked Mr. Breece and asked staff to follow-up with him.
Mr. Wolff referred to Ms. MacDonald’s question about SB 9 projects and said these projects are on the City’s website as part of the monthly reporting out for planning applications received.
Mayor Gerringer and Councilmembers voiced appreciation of the work, agreed with high priority items, voiced the desire to work on the tree ordinance when fully staffed, and voiced support of the Workplan.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the Environmental Task Force initiatives and asked when these items will get done.
Mr. Wolff referred to the ETF and said they are not State-mandated; however, the Council previously approved those tasks as part of the ETF Workplan so they will be incorporated into the Planning Workplan and staff plans to work on those ETF tasks this year.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to staffing and asked that for the 10 FTE for next year this is plus one over the past because one FTE was added in the department. Mr. Wolff confirmed and said in December, the Council added the one FTE.
Vice Mayor Anduri thanked staff for the clarification on the ETF items. He sees items 17, 18, 19 and 20 as very important to move forward during the next 12 months, and he hopes each can be accomplished. He would particularly like to see movement on number 17 and get that done before any other multi-family applications come in.
Mayor Gerringer asked if Commissioners had any comments, and there were none.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Kwok) to approve the Planning Department Workplan 2022/23, with priorities discussed by the City Council. Roll Call Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Candell, Kwok and Gerringer; Noes: None; Absent: Dawson).
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gerringer asked if there were any requests for removal of items. Vice Mayor Anduri requested removal of Item 6.B. Mayor Gerringer asked if there was public comment and there were none.
A. Resolution 2022-41 Reappointing various commission/committee members City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 5 of 19 June 27, 2022
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-41.
C. Award of Construction Contract for Lafayette Library and Learning Center (LLLC) Children’s Activity Deck Remodel, No. 037-9731
Recommendation: Award construction contract in the amount of $379,000 to Mars Construction for the construction of the LLLC Children’s Activity Deck Remodel, Project No. 037-9731.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Kwok) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A and C. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes:
Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Dawson).
7. OLD BUSINESS – None.
8. STAFF REPORTS – None.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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 conservation. 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 on the revised draft Housing Element, provide any final feedback, and direct staff to submit the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review.
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa said because it is not yet 7:00 p.m., she asked and confirmed with BBK Attorney Christopher Diaz the Council should defer the item until 7:00 p.m.
BREAK
Mayor Gerringer called for a break at 6:55 p.m. and thereafter reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant, gave the staff report and provided an overview of the timeline, public comments received and the City’s response to comments, prior revisions from the June 13th Council meeting, penalties for not having a certified Housing Element, policy changes made, clarified that upzoning the El Charro parking lots is not spot zoning, provided details about AB 2923 and the Housing Element and discussions held internally and with BART. The recommendation is to hold a public hearing, provide feedback on the updated draft Housing Element and direct staff to submit its first draft to HCD with the recommended revisions.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to Slide 4 and said he thinks if BART does not move the City up despite any good faith efforts, it is a done deal and will not happen, and he understands there is a BART TOD official in the meeting.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 6 of 19 June 27, 2022
Ms. Elrod said yes, this is the thinking right now, but they do not actually know. There are no BART stations that have gone to HCD yet in the Bay Area as part of its review and including it for their Housing Element.
In discussions with HCD staff and the head of the unit that reviews Elements, they would want to see a firm commitment and it would have to be developable within the 8-year period. It will not be developable if BART does not move the City up on the timeline.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to Slide 5 and asked if this assumes that the City proactively upzones or creates a TOD overlay district. Ms. Elrod confirmed.
He then referred to Slide 7 and asked if this slide talks about an upzoning, but rather developing a TOD overlay district, similar to the City’s senior housing overlay. Ms. Elrod confirmed.
Councilmember Candell referred to questions they received about the mission statement. She asked whether the City can and should include its mission statement in this part of the Housing Element and General Plan update, and if so, why or why not.
Ms. Elrod said for the Housing Element it is off topic in terms of what they are statutorily trying to comply with, and she would defer to Mr. Wolff about the General Plan. Mr. Wolff said customarily it is part of the introduction to the General Plan which encompasses all of the elements required under State law as well as those which are optional so it would not be in any given one of the elements.
Councilmember Kwok referred to Vice Mayor Anduri’s question about upzoning. He wanted to clarify whether they are doing the upzoning of the BART but there was also the overlay district which said it maintains the existing zoning, which he was unclear about. He asked if they were doing both upzoning and overlay district, or just one or the other.
Ms. Elrod said staff is advocating for an overlay district and Mr. Wolff said the overlay would be the mechanism for the upzoning to BART’s TOD standards with local objective standards.
Councilmember Kwok said in the eyes of HCD and of BART, the overlay district is essentially would be considered proactively upzoning. Ms. Elrod said in terms of BART, yes. In terms of HCD, HCD does not consider issues pertaining to the kind of zoning action taken as long as it is in compliance with AB 2923 and therefore it is 75 du/acre.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the closing sentence in the staff report and what staff mentioned in terms of TOD, and said in the next year BART will be re-evaluating the TOD Work Plan which will include reassessing the development timeline for BART lots subject to AB 2923. He asked if this is an indication that the City could expect within 12 months that Lafayette would be reconsidered and have a chance to be included in the TOD.
Ms. Elrod said it depends on a number of actions. It is not just upzoning of the site. It is what other actions has the jurisdiction taken to facilitate infrastructure improvements, local support, market readiness, and how are infrastructure constraints going to be handled. These are things that will need to be looked at quickly in order to get themselves scored higher.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 7 of 19 June 27, 2022
Ms. Robles added that BART staff specifically called out one action that they would look for jurisdictions is advocacy for additional resources being put towards BART, and working with MTC and CCTA to help BART have the capacity to help manage all of these requests and work through timelines in a reasonable manner.
Vice Mayor Anduri said one of the last slides said staff is ambitiously planning to submit tomorrow. One of the biggest problems the City has is that they have been given 2,114 units based on having a BART station and if, for some reason, they cannot count the units at the BART station they will have to be found somewhere, so they will in effect be double-counted. He asked how does staff intend to convey the City’s situation and concern to HCD. He asked if staff is planning on meeting with them soon after submission.
Ms. Elrod said they will have a cover letter and will definitely reach out soon after it is submitted. They do not know who the reviewer is. Staff will reach out specifically to the head reviewer because he was very involved in the City’s last Housing Element and understands the issues facing the City in general. He also understands the BART site and so staff will give them a couple of weeks or so to assign it to a reviewer and then reach out and hold a discussion.
Vice Mayor Anduri said the Council received a public comment with respect to Appendix G and the AFFH Action Area 2 and the item is 2.1; Pilot of By Right Approval for Low Density Attached Housing that Exceeds the BMR Affordability Requirements. Under Responsible Party it states, “TBD”. Under objectives, it states, “Increase development of accessible units” and he asked if this means BMR units or is it another meaning because of ADA.
Ms. Elrod said it would be under the ADA. These are issues under AFFH and so people with disabilities are disproportionately impacted. It is to look at ways to incentivize and provide opportunities to people with disabilities in those units.
Vice Mayor Anduri said the box under Quantified Objectives, “Develop pilot programs with other jurisdictions.” He asked if this is something they would do as a region and this is why it is TBD. Ms. Elrod confirmed, and jurisdictions in the County are working with an umbrella group called The Collaborative aka C4 and they are talking about the possibility of being that facilitator for those discussions. They have not had a firm commitment from them yet, so it is TBD.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public hearing and called for public comments.
ELIOT HUDSON cited scare tactics and said Ms. Elrod finally admitted that staff does not know what HCD will do about the BART site if it is not in the BART Work Plan. He asked that the City use the comment period and negotiation opportunities with HCD to determine what will be required that best protects Lafayette, asked that the City not deprive itself of the ability to rely on any changes in the law that might result from the challenge to the RHNA numbers, in the law under legislation or initiatives, and thinks any zoning of the lot should be provisional in the sense it applies only if so long and to the extent required by law. He said Ms. Elrod also indicated that HCD does not concern itself with the type of zoning so provisional zoning can occur and Mr. Wolff said in a previous meeting that provisional zoning is possible.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 8 of 19 June 27, 2022
Secondly, he thinks it is outrageous for HCD to deny BART as an opportunity site based on the BART Work Plan. The only reason Lafayette has been given 2,114 units instead of 160 units is because of the BART lots. That assignment was based on the mere existence of the BART lots without consideration of whether BART had any actual plans for development. If BART chooses not to prioritize development of the BART lots, then the entire justification for that increase drops away. If not in the BART plan, the City should have 1,660 units and not over 2,000 units. If BART chooses not to develop, the City should not be penalized. Lafayette should go to HCD and demand the BART lot be counted as opportunity sites regardless of any other planning status for those lots. If they refuse, it can be reworked.
CHERYL MACDONALD asked if Ms. Elrod could explain the overlay district the way she did to Councilmember Kwok. She also said bus route 25 was taken away because of inactivity. If they were to bring bus route 25 back she asked if that would be considered an infrastructure improvement, along with the recommendation the City has with the Spirit Van, and also engagement with the new Fire District.
LIBBY HENRY thanked everybody in the meeting, community members, PC and DRC members, GPAC and staff as it has been a long haul. She thinks the Council is going in the right direction and she hoped the Council received her letter. She asked to keep in mind the mission statement and how it relates to the Housing Element and compliance, but also the feelings of residents who do not want Lafayette to be an urban sprawl. She also thinks Mr. Hudson’s letter was accurate as far as ways HCD can look at the submittal and try to reject it and asked the Council to make the right decision in sending the Housing Element to HCD.
SHERRIN FARLEY wondered if Ms. Robles could elaborate on the explanation as to why rezoning of the El Charro parking lots is not considered spot zoning. She also asked what is a low barrier navigation center, said if HCD does not approve BART she asked for the procedure moving forward and how the public will be informed, engaged, and have a voice.
COLIN ELLIOTT said he wanted to confirm what Ms. Elrod had said, thinks the call with BART was very helpful where they want the community engagement, and he thinks they all agreed it will be a long and complicated process. He supports the way the City is planning to do this by way of an overlay district, said staff mentioned BART was asking for assistance and advocacy in getting funding and he thinks the City could mention this as a step to the extent they can. They will look at other sources of financing which could also fund parking if it is for the public. What did not come up was whether or not the City would want to enter in an MOU with BART at some point which can also be mentioned.
He said the developer BART has selected for their North Concord station backed out, noted BART indicated they are not doing more because the Naval Station is not advanced enough but hopefully this might mean there are other plans to move other cities up.
PATTY BATTERSBY voiced support for comments of Eliot Hudson and Colin Elliott, thinks BART is the elephant in the room as far as being challenging, and as a Glen resident, residents are very concerned about BART and emphasized this threat in terms of evacuation and safety being in a very high fire zone.
She also appreciates the fact the City is increasing the ADUs, excluding Deer Hill, and urged the Council to listen to the 97% of residents who reject urbanization and who want to maintain the semi-rural character of Lafayette.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 9 of 19 June 27, 2022
She is not certain when the EIR is coming before the Council, but the Glen and Happy Valley are listed as an alternative site which should be removed. She also referred to the draft of the AFFH Appendix called The Austin Plan, which allows for multi-family housing in single-family residential areas and their entire neighborhood is against any multi-family housing being brought in.
ROBERT LAVOIE agreed with Eliot Hudson’s letter about using the BART lots in the City’s first submission to HCD as well as creation of the provisional overlay district to maximize control of the 75-unit zoning to make it consistent as possible with their mission statement. He also agreed with his specific comments for sections 222; the physical, economic and regulatory characteristics and 10.1.11 on the BART lots in the Draft Housing Element. He asked staff to explain the AFFH Area 2, page H-29. Vice Mayor Anduri mentioned this and asked to talk about what possible areas of town this is considering and whether they anticipate additional bonuses or densities or waivers in excess of what is allowed under SB 9. The Austin Model had a $250 million bond funding for low income housing or possibly ADA adjustments. For a similar population as Lafayette’s, this would be about $6 million.
Finally, he would agree with Colin Elliott’s email on 6/27 regarding his points, especially that the opportunity for a big project like BART and suggested leveraging and negotiating with developers to address affordable housing and physical infrastructure improvements and environmental impacts to the maximum extent possible.
Mayor Gerringer closed the public hearing, and she asked staff to answer questions of speakers, as follows:
Explain the overlay district and what it does and whether or not that allows the City to protect current zoning from future changes in the law.
Ms. Elrod said this question was asked by Councilmember Kwok was would it be both upzoning and doing the overlay, she said they are only doing an overlay. She would defer to staff to describe specifics of the overlay district.
Mr. Wolff explained that the overlay is an additional set of zoning which is either more restrictive or more permissive than the underlying zoning and is applicable to a qualifying project. For example, the senior housing overlay district overlays a prescribed geographic area and if the project meets the qualifying criteria they can invoke the provisions of that, and in this example, it will allow for additional density and reduced parking. It is simply another layer of zoning. It is his understanding that the Council can enact an ordinance or law which has a sunset period or has a trigger mechanism in it which would have it revert or be undone if some provision occurs.
Mayor Gerringer clarified that the Council is talking about steps taken in the Housing Element in terms of moving forward with considering proactively complying with AB 2923 at a future meeting. Staff will be bringing back objective standards and it is not a decision point for tonight. She said the other question had to do with infrastructure, what types of infrastructure such as bus route 25, discussions with Con Fire and other infrastructure related questions.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 10 of 19 June 27, 2022
Mr. Wolff said BART does not have a prescribed matrix of what type and what extent of infrastructure they are looking to see; however, any and all infrastructure improvements that support housing at the TOD site is a positive movement and certainly those most related to parking, accessibility of system users, life safety issues and having a fire station proximate to development, utilities and other infrastructure, connectivity to the rest of downtown goods and services, and multi-modal transportation are all examples. The City recognizes parking is a high priority as does BART and it is costly to replace.
Elaborate on why rezoning of the El Charro parking lots is not considered spot zoning.
Mr. Wolff displayed a zoning map and said an example of spot zoning would be to place a green or red zoning in the middle of another color, that is, there is no connectivity between the subject property and surrounding zoning. It is an island or a spot of zoning different than which surrounds it. Not spot zoning would be to increase a given area or district and to expand that in one or more directions which are contiguous to the existing zoning.
The Council has done this for adjacent parcels right at the cusp of multi-family and single-family.
Developers sought to upzone a site next to single-family zoning and the City entered into a development agreement, recognizing there would be a benefit to the property owner and developer and that provided for public benefits in exchange for that.
What is Low barrier navigation center in the requirements? Ms. Elrod said every jurisdiction in the state is required to have zones that allow for emergency shelters even though there are not many appearing anywhere these days. It is essentially a housing first model which is to get people into housing from homelessness, but there is a recognition that there is some transition that needs to be made. A low barrier navigation center is like a shelter but with more privacy, private rooms, or where people have their own private space. Some of the people will come in off of the street who have pets which most shelters do not allow. They come in with partners that are also not allowed, people with a variety of disabilities that may not fit the emergency shelters. A low barrier navigation center is one that allows people to come in off of the street regardless of where they are in the process so they can get entered into the system, receive support, have a place to live, work through issues, etc.
This is a requirement of every jurisdiction in the State of California. There is no interest in putting low barrier navigation centers or emergency shelters in Lafayette. It is a requirement but most places are near services, and there are no services in Lafayette for these folks and so these could include places like Walnut Creek, Oakland, Richmond, etc., but it is a State requirement for the City to allow them and in the same zoning districts emergency shelters are allowed.
If HCD does not approve BART as an opportunity site how will the public be informed and be able to be engaged?
Mr. Wolff said this will occur in all ways the public has been engaged previously, such as through public outreach, public notice.
When will the EIR be coming to the City Council for the next round of review? City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 11 of 19 June 27, 2022
Mr. Wolff said staff is receiving the final response to comments which constitute the large part of the FEIR from ESA who will review those and bring them forward to the Planning Commission first in July and then onto the City Council in either late July or early August.
Mayor Gerringer asked and confirmed it is normal for it to go in parallel before next January when they submit their final Housing Element.
Questioned the Austin Model and asked where this would apply, as well as funding models and how much the City has in its low-income fund or potential collaboration with the County? Ms. Robles stated one of the AFFH action items was to develop a program to incentivize deed restriction for affordable housing of the lower density missing middle housing. The program list named the Austin Affordability Unlocked Program as a reference and so the AFFH action was to model a program off of that.
Austin developed its own incentive standards and criteria and staff would look to those as inspiration but not necessarily as a copy/paste to use in Lafayette. This is where the concern that there would be 6-8 units on a single-family lot, but staff’s intention is to investigate best practices and opportunities to encourage deed restriction of new units and try and seek out faster ways of developing affordable housing.
Funding questions.
Mayor Gerringer stated the City will look at funding options and their existing affordable housing fund would be one of those tools. The County is looking at the Housing Trust Fund, but she was not sure how far along that is in development.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to Appendix G programs and 1.2.B; Special Tax Districts and said it talks about how they can be an effective tool to generate local revenue, how they will do a study which will identify and analyze options appropriate for Lafayette, and if applicable, develop and implement a plan. It states the completion timeframe is 2030. He asked if this is something the Fiscal Sustainability Ad-Hoc Committee should look at as one option.
Ms. Robles said 2030 is the completion deadline where the City will be reporting back to HCD and hopefully they will have done it or made progress.
Vice Mayor Anduri said under Goal 3; Promote Environmental Responsibility, the first new program is
3.1.B which is electrification for new residential construction. It has a good timeframe there, but he wondered if installation of EV charging station was considered in here, as well. If the City is looking to show what they are doing to promote environmental responsibility he asked if that could be included now or later.
Ms. Robles said they could revisit it after the letter comes in; however, there are already EV charging requirements as part of the State Building Code that staff uses for new multi-family development and they can go beyond that.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if it was staff’s intent to change back 6.1.E to state the City will waive lot merger processing fees. The last line will state, “The City will waive lot merger processing fees for multi-family housing developments.” Ms. Robles said yes, they will capture this.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 12 of 19 June 27, 2022
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to Policy 6.12 which states “New” and Policy 6.12 “Diversity of Housing Types” and to use 4-plexes. He said this is not flushed out with any programs and he asked if something is missing here such as an explanation.
Ms. Robles said during GPAC’s initial discussion of the programs staff had made this one actually a program to look at development standards and see if they were prohibiting those kinds of missing middle housing options like 4-plexes. They found that aside from single-family only which SB 9 has changed as well as ADU rules, there were not any existing barriers to the construction of housing where multi-family is so they view those as more appropriate for it to become a policy as an on-going application they would undertake. So, if a 4-plex were to come forward, staff could point to that policy in the Housing Element and say yes, this confirms with their intent in a current multi-family zoned area.
Councilmember Candell referred to Action Item 2.1 with the Austin model. She thought there was discussion that night to state this only applied to ADUs or take it out and this is not reflected here.
Mayor Gerringer stated she did not have that in her notes, nor did Ms. Elrod.
Councilmember Candell said she was uncomfortable with this as it seems so much broader and many TBDs with no funding or anything. She has a hard time committing to it; however, it does not mean they will not do it. The City would be committing to it and so if they do not do it they may get penalized, so it is bad policy to have something so broad.
Mayor Gerringer said she thinks if they do not make a commitment to it and they say they will return to do it; it will not happen. If they took out the model after Austin’s Affordability Unlocked Program she questioned whether that raises less red flags. She believes they will look at other models and a program that works best for the community but that also moves them in the direction of truly finding ways to provide more affordable housing. Having a statement means they will look at it and they will consider it before it happens, so she thinks it is important to have an implementation objective.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked what impact is there if they delete the words “model after Austin’s Affordability Unlocked Program.” This could be one they look at, but they could look at others as well, and that leaves looking at options.
Ms. Elrod said this came from a consultant who has done a lot of AFFH work in the Bay Area. They have looked at many jurisdictions’ work with AFFH and specifically came up with this because they were involved with it in some minor way but felt like this is a very good model to look at to incentivize housing.
So, they have recommended it for many jurisdictions, especially smaller ones because there are not a lot of financial resources here. Austin is a bigger jurisdiction, but they came up with a number of incentives that are worth looking at beyond just throwing money at a project or an issue.
Mr. Wolff said he thinks they could safely strike the word “model” from a direction and simply cite that “Austin’s Affordability Unlocked Program is a good example”.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 13 of 19 June 27, 2022
Vice Mayor Anduri said he knows this was considered by GPAC and the PC, but he asked if there was any discussion on this specific item. Ms. Elrod answered no. Vice Mayor Anduri said he does not feel he knows enough about this and suggested using the words “evaluate a by right approval for low density attached housing”. He did not think they should state they will pilot it.
Ms. Elrod said it becomes non-actionable when they say “explore”, “look at”, etc. They need concrete objectives to say they are going to do a best practices review by a certain date, etc. Just to say they will look at it, it will not pass muster without more detail.
Councilmember Candell said they can add the detail that would help them know the City is really going to look at this whether it is a pilot or not. Ms. Elrod said to the extent they could be more definitive it is in the City’s benefit, especially with AFFH work.
Mr. Wolff said he thinks the thresholds staff is trying to touch on is between reviewing, researching, and evaluating which is one thing and then doing and implementing a program even at a pilot level does not necessarily mean it is permanent or the provisions developed will be the final ones if the program even continues beyond the piloting. But, piloting gets them to the action that HCD is seeking.
Councilmember Candell said staff sounds confident that there is a pilot program the City will go to with the other jurisdictions, and Vice Mayor Anduri said this is C4. She asked why they couldn’t state they will work with C4 to do this.
Mr. Wolff said this is the “how” but not the “what” HCD is looking for. In his example, piloting the program, with details TBD is the “what”.
Vice Mayor Anduri said based on where the Council is now and they want to send the Housing Element in tomorrow, he would feel comfortable putting it in if they cut the entire parenthesis “model after Austin’s Affordability Unlocked Program” and it will state they will try and pilot the program and work with others to do it which will be determined later, and this should be the statement they make.
Mayor Gerringer said she thinks this would capture the essence of the action. Mr. Wolff said striking the parenthetical maintains the “what” of the pilot program and he thinks they have the Austin program captured elsewhere. Councilmembers concurred.
Councilmember Candell asked if all of the things the Council talked about today with provisional upzoning will be considered not as part of the Housing Element but as a separate process. Vice Mayor Anduri said he did not want to mislead anyone with the use of the word “provisional”. The TOD Overlay District is what it is, and it will operate as an overlay district. If someone wants to call it temporary, provisional or something else, none of those have a legal meaning.
Mayor Gerringer referred to Item 9-A.05; the Draft Housing Element redlined version. She asked if any Councilmembers had any edits or suggestions.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 14 of 19 June 27, 2022
Councilmember Candell referred to Mr. Hudson’s comments about Section 2.2.2 on page H-10 of the Housing Element. She pointed to the first paragraph where it talks about how the City is losing jobs. It states, “in some cases” and he suggested much more specific wording. His suggestion is to state, ‘In some cases, this has come at the cost of losing commercial space, driving that long-established locally owned businesses and is costing jobs and livelihoods and local economy. Moreover, new development of the downtown corridor threatens to displace much of Lafayette’s current most affordable multi-family housing units. From a planning perspective, while the City’s downtown is more suited than the residential neighborhoods to accommodate new housing units, given its proximity to the regional transit stationBART, the State Route 24 corridor, goods and services and its location to the low lying reasonable flat areas of the City, the City desires to balance the provision of both new and existing residential and commercial uses.”
She said Mr. Hudson added descriptive wording here and it talks about the real displacement of the City’s locally owned businesses and how they really do want to care about that. She wondered if anyone else thought this wording was good or acceptable.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he printed it out and read it. In looking at what the City is trying to accomplish with the language currently, he thinks they are better off sticking with the existing language. He considered each of the changes, but he does not think they gain by using any of that language.
Councilmember Kwok said he appreciates the public looking at this level of detail and there are many good ideas, but he feels they are at the finish line here and he was trying to weigh the materiality of whether this is going to make any difference at this late juncture so he was comfortable with the existing language.
Councilmember Candell asked if any Councilmember wanted to include some of the wording from their mission statement in here.
Mayor Gerringer said she thinks they have picked up the smaller town while still moving forward with the overall narrative. She does not think the full addition of the mission statement is necessary in the Housing Element. She understands this goes to the State separately but thinks it is captured in the General Plan.
Councilmember Candell said so many residents want to maintain the City’s rural character and it is not located anywhere in here and it seems like a bit of a miss.
Ms. Elrod noted that staff has included in all of their public comments specific concern about the semirural character of Lafayette so it is included and will be sent off to HCD.
Mayor Gerringer said right now they are submitting this as a draft. As they move forward, she confirmed with Mr. Wolff that HCD will come back with comments and the City will still have the opportunity to dig into editing certain pieces of this and adding descriptors. She thinks the real crux of this is getting the City’s opportunity sites through and complying with the AFFH criteria. While she appreciates all of the edits suggested she does not think making a decision not to include them today precludes the Council from adding them later.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 15 of 19 June 27, 2022
She also pointed out that staff put all of the public comments into the appendices in response to constituent concern about cherry-picking different stories, and she re-read the boxes with the stories in them and she thinks they are all in one place and equally presented and they capture what residents believe. She therefore is supportive of sending the draft. She asked if there was anything else Councilmembers wished to change.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed that the understanding in the cover letter and the points about RHNA number, BART, the inter-relation, etc. will be described.
Mayor Gerringer then confirmed with Councilmembers they had no comments on appendices.
Ms. Robles summarized edits staff would make:
1. Feedback within the submission cover letter to include language regarding the RHNA allocation figure and the BART site and the interrelationship between those two.
2. Within the Housing Element main body, a small change to convert reference to tables to figures.
3. The same with another item on H-8 to make an adjustment to the language around homeowners and downsizing and the concern there.
4. A typo on page H-47.
5. Adjustments to the AFFH action item 2.1 to remove reference to Austin’s Affordability Unlocked Program and in all pieces where that is referenced throughout the document.
6. Changing Item 6.1.E to confirm waiving of lot merger fees.
Mayor Gerringer thanked staff and Councilmembers for their thorough review, comments, and working to get to this point which is the City’s first draft to HCD.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to direct staff to submit the amended draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Candell, Kwok and Gerringer; Noes: None; Absent: Dawson).
BREAK
Mayor Gerringer called for a 5-minute break at 8:54 p.m. and thereafter reconvened the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
B. Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director
Resolution 2022-40 Adopting The Proposed Budget/Workplan; Appropriating Revenue And Expenses; Confirming The City’s Investment Policy; Determining The Appropriation Limit For Fiscal Year 2021-22; Determining Fees For All City Services And Authorizing Transfers And Expenditures Including The 2023 Capital Improvement Program And Related CEQA Findings Recommendation: 1) Conduct the public hearing and adopt Resolution 2022-40 Adopting the Proposed Budget and Workplan as amended by Exhibit A; Appropriating Revenue and Expenses; Confirming City’s Investment Policy; Determining the Appropriation Limit for FY2022-23; Determining Fees for all City Services and Authorizing transfer and Expenditures, including the 2023 Capital Improvement Program. 2) Adopt CEQA finding of a categorical exemption for projects in the 2023 CIP and authorize staff to record a Notice of Exemption. 3) Discuss and advise the ARPA subcommittee on potential uses for the 2nd tranche of the ARPA funds. 4) Appoint two Councilmembers to a Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 16 of 19 June 27, 2022
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson gave the staff report and overview of the proposed budget reviewed by the Council at its last Council meeting with Exhibit A that outlines the changes the Council approved.
She recommended the Council 1) Conduct the public hearing and adopt Resolution 2022-40 Adopting the Proposed Budget and Workplan as amended by Exhibit A; Appropriating Revenue and Expenses; Confirming City’s Investment Policy; Determining the Appropriation Limit for FY2022-23; Determining Fees for all City Services and Authorizing transfer and Expenditures, including the 2023 Capital Improvement Program; 2) Adopt CEQA finding of a categorical exemption for projects in the 2023 CIP and authorize staff to record a Notice of Exemption; 3) Discuss and advise the ARPA subcommittee on potential uses for the 2nd tranche of the ARPA funds; and 4) Appoint two Councilmembers to a Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Kwok) to adopt Resolution 2022-40 Adopting the Proposed Budget and Workplan as amended by Exhibit A; Appropriating Revenue and Expenses; Confirming City’s Investment Policy; Determining the Appropriation Limit for FY2022-23; Determining Fees for all City Services and Authorizing transfer and Expenditures, including the 2023 Capital Improvement Program. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Dawson).
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Kwok) to adopt CEQA finding of a categorical exemption for projects in the 2023 CIP and authorized staff to record a Notice of Exemption. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Dawson).
Regarding the ARPA subcommittee on potential uses for the second tranche of ARPA funds, Vice Mayor Anduri reported that he and Councilmember Dawson met last Monday. In July, the City will receive the $3.18 million second tranche and they looked at various areas that Council allocated funds from the first tranche and discussed which ones they might want to allocate further funds. There are certain areas they need to continue to watch but they did not think it would take all of the funding, particularly because one large intent of ARPA was to backfill revenue shortages incurred by the City so at this point, $2.18 million can be used for that purpose.
He said they would like to continue to consider $1 million for other purposes of ARPA funds, including public health purposes such as ventilation and filtration in City spaces. They anticipate that the bulk of this money may move into the backfill category but for the next year or so they do not know where things are going. People are still getting COVID and they believe they should focus more on what they do in their public buildings to ensure filtration and ventilation are at safe levels for people to gather. They are open to guidance from the Council as to how they should proceed.
Councilmember Candell asked and confirmed the subcommittee recommends taking the $2.18 million for backfilling City revenues and keep $1 million to commit to other ARPA purposes.
Councilmember Kwok voiced his support to divide some portion to backfill for the lost revenue and for fixing of the patios and roads where revenue is needed. He also knows there were many requests in the first tranche for support and the City was not able to fund all of them.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 17 of 19 June 27, 2022
Ms. Robinson stated they have until 2024 to commit funds and she thinks they will have a better idea of what is needed. They will see how hard inflation will hit some of the City’s accounts and keeping something in reserve is a good idea.
Mayor Gerringer asked Ms. Robinson when the City must spend the money when saying “by commit by 2024”. Ms. Robinson said they must commit by 2024 but spend by 2026.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Kwok) to advise the ARPA subcommittee on potential uses for the 2nd tranche of the ARPA funds. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent:
Dawson).
Mayor Gerringer referred to appointment of Councilmembers to a Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee, and said they will work on Priority Number 4; developing a plan for fiscal sustainability and looking at revenue measures. She proposed appointing Vice Mayor Anduri and Councilmember Kwok.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Kwok) to appoint Vice Mayor Anduri and Councilmember Kwok to a Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None;
Absent: Dawson).
10. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
B. Recognizing retiring Parks and Recreation Commissioner Mark Poole for 15 years of volunteer service.
Recommendation: Accept resignation and thank Mark Poole for 15 years of volunteer service.
Vice Mayor Anduri said Mark Poole has been on the PTR Commission for 15 years, cited his service and contributions which was done with leadership, commitment and patience. He wanted to call attention to this and have the Council specifically thank him for his contributions.
Mayor Gerringer and Councilmembers thanked Mr. Poole, hoped he would return in some other volunteer capacity and wished him well.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
SHERRIN FARLEY voiced thanks to Mark Poole for his incredible service on the PTR Commission.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Kwok) to accept resignation and thank Mark Poole for 15 years of volunteer service. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Dawson).
11. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Councilmember Candell reported on the ABAG General Assembly meeting, and suggested the Council consider writing a letter regarding their intent to place an item on the ballot in 2024 to raise funding for housing. She voiced her general support for such a regional concept but realized the devil is in the details to make this work well. She asked that the Council discuss and consider this in the future.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 18 of 19 June 27, 2022
Mayor Gerringer confirmed with the City Manager staff will work to bring this forward.
Councilmember Candell reported that at the CEDIB meeting, this Friday, July 1st at 4:30 p.m. is “Take Back the Overpass” event at the El Curtola Overpass and she invited people to participate. They will also have a community even on July 28th.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if it is expected that people on the overpass will be carrying signs, and Councilmember Candell said yes, carrying but not attaching. This is the second event CEDIB has had on the overpass.
Vice Mayor Anduri said his position was that no matter how great the cause was, there should be printed material visible from the freeway on the overpass and thinks nothing should be on the overpass that could potentially distract drivers. He would hope this could be re-thought. Councilmember Candell said she will share his comments.
Mayor Gerringer confirmed the CEDIB is the community group and Councilmember Candell and Kwok are liaisons to that group.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the event at the Park Hotel last Friday, stating the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce honored Business Person of the Year John McCormick of Lamorinda Music. It was a fantastic event outdoors in the courtyard which was ideal. There were heart-warming accolades and he recognized the Mayor’s comments to honor Mr. McCormick.
The next day on Saturday he attended the Lamorinda Area Radio Interest Group, a Hamm Radio group met where once a year they set up and run their equipment on generators, practicing in the event of an emergency.
Mayor Gerringer echoed Councilmember Kwok’s comments regarding the Business Person of the Year award. Small businesses and volunteerism is very important in the community, especially through the pandemic. During that time, Mr. McCormick achieved a degree from Harvard in history and part of his thesis is a book coming out next year on highlighting contributions, struggles and challenges of the Asian Chinese immigrants in the Napa Valley where he grew up.
She reported on the CCTA and School District meeting held with Mike Moran, CCTA’s Peter Engle and the City’s new Transportation and Circulation Program Manager Patrick Golier about where CCTA can help with preparing school maps for drop-off and pickup. They are hoping to get more information about what costs might be.
B. City Manager’s Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa stated staff is recruiting City planners and an engineer. If anyone knows of entry level and senior planners, she asked them to apply to the City of Lafayette.
City Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Commission Meeting Page 19 of 19 June 27, 2022
She said foot traffic and walk-in’s to the City have been very light over the last 2+ years. The City offices are open from 8AM to 5PM Monday through Friday, and as a summer pilot, staff is closing City offices to walk-in traffic on Fridays. If the public wants to meet with staff, they can make an appointment to meet in person, but they are looking at Fridays to give the front office staff time to catch up on their other duties which sometimes gets interrupted during the weekdays. This also has been announced in the Weekly Roundup.
C. Mayor Gerringer and Vice Mayor Anduri
Resolution 2022-42 appointing two members to the Planning Commission Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-42.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Kwok) to adopt Resolution 2022-42 appointing Gregory Mason and Kristina Sturm to the Planning Commission. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None;
Absent: Dawson).
12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None
13. ADJOURNMENT – 9:39 p.m. in memory of Dr. Armando Samaniego.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Teresa Gerringer, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk