City Council Meeting Page 1 of 36 September 26, 2022
7 City of Lafayette
City Council and
Banner Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
Teleconference Meeting – Watch on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel at September 26, 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/86704040078?pwd=TVUyUTdwYThQV0wwcEJQdS91M3FGdz09 Passcode: 024795 or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128; Webinar ID: 867 0404 0078 Passcode: 024795
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 36 September 26, 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: Mayor Gerringer; Vice Mayor Anduri; Councilmembers Candell, Dawson and Kwok
Absent: None.
Present: Banner Advisory Committee: Jon Gray, liaison; Committee Members Judith Klein Flynn and Lori Lane; Absent: Larry Blodgett
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Mike Moran, Engineering and Public Works Director; Nancy Tran, Senior Planner; Patrick Golier, Circulation Program Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Suzanne Iarla, Communications Analyst; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Dawson) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - (For items on Closed Session only) – None.
MICHELLE said she emailed the City earlier to have Item 8D. removed from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Gerringer stated this item can be pulled from the Consent Calendar under that item at the Open Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
JOHANNA GLADIEUX said her question was answered regarding Item 8.D. and she will rejoin the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
BILL questioned what type of Halloween and Christmas decorations the City plans to put on barriers in front of his house.
5. CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Gerringer adjourned to Closed Session to consider the following matters:
A. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov. Code Section 54957) Title: Niroop K. Srivatsa, City Manager
B. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code Section 54957.6) City designated representative: Mayor Gerringer
Unrepresented employee: Niroop K. Srivatsa, City Manager C. Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov. Code Section 54957) City Council Meeting Page 3 of 36 September 26, 2022
Title: Mala Subramanian, City Attorney
RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Gerringer adjourned Closed Session and reconvened the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. She announced that the City Council directed the Personnel Sub-Committee to comeback with recommendation and resolutions at a future meeting.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (7:00 p.m. for items not on the agenda).
ABBY FATEMAN spoke about a level of civility and decorum that is missing from discourse and she sees this amplified in the posted letters from the community that have misinformation and libel statements in them. She requested the City review standards for posting and amplifying some of these viewpoints. They are purposeful in having a silencing effect for community members, are targeting people, and regardless of the issues in the community, this is pervasive in comment letters where individuals are being called out inappropriately and what she considers slanderous and libelous comments, both verbal and written. She asked the Council to work with its counsel to develop a policy beyond promoting the “be kind, be nice” on Facebook or social media events. It should be called out immediately when they see it.
GWEN BERTOLAMI, owner of Bertolami Engineering, said she has been in business 15 years doing residential construction drawings throughout the County. They started Comfort Casitas which focuses specifically on ADUs. She is also a 22-year resident of the City and they are following the push for high density and specifically ADU laws from the State. They know that according to the State, a garage can be turned into an ADU legally, which removes parking and adds pressure for additional parking. They want to be able to build an ADU above a garage with storage, but there is a height limitation from the City of 16 feet that does not allow them to do this with code requirements.
They have a City of Lafayette client who hired them, wanted to tear down their existing detached garage, build an ADU above a garage with storage, but the 16-foot limit would not allow it. However, the State allows demolition of a garage and construction of a new ADU. She asked the Council to consider changing the height restriction and tailor it specifically for an ADU over a garage. Oakland, Berkeley and San Jose have changed their height limitations for this exact reason, and therefore, she asked the City to consider changing the height limitation to help alleviate the parking situation and the pressure for high density.
City Manager Srivatsa asked that Ms. Bertolami contact Greg Wolff in the Planning Department.
BILL HOGLAND, School Street, referred to the decorations the City put in front of their home at Topper and School Street. They have lived in Lafayette 38 years and he supports the City but wanted to let the Council know a person walks by their home with a group of people or individually several times a week.
This person owns much of the land in Lafayette and Moraga, but this person cannot believe what the City is doing. When he explains the notification and the process to this person, they were appalled. He asked “not to kill the goose that gives the eggs for the City to eat” as he thinks the City is going down that track.
7. PRESENTATIONS
A. Banner Advisory Committee
Annual Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 36 September 26, 2022
Lori Lane, Banner Advisory Committee, gave an update on the Banner Advisory Committee, stated her colleagues Judith Klein, Larry Blodgett and herself were all reappointed in 2022, said Jon Gray joins them from the Design Review Commission (DRC) as their liaison, and Sarah Regan will join them at a future meeting. She thanked Suzanne Iarla for her excellent assistance to them as their staff liaison.
There are 9 banners in their current program for the City’s street poles. They reduced the amount of rotation due retirements of a couple of the banners. They had longevity from their display after about 10 years, and during the pandemic in 2021 they extended the duration of when they hang in order to accommodate budget and integrity of the banners. In the future, they have some reviews happening of recommendations which were presented to the City that fall outside of the guidelines of their current program.
They are reviewing their banner policy and once they have a recommendation it will come back to the Council. One of the items they need to address is no banners on the Lafayette Plaza flagpoles. This is a unique situation with a unique set of pendant style banners that has a different set of parameters, so they spent some time determining how they can better partner with applicants and enforcement of the integrity of the banner policy.
She said they are looking forward to talking about a new banner at a future meeting. Another item that has been discussed is how to re-use retired banners and whether there is an opportunity to do this in a different fashion like a pillow, tote bag, etc., and she said she was available to answer questions of the Council.
Mayor Gerringer thanked the Committee for their work over the year. She asked if there is a subject or topical area being considered for the new banner. Ms. Lane said they have loosely talked about broadening the visibility for all ages and making sure these audiences can see down the boulevard a welcome and inviting type of banner of some kind.
Vice Mayor Anduri thanked the Committee for their great work, stating he and Councilmember Dawson serve as Council liaisons and he likes the integrity of the program. So much work has gone into maintaining the standards of the program and it has meant a lot to the downtown.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
ABBY FATEMAN said last year she made the request that as the Committee retires banners and are looking at new ones she asked to think about safe streets, Vision Zero, bike/pedestrian safety, watching out for pedestrians in the downtown and throughout the community. There are examples of other cities that have banners which are mindful of safety for all road users, so she made the request again for this year.
LIBBY HENRY said she is a member of the DEIB Community Committee, and it sounds like the Banner Advisory Committee could be in the realm of the DEIB’s work, and she wondered if the Committee has spoken with anyone from their committee and asked to be connected.
Ms. Iarla said she has Ms. Henry’s email address and can reach out to her.
Councilmember Candell suggested doing something with a banner for August for bike/pedestrian safety and thanked the Committee for their work.
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 36 September 26, 2022
Mayor Gerringer and Councilmembers thanked the Committee members for their work and presentation.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gerringer stated requests were received via email to remove Item 8.B and 8.D. Councilmember Kwok requested removal of Item 8.A.3. Mayor Gerringer asked and confirmed there were no other requests for removals.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
ALON YU stated he was going to request to remove Item 8.B. and will wait to speak under Item 12.
A. Minutes
1. August 8, 2022
Recommendation: Approve.
2. September 8, 2022
Recommendation: Approve.
C. Surplus Equipment
Recommendation: Declare that the equipment is surplus property and auction as appropriate.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Consent Calendar Item A.1, A.2 and C. Roll Call Vote: 5- 0 (Ayes: Anduri, Candell, Dawson, Kwok and Gerringer; Noes: None).
9. OLD BUSINESS – None.
10. STAFF REPORTS – None.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Nancy Tran, Senior Planner - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF: HDP32‐ 21 Todd Dellamar (Owner), R‐20 Zoning: Request for: (1) a Phase I Hillside Development Permit for siting and massing determination, (2) Design review, (3) a Grading Permit, and (4) a Tree Permit for the construction of a new 3,646 sq. ft. two‐story single‐family residence including garage with a maximum ridge height of 31'0" on a vacant unaddressed parcel in the Hillside Overlay District on Los Arabis, APN: 249‐120‐005
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing, review the project, and adopt Resolution 2022-56 upholding the Planning Commission decision and approving the project, subject to conditions.
Senior Planner Nancy Tran gave the staff report and overview of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s (PCs) approval of HDP32-21 filed by Councilmember Candell. The appeal concerns the PCs August 1, 2022 Phase I Hillside Development Permit approval and associated approvals for construction of a 3,600 square foot, two-story home over a basement garage on an unaddressed parcel on the western side of Los Arabis Drive. She described the steep lot, emergency access of a hammerhead, displayed a graphic showing site constraints and the building section showing how the home steps up with the hill and into the hillside, a plan showing the 40 foot access easement on the applicant’s parcel and parcel below, and the location of the hammerhead which is within their property, the red portion inside the easement, and the grey portion of what is currently there. The applicant is not proposing to do any construction outside of the easement.
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 36 September 26, 2022
Staff received public comments since the staff’s report publication which was forwarded to the Council today. Concerns raised by neighbors included the hammerhead, amount of tree removal, the proposed massing, grading and drainage. Staff recommends the Council conduct the public hearing, review the project, and adopt Resolution 2022-56 upholding the PC’s approval, subject to conditions.
Director of Planning Greg Wolff suggested the Council disclose any discussions with the applicants or others, stated the matter was elevated to the City Council by a Councilmember thus there is no appellant, and he then provided hearing protocols.
Councilmember Candell stated she brought the appeal and she asked and confirmed with the City Attorney that if the individuals had filed their own appeal, they would have been the appellants and would have received a certain block of time to present their case, and those individuals will receive 3 minutes under public comments.
Mayor Gerringer and Councilmembers then provided disclosures regarding visits to the site and meetings and discussions with neighbors.
Councilmember Kwok said he had a question about the hammerhead and Ms. Tran stated this is a private street. He asked who has the jurisdiction to require the hammerhead be put into place; the City or CCCFD.
Mr. Wolff replied that when a development application comes in, staff refers it out to responsible agencies. Based on their requirements, they provide comments and, if appropriate, conditions of approval they would ask staff to place on the project. The hammerhead relates to emergency vehicle access and turnaround to leave the site, and staff has invited Chris Bachman, Fire Marshal for the Contra Costa Fire District.
Chris Bachman, Contra Costa Fire District, stated the Fire District has the ability to require emergency access turnaround and this project did submit for a land development permit which is their access and water permit. The applicant reached out and asked for the requirements for a land development permit.
They indicated they would require an emergency vehicle turnaround, if possible. He went back and looked at some of the previous designs and conversations they were having with the developer, architect, and consultants the owner has hired. In the original proposal it was a hammerhead that was 20 feet wide, right over next to the property line, and requests were made during several planning meetings regarding whether the turnaround could be less obtrusive, smaller, whether there was a scenario where the Fire District could reduce the size.
They went out and first attempted to see if Engine 16 conduct a turnaround at that site, and they tried using several driveways at the end to maneuver turnaround and were unsuccessful and had to back out.
Therefore, this provided their justification why they believed a turnaround was necessary, but they are also willing to work with an infill lot, which is the last lot going into a subdivision where they would only require the developer to require the bare minimum which, in this case, involved reduction of the width.
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 36 September 26, 2022
The original width was 20 feet wide and deeper than what is shown, but they were able to give the architect and designers the bare minimum their Type 1 engine would need to turn around at the end of Los Arabis. This is what shrunk the hammerhead turnaround to the current proposal which is the bare minimum to do a 3-point turn and turn around down there. The consultant, architect and engineering firms came back with the proposal, the Fire District accepted it, and there was opposition based upon the property owner across the street who identified they did not want their property, even though it was an easement, to be used as part of the turnaround and were not granting them that.
He added that when they first brought up this requirement, the neighbors mentioned the Fire District has been coming to the end of that street for years, but they would use the neighbor’s driveway which is in question, and this is how they would turn around at the end of the road. So, they did have their legal counsel review this, have held discussions with Planning staff about this, and said if the property owner across the street is not going to give them access or identify they do not want their driveway used as part of the turnaround, they would go back to the developer and see if they could come up with a different scenario that would still at least meet the ability for them to turnaround if not a 3 point turn, then a 4 or 5 point turn.
They will not get into a legal dispute with neighbors over an emergency vehicle turnaround. It is up to the developer or property owner who is providing the proposal to show the Fire District what they can legally provide. If they cannot provide that using the neighbor’s property then they are open to the turnaround being a little wider and they will use the roadway. He would caution that if they go this route, it will not go any farther up into the property but rather than the 16 feet wide, it will be a wider turnaround the owner would have to put on his property so at least a 4 or 5 point turn could still be made. As it sits now, they do not have the ability to turn an apparatus around at the end of the road for a Type 1 engine.
Regarding why he would be willing to approve a smaller turnaround and maybe the scenario it would have to be a 4 or 5 point turn, they would still have to consider an ambulance turning around at the end of the road which is smaller or Type 6 engines which are smaller than their Type 3’s. The scenario they did provide was their larger Type 1 engine. This is the answer for the turnaround and how they plan to proceed should the neighbor across the street oppose them using his driveway. It will then be up to the applicant or owner to provide the Fire District with a legal scenario they can use for a modified hammerhead at the end of the road in order for them to approve a land development permit for the Fire District.
Councilmember Kwok thanked Fire Marshal Bachman for his personal time to provide comments this evening while on vacation. He thanked him for sharing the history of this which explains the many options he considered to reduce the impact. He asked if the hammerhead as designed right now is the smallest size hammerhead that could be done or, if the opposing neighbor across the street allowed them to use more of that driveway he asked if the current hammerhead be made smaller and not be excavated so deep into the hill.
Fire Marshal Bachman stated they are open to that. He displayed the current hammerhead shown is 16 feet and it shows the distance of 60 feet. They still need enough to be able to position the front of the apparatus to make the turn to start to where they can line up straight to then back up. They could possibly reduce it a little bit in length going into the new development site if permission was given, but they cannot eliminate it dramatically or they will be in a scenario where they are not able to position the front of the apparatus into that drive to then start to backup to attempt to turn around.
City Council Meeting Page 8 of 36 September 26, 2022
They are open to looking if more of the neighbor’s property was used even past the easement, but they would put that responsibility back on the applicant to provide them with a proposal that would meet the turnaround of their apparatus. They have provided the applicant with the dimensions of Engine 16 and this is how they reduced this current design to the minimum measurements that Engine 16 could still turn around at the end of this road and not what the Fire Code requirements call out.
Councilmember Kwok asked if there is any scenario where a hammerhead could be eliminated, and they could still execute their Fire District duties, or he asked if a hammerhead was mandatory.
Fire Marshal Bachman said a modified hammerhead is required for this development to proceed. It is based on several scenarios. First, it is in a very high fire hazard severity zone rating so not only is it the issue of one of their engines being able to turn around during a medical call or a fire response but they are also concerned about having multiple apparatus being able to turn around at the end of this road should they be faced with any type of wildfire scenario in that vicinity because it is just over one-half mile they would have to position their apparatus and back up that road to get in position. Whenever they are doing structure protection they want to make sure their apparatus is pointed in the direction firefighters need to evacuate in, if necessary.
So, again, it will delay that positioning of resources if they were needed to set up a structure protection in any type of wildfire event. So, it is a combination where they evaluated the area, how the rating that Cal Fire provided for that portion of Lafayette in that vicinity, and with it being a very high fire severity zone, they feel some sort of modified hammerhead needs to be added if they are going to add additional occupants or homes down these roads. This is how they are looking at all cities as they receive requests for additional homes—what is their hazard rating, what is the nearest turnaround and what is the likelihood if they were to do structure protection.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if this requirement would be triggered if one of the existing homeowners did a remodel or addition.
Fire Marshal Bachman said no; it would be triggered if they were putting in an ADU where you are adding potential additional residence or occupants to the property. For ADUs they are given a lot of the same regulation from the State that they cannot deny ADUs, but they identify that ADUs still need to meet their requirements for access and water. They have had scenarios where an ADU goes into a neighborhood and the hydrant is too far from the ADU and either the hydrant would need to be moved or a new one added.
Or, they do not have the width or the access to get to that ADU and that road improvement would need to occur.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred back to the hammerhead and said just to be sure he understands, given the current proposal with the 16 foot wide hammerhead going into the hill, he asked if Fire Marshal Bachman was saying it is not possible to do the turn-around using the full 40 foot road and easement.
Fire Marshal Bachman said it is his understanding that what was provided at the 60 feet was the minimum.
He would have to defer that to the engineering firm that drew up this scenario. He provided them with their spec of their apparatus and said they need to be able to assure the Fire District that whatever is being designed will meet a 3-point turn with this size apparatus and it will be confirmed prior to final inspection. They came back with a 60-foot in length, 16 feet wide hammerhead.
City Council Meeting Page 9 of 36 September 26, 2022
Vice Mayor Anduri said he thinks it is 20 feet on the applicant’s property and 20 feet on the downslope which would mean it would go 10 feet beyond the easement. Fire Marshal Bachman said they showed where the easement lines are and the drawing to where that is within that line, so he does believe it is within the 10 feet easement. He does not believe it is going past the easement of what was identified.
This is why when you look at the area it appears it is going farther up into the applicant’s property than it is the neighbors. When you see the easement lines on the diagram it is staying within the easement lines on the neighbor’s property, but it is going well beyond the easement line onto the applicant’s property for the new construction.
Vice Mayor Anduri said when he was referred to Mr. Simon, the neighbor on the downhill side not agreeing to use, he asked if he was referring to not use of the easement. Fire Marshal Bachman said, yes.
Vice Mayor Anduri said therefore, the Fire Marshal is not taking the position the Fire District can use the easement.
Fire Marshal Bachman said they are going to put that responsibility back on the applicant and have them confirm that and because it is a private road, they would have that ability to use that easement area. If they do not, then this was a scenario they would go back to the applicant and say they would be open to a wider hammerhead where they would use more of the road and that that 16 feet wide is going to be wider than that and will require a multi-point turn.
When looking at these infill lots or the last lot of a developed subdivision, they will say they are open to what’s called an AMM or Alternative Means and Methods which is what this applicant would be applying for to say here is the best case scenario he can provide to meet the hammerhead or turnaround requirement. This is what the Fire District was open to approving if they were able to use the easement area. If they are not, then they will go back to the applicant and say they need to modify the turnaround to give the best-case scenario of what they can have a hammerhead turnaround just using their property and the road.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if Fire Marshal Bachman was saying they were looking to the City to let him know whether the easement can be used.
Fire Marshal Bachman said when they referred to their legal counsel, they advised it is not really the Fire District’s responsibility to determine whether or not they can require their turnaround on an easement; that it is really the responsibility of the applicant to provide that clarification, and then does the City support that turnaround in that easement area.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked the City Attorney if this is the City’s role.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said she has looked at the easement and it does reference as mentioned in the staff report that it can be used as a roadway for vehicles of all kinds, but the City does not typically get involved in private easements which is why she suspects similarly the attorney for the Fire District had a similar concept. It really becomes a private property dispute between the two private property owners.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked then how does the Council proceed.
Ms. Subramanian said it might be best to hear from the applicant and then they can follow up on this line of questioning.
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 36 September 26, 2022
Vice Mayor Anduri said he wanted to make the task a little bit easier for the applicant because they may say why they think they have the right to use it, but he questioned whether the Council will make the determination as to whether they are right or not. He asked if this was their role.
Ms. Subramanian said she did not believe so. She thinks their role would be to review the application and decide if they wanted to condition it accordingly on a hammerhead or not.
Councilmember Dawson said when these projects go out to agencies for response she asked if it is normal practice that the applicant goes directly to the agencies.
Mr. Wolff said it is common practice for the responsible agency to have direct communications regarding requirements, whether it is the Sanitary District or Fire District so there can be a dialogue and come to an understanding of the requirements or Alternate Means and Methods in this case. But again, staff received comments back from the commenting agencies and included those with the staff report, thus the hearing body has the ability to review those and factor those into whether the findings can be made.
Following on with the City Attorney’s and Vice Mayor Anduri’s question about how they move forward from here, what they heard from Fire Marshal Bachman was that the District is not interested in having a property dispute with respect to use of the easement. So, they would entertain an alternative design which is wider than currently shown as proposed which would have a multi-point turn solely on the subject property so it would obviate the need to use the neighboring property which is currently paved and within the easement and it would set aside that issue.
Councilmember Candell said there was mention in one of the PC minutes that the closest fire hydrant is not within 600 feet, so it has to be moved, but she did not see where it is in the new plan. She asked if it got to that point or was it just known that it must be moved.
Fire Marshal Bachman said this was probably listed in their planning letter identifying that it would be within the 600 feet as a condition. As he mentioned earlier, a very common comment they have with new parcel developments or even ADUs is that they pointed out they need to be within that required distance.
If it is not, the line would need to be extended with a new hydrant added on that existing underground line. The applicant would pay for this.
Vice Mayor Anduri said his understanding was that the hydrant that is there across the street from the subject property was installed when 4146 Los Arabis was built as a condition of approval. Fire Marshal Bachman said he did not think this property needed to add a fire hydrant but if it was called out in their planning letter then the potential could have been there. But, if it is within 600 feet of the property an additional hydrant would not be required to be added.
Mayor Gerringer said she did see a hydrant right across from the property. She asked if there were additional questions before inviting the applicant to speak.
Councilmember Dawson said on the Fire Marshal’s inspection report he asked the applicant to be sure that the existing water meter cannot be a dual-purpose water meter and she asked if this is in relation of the utility or in relationship to fire protection services.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 36 September 26, 2022
Fire Marshal Bachman said they call that the dual meter out more as a precaution that they understand the timing it takes to install the appropriate sized meter to support the sprinkler system and typically what the local water company requires. If they are able to get the water company to approve their install with that not being a dual meter, the Fire District is okay with that, but most water companies will not approve that. So, they like to give a heads up or warning that they probably will need to change the water meter which takes a lot of time and to ensure they are aware when starting it.
What they see happen is they apply for that request for the water meter change because it will require a larger opening in the meter to support the sprinkler system and the standard meter usually will not meet the supply. Then, the fire sprinkler in the house would not pass the design or flow requirements which could hold up the owners occupying the home.
Councilmember Dawson said in walking the property there is a water meter that is in the area that is a little murky in terms of the easements. So, depending on that, it would mean the neighbor would need to relocate that main and that would seem to be an important thing to bring up. She asked if there was any notation of that.
Mr. Wolff said he does not believe they have noted the potential for a neighbor’s utilities or infrastructure to be relocated as a function of this project. This would lie outside the scope of the entitlement process for the proposed new home and would be a private matter.
Councilmember Candell said it is a private matter, but it is an existing water meter in the proposed new hammerhead spot.
Mr. Wolff said the City would not require the neighbor to relocate the utilities is what he is saying; however, if the property owner, Mr. Dellamar wants to use his property consistent with his property rights and the easement which benefits others and utilities are affected, this needs to be worked out with the applicant and neighbors to continue to be able to serve those neighbors where there is current infrastructure. That aspect is not conditioned by the City.
Mayor Gerringer called on the applicant to present.
DONNA CHIVERS said she is the architectural designer for the proposed new home on Los Arabis for the Dellamar family. She is joined tonight with Allan Moore, land use attorney and also Todd Dellamar, the homeowner. Over the course of the Phase 1 planning, they have consistently discussed and addressed several areas to include siting, massing, privacy, tree removal, and fire safety. She displayed a graphic which shows the house in the white area and along with the driveway it is sited in an area as close to the shallowest or least steeply sloped area of the site. It is also placed where the upper right-hand corner is in a natural tree canopy clearing, and it is placed on the site to allow the Dellamar family to take advantage of the view of Mt. Diablo that the site offers.
It is 53 feet away from the south property line and approximately 91 feet away from the north property line and placed close to Los Arabis in order to minimize the driveway link. The house is also well below the maximum allowable height of 35 feet at 31 feet in total height. From the red hatched area, they have adjusted the angle and the location of the house to angle away from the neighbors and have shifted the house down towards Los Arabis in order to provide some privacy. They also have reduced or eliminated windows and made them high on the south property line so views inside the house are reduced. The tree canopy that surrounds the property will also be left in place in order to provide privacy.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 36 September 26, 2022
She then pointed to a tree map where information is taken from the arborist report, provided by Todd McNeil. The purple dots represent trees proposed to be removed as part of construction. Most of the trees are in the area of the driveway and of the required fire safety turnaround. They are proposing to remove 2 trees as part of the home construction; however, the graphic also shows they placed the house on the site in order to preserve 2 of the largest oak trees on the site. If they were to shift the house over, these trees would be in danger.
She said she and Humann Company have worked closely with Fire Marshal Bachman on several ideas for design of the driveway, placement of the hammerhead, placement of safety turnaround, and have considered placing a hammerhead on the right-hand side which she pointed to. This is a very steeply sloped area of the site and would require a massive amount of grading in order to complete the hammerhead. They could not get the slope to come within the 20% maximum allowed for the hammerhead or for the slope of the driveway. They also considered doing a circular driveway which would provide a turnaround. This is a 60% slope as well as a lot of grading. They were not able to design a driveway or turnaround that would fit with the requirements for the Fire District.
The current design and location of the fire safety turnaround meets the requirements of the Fire District, and as Fire Marshal Bachman mentioned, they have also been granted an exception to make that constructed portion of the hammerhead smaller than required to reduce the impact and footprint. These designs have all been approved by the PC and the Planning Department who supports approval, and she asked that the City Council also support the approval. She then introduced Allan Moore, land use attorney for Todd Dellamar.
ALLAN MOORE, Attorney, Fennemore Wendel, pointed out that their client, Todd Dellamar, is under Kevin Monte’s name on the list to speak. He said there have been some extraordinary comments for several minutes with regard to the Fire Marshal’s testimony. He will address those because they are very pertinent to tonight. They did everything the PC and Planning Department has requested, Ms. Chivers has complied with all planning issues as set forth in her September 9th document and chart, and he referred to the hammerhead.
He read from the August 1st approved PC minutes, “Per the legal counsel of the Fire District, if the 40-foot easement is in place then that area can be used for emergency vehicle access and turnaround without any intrusion to adjacent private properties or driveways. Per Assistant Chief Bachman’s advice, the applicant provided an updated title document that confirms the road easement is in place.” He then referred to Fire Marshal Bachman’s email to staff stating as follows dated July 25, 2022: “Dear Joshua, the Fire Department has reviewed the updated plans from our applicant (Todd Dellamar) and supports the design as provided. They did consult with our attorney related to the ability to require the hammerhead that infringes on the neighbor’s property. Our attorney indicated that if the 40-foot road easement is still in place then the area can be used by the Fire Department.” He then read from the staff report dated September 26th, “Staff: The EVA and the proposed hammerhead turnaround will be located on the applicant’s property and within the 40-foot right-of-way easement. No improvements or other infrastructure are proposed to infringe. The Contra Costa Fire Protection District supports the design, has determined the proposal meets their minimum requirements as long as the easement remains for the fire turnaround.”
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 36 September 26, 2022
Therefore, Mr. Moore said the Council can see why he is a little confused by Fire Marshal Bachman’s comments tonight. He is sure he has his reasons, and they will work with the Fire District if they desire a different design and are confident they can accomplish that, but the Council understands that the homeowner and applicants have to rely on minutes and communications from the District and confirmation from staff that this design is acceptable, and they did and have relied on that. So, perhaps during the hearing sometime, someone can explain to him why the 360-degree turnaround on that.
Everything he said just now is a quote and not an attorney embellishment.
Again, they will work with the Fire District to put anything they want on the property. There could be other issues raised but they will work with them. But, in answer to the legal question raised, this is done all the time. One advantage of getting close to 70, he has done this for 40 years and cities routinely approve something on the basis that they do not want to get into a neighborhood conflict, but when neighbors come in and say this project is going to overburden the easement, or when this person builds a winery near me, he has an easement over my property and it will overburden his easement. The City can approve that winery but any approval has an indemnification clause where if someone challenges and says this is going to hurt my easement or a neighbor says this is going to interfere with their right-of-way, then that is the applicant’s responsibility to address it at that point. The City does not turn down the project because a neighbor might object. If they did that, the City would not approve anything.
So, the answer is simply that there is a right-of-way as recognized by legal counsel by the Fire District.
There is a right-of-way there and if they get the approval and someone wants to claim that the approval is going to hurt their right-of-way or something, they would file something in court. It is premature to not approve it because a court action might go in the neighbor’s favor. If a later court action goes in the neighbor’s favor, then they have given up their permit rights. But, right now, he asked that the homeowner have the remaining time to introduce himself.
TODD DELLAMAR, owner, said he has written down his thoughts and said he owns the property on Los Arabis. He has a wife and an 11-year-old son. He bought this property 10 years ago when his son was a baby with the dream of building their family home here and allowing him to grow up in this community.
He has worked for 10 years to be able to save enough to be able to build that home. It is a modest home and modest in size in comparison to some of his neighbor’s homes, but it is their dream home. He has worked with the City and neighbors for over a year and one-half to address all of their concerns and modify their dream in every way possible to address the various concerns.
With regard to the hammerhead, this is not something like a pool or vineyard he is requesting for his own use. The hammerhead is required for health and safety to protect folks from fire and personal injury. The new hammerhead area is entirely on his property and within his legal right-of-way on Los Arabis. It has been fully approved by the staff, the Fire District, and the Fire District’s own legal counsel, and his legal counsel. The PC and Planning staff has recognized he has done everything required. The PC approved the project and staff has strongly recommended the project and recommends the appeal be denied. His family was so excited and relieved to get approval at the August 1st hearing and they ask this Council to uphold that approval so they can build their home and join this community.
Mayor Gerringer asked if there are questions of Councilmembers for the applicant team.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 36 September 26, 2022
Vice Mayor Anduri asked Ms. Chivers to display the second slide which showed the tree cover. She mentioned the house is in a clearing in the canopy with two trees; 838 and 840 will be removed. To the right there appears to be another fairly spacious tree canopy and he asked if they considered taking the top part of the three story house mass and putting it into the open space to the right to take advantage of that open spot, then the house presents to the neighborhood as a two-story house and part of the privacy concern to the neighbor to the south is relieved.
Ms. Chivers said the upper portion is the master suite and the primary sweet has a view of Mt. Diablo. If they did that, they would be encroaching on a very large oak tree.
Vice Mayor Anduri said if they move the primary suite to the right so it is at the same level as what is now the floor above the garage for a linear one-story house above a garage, this would still be in the tree canopy. Ms. Chivers pointed to what she said is a 60% grade and stated it would require a massive amount of grading. Right now, they are built into the hillside and it minimizes the grading they must do to build the house. In addition, her clients would lose their view of Mt. Diablo from this floor.
Vice Mayor Anduri said it appears the grade is less steep to the right, and Ms. Chivers said it is anywhere from 30% to 40% in the area.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked what the slope is in the area at the end of the first floor. Ms. Chivers said this is roughly 40%. It is relatively the same; however, this portion of the house is placed in order for them to enjoy the view of Mt. Diablo. If they were to move the portion over they would lose the view. In addition, they would not be crawling up the hillside at all with the stepped back foundation. They also must have a staircase to get up to it which would not change.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked how many tagged trees have been cut down on the property before filing the application. Ms. Chivers deferred to Mr. Dellamar for this.
Mr. Dellamar said no trees have been cut. He did not need a permit for the 4 trees that were cut down and he asked whoever was there that day to call him and he would have explained that to him. The arborist, Todd McNeil called the City arborist and they also received a letter from Joshua Muller, the previous staff person who gave them permission to cut those trees as well. So, anything under a certain diameter and height they can cut. He took them down so he could get something accomplished there because it has been so long since he had done anything.
He said there is a lot of tree work to be done, many dead trees on the property and wood that needs to be moved around and cleaned up, and he has been doing a lot of the work himself. A friend of his who does this did this for him and it just happened to be the day Vice Mayor Anduri was there, so he was cutting them down, and he is going there next week to cut them up and give his parents firewood.
Councilmember Candell said she has a question about the runoff. It states there must be 50% landscaped area in order for this to work out, so she did not see where this is indicated. Ms. Chivers said they proposed a preliminary landscape plan. This site is about 95% left natural and the full landscape plans will be presented in Phase 2, and the grading and drainage engineer along with the Humann Company will verify drainage is proper.
City Council Meeting Page 15 of 36 September 26, 2022
Councilmember Candell said at her previous house they were doing some work and had to tie in their new drainage into an existing drain. There were some comments about the front of the house and all of the water accumulating there and it goes in the streets with the stand bags there. She asked why there is not drainage along the frontage of the house and why is it they do not have to tie into the drainage along Los Arabis.
Ms. Chivers said there is nothing developed. The grading and drainage plans have not yet been fully developed. This is part of the Phase 2 process. The engineers will work to fully develop those plans during Phase 2. If it is determined they need to tie into the City drainage that is what they will do. If there are meters that need to be put in, they will ensure they are installed so once the plans are fully developed they will look to see what needs to happen with grading and drainage.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public hearing.
JULIE HEYDENFELDT ceded her time to Dan Heydenfeldt.
DAN HEYDENFELDT thanked the Council for allowing him to speak and time, said he thinks this boils down to what started the clock of not being ready with materials, which includes an inaccurate arborist report, plants that do not conform to ordinances, etc., and taking a unilateral approach and dismissing neighborhood concerns. They had one meeting where the plans were shared on October 26, 2021 where they provided feedback, which was dismissed. It got into a volume of issues that were sent out to limited planning staff with a premature permit filing with two project managers spanning from when the project was filed to now and taking it on, which created a difficult situation for the PC to deal with the volume of concerns and deal with incomplete information, and also a change with Commissioners. This is compounded with a very active community where they value inclusivity, family-friendly, mutual respect, and love of the natural setting and privacy. The homeowners acknowledge Mr. Dellamar has the right to develop his land but within certain guidelines or boundaries that would be amenable to what is an awesome neighborhood.
There are two root causes of why they are here tonight; 1) the applicant’s response to the Fire Code which has been discussed in regards to the dead-end fire apparatus; 2) his response to prioritizing a view of Mt.
Diablo which is creating the siting and massing concerns which have a corresponding volume of objections coming from the neighborhood. His comments will be focused primarily on the hammerhead.
The applicant is not consulting with neighbors on the hammerhead design. Per Chris Bachman’s feedback, it is the applicant’s responsibility to coordinate with neighbors. The Fire District provides specifications and that is it, and they either approve or deny. In this case, the applicant is working unilaterally with the Fire District. To be clear, what Fire Marshal Bachman mentioned is there is only one thing that is triggering this hammerhead.
City Council Meeting Page 16 of 36 September 26, 2022
He said Vice Mayor Anduri asked the right question, and the answer was “no”; that if someone wants to do a remodel or expansion, no hammerhead is required. The hammerhead is triggered by this vacant lot development application and the Fire Code states anything over 150 feet in length requires a hammerhead. It is not required for remodels and expansions. Even in previous testimony, Mr. Bachman said ADUs are a grey area. In this case, the process is the Fire District provides the specification. The applicant submits the design, and the Fire District directs the applicant to coordinate with neighbors. This again is a private street. He displayed a graphic of what the specification creates and as all Councilmembers have been to the site, they can only appreciate how invasive this hammerhead is when you see it in person. It does bisect his driveway and does require the relocation of a water meter, and it is very surprising that this now is a private matter. So, it does infringe on the legal rights of the downhill neighbor, Mr. Simon, but it infringes upon all neighbors and their ability to enjoy this private street.
There are three components to the hammerhead. One component is the applicant’s property, but what is missing from the understanding from staff is there are two other components—the width of Los Arabis Drive and the private driveway of a neighbor. To give a sense, the 2 hammerhead retaining walls are located 37 feet away from his front porch and another is 16 feet away from his side yard.
Mr. Bachman has stated in the May 16th PC meeting verbatim that the 60 feet is required and that will require 15-20 feet of the neighbor’s driveway. It means that Mr. Simon is subject to an Alternative Means and Methods agreement which requires that he somehow agrees the property owner is responsible for maintaining the upkeep of the hammerhead, including his private property.
The thing the neighborhood has a concern with is fundamental information is missing from the applicant.
The applicant is suggesting his title report is the basis for the justification of the use of Mr. Simon’s driveway, and he asked the Council to notice the title report does describe a right-of-way of the applicant as an opportunist to his property, but he has no right to burden an adjacent property. As Vice Mayor Anduri mentioned, the right-of-way stands 40 feet, the roadway is 20 feet so therefore the right-of-way at most is 10 feet in either direction. He wants to be clear that no survey has been done on the right-ofway easement spanning Mr. Simon’s driveway. To confirm the section of his driveway required for the hammerhead is included within or conforms to the right-of-way boundaries.
In summary, there are legal concerns here which deal with the scope of the right-of-way and what they do think is there is a logical solution is to place it at the beginning of his driveway. It is far less invasive to the neighborhood; it improves conservation and it addresses the Fire Code. This has been suggested to the applicant, but the response was it was not approved by the Fire District because no driveway exists across the street. He asked who places constraint on the applicant. The neighbors did not, and it would be a question for Mr. Bachman whether a hammerhead turnaround design has been submitted by the Fire District for this location.
Councilmember Candell said no survey has been done but the Council now has that picture in the staff report of where they think the hammerhead is with the right-of-way. She asked how they got that if they did not get a survey.
Ms. Tran said the image from the staff report was to inform the applicant’s response. The applicant generated this.
Councilmember Candell asked if the one on page 6 of 97 showing the green line and the hammerhead fitting within the right-of-way is where it is.
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 36 September 26, 2022
Mr. Wolff said this is referring to the exhibit and he asked what the question is.
Councilmember Candell asked who generated this and should someone has done a survey have been done to generate this. Mr. Wolff said the issue of the turnaround and the Fire District standards was brought to the attention of the applicant. In response to that, the applicant prepared this exhibit showing new construction. A survey would not be feasible to do on a future design.
Councilmember Candell asked if this is just the right-of-way. Mr. Wolff said existing conditions can be surveyed.
Vice Mayor Anduri said this is a follow-up to Councilmember Candell’s question. A survey can be done, but he asked if that is the City’s responsibility.
Mr. Wolff said no, the City does not undertake surveys of private property for private development proposals.
Councilmember Dawson asked about the property line issues. As they understand, this is a private road and private property. Much of the design and water main comes into question here and she asked if they are confident Mr. Heydenfeldt will be able to work that out with the new neighbor, Mr. Dellamar. A lot depends on that and in working with all neighbors together.
Mr. Heydenfeldt said he believes that the hammerhead invasiveness not just affects his property but affects all homeowners at the end of Los Arabis. His comments were oriented around that because they do believe there is a viable alternative that benefits all neighbors, which is one of the comments former PC member Karen Maggio mentioned on May 16th. She looked to see a solution that benefits all neighbors and reduces the invasive nature of this and still allows the applicant to develop his home, which no one is against. There is a property dispute and he has made an offer to Mr. Dellamar to address that issue as of June 3rd with no response.
But, within the infrastructure such as the water main and water meter, those are pre-existing conditions when they bought the house in 2016. They have changed nothing relating to that infrastructure or the retaining wall, so there is an issue there. He is more than happy to work with Mr. Dellamar to address it and negotiate in good faith, but right now it is sitting with Mr. Dellamar at this point in time.
Vice Mayor Anduri said if the mass that is currently the third story of the house were moved so it extended off of the north side of the second floor, he asked if that would resolve the privacy and neighborhood appearance concerns.
Mr. Dellamar said he thinks it would be helpful. As he mentioned in the August 1st meeting, they sincerely appreciate after voicing many, many objections to this that there is a rotation that took place which is great. The rotation affected the front left corner of the house being further away from the property line, but unfortunately, the back-left corner of the house is closer. Off of the third floor is a deck which looks right over his side yard. So, privacy issues are still there, and they are not shown necessarily in lot line lengths, but because of the topography and where it is so high up on the hill, it is still a significant concern.
It would help.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 36 September 26, 2022
They have asked the applicant to simply center it on the property, do not agree with Ms. Chivers that there is all of a sudden a steep slope introduction beyond what is already there. There is no additional steep slope and by centering on the house, they can also shorten the driveway because the driveway length of 150 feet is the primary cause of the excessive tree removal and also creates light pollution for at least 100 feet shining directly into his side yard, living room, kitchen, and upstairs bedrooms. So, there are a number of issues all related to siting, but regarding whether it would help, yes. Would they like to see it centered more on the property and lowered? Yes.
MATT JAROS said he and his wife own the property at 4150 Los Arabis Drive which is at the end of the street. They moved 1 ½ years ago and he is voicing his support of the appeal because the applicant’s proposal does not align with the betterment of the neighborhood primarily behind keeping the natural look and feel of the neighborhood. His chief concern is around the hammerhead as it bisects his driveway.
The hammerhead was not made part of the initial plans and discussions when they were made privy to this development proposal; however, when they determined through the Fire District that the hammerhead was something required in some capacity, they feel the hammerhead has been pushed down on them as something they must accept without any collaboration. They feel the proposal in its current form will require significant degradation to the natural feel of the street more so that is indicated by the drawing, as it will remove large oak trees, and will be replaced with concrete and cement.
A bigger concern here is the inconsistencies in the proposal relative to the reality of development. A couple of examples to call out as Mr. Heydenfeldt alluded to were that he feels it understates a number of trees required for removal or that will likely die if the Council looks at the drawings. It shows quite a few oaks will be saved, but it is very close to the development and he highly doubts those oaks will survive through that construction process.
The applicant claims it is a two-story building and maybe technically it is, but really when you look at it, it is a three-story structure with the garage, the first and second floor and from the street level looks like a giant three-story building which does not coincide with the other buildings in the neighborhood. He feels that changing the placement of the home and driveway on the property would minimize the impact to the natural feel of the community. In summary, he feels with some adjustments there would be a better situation for the overall neighborhood that would at least maintain and add to the value of the neighborhood versus the current proposal which they feel detracts from the value of the neighborhood.
MARCIA JACOBER ceded her time to her husband, Garth Jacober.
GARTH JACOBER, 4105 Los Arabis Drive, said they have been in their home since 1965, said he is familiar with tree work and removal and landscaping and wants to talk briefly about the tree removal that is going on at the applicant’s property. There have been a couple of times where trees were cut prior to any arborist report he was aware of. There was tree removal going on Tuesday of this last week on the 20th and he was concerned about trees being cut. One or two already had some arborist tags attached to them.
He is trying to figure out the sequence of events on how this all would happen without the arborist report being honored by the applicant and he was aware that prior to any construction or permits being applied for that the arborist report would be one of the first things done and that there would be evaluations on all trees that could or would be removed. His understanding right now is there will be 19-22 trees removed on this site. Some of those have already been removed from two prior cuttings. He is also concerned about trees that will be in the building area very close to foundation work and excavation. His experience in the field has been oaks are very fragile to root disturbance from construction and grading, so trees that were not tagged for removal could actually decline and die.
City Council Meeting Page 19 of 36 September 26, 2022
After reading the arborist’s report who had outlined a few things, words that came up for him was that the report was incomplete, missing information, contains numerous errors and the following misinformation was noted, a lot of remarks were vague, unclear and dubious. His concern is that those trees that were removed as noted in the arborist report from the Inside and Out group mentioned that removal of existing trees constitutes the following mitigations and there were trees removed that were stumps of 9-20 inches across, an 8 inch oak stump was between 6 and 3 inches across, so there has been tree removal done prior to this report, and he was not aware this could happen. His concerns are exactly what the Vice Mayor brought up; that there was tree removal being done the day he visited the site. A couple of the trees had tags on them.
From what he read about the City’s ordinance; this removal has been going on sporadically which is not legal. He is not opposed to development, but he would like to see minimized tree removal, and if the house can co-exist with what is on the hillside right now. Every neighbor would like to see a modified version that incorporates the natural landscape that has been up there for a long time. How that would take place is moving the house and trying to lower the elevation of it. He appreciates the Council’s time and hopefully everyone will be happy at the end of this.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he thinks everyone saw the bottom slide, and he thinks it was named “potential solution”. He asked what Mr. Jacober had in mind with that.
Mr. Jacober said what they talked about and he looked at is the solution would be can they move the home 10-15 feet more to the center in a northerly direction and also drop the house down a few more feet. He thinks this would eliminate a lot of tree removal because of the driveway proposal of 150 feet.
There are many trees in that area, and they could possibly save some of those by the review of this applicant’s house.
Vice Mayor Anduri said it seems one of the major changes in the proposal was moving the garage from the south side to the north side of the building, and he asked if that is practical. Mr. Jacober said yes, he thinks it is. As far as he can remember, most driveways go to a garage, and he suggested making the driveway further down with the garage placement right where you go into the garage, it would probably change many factors in this. Again, he thinks it could also change the dynamics of the saving of many trees.
KAMRAN said he and his wife have been living on Los Arabis Drive for over 12 years and he wants to express their concerns about the project proposed by Todd Dellamar. One concern is the massing that others have said. The way the house presents from the street looks massive and does look like a threestory home even if it is technically two or two and one-half stories. This does not conform to the neighborhood. Secondly is the excessive tree removal that would be needed because of the design, as well as the extraordinary amount of out-fill removal that would be needed for this design and transporting of that on a private street which will cause significant deterioration.
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 36 September 26, 2022
Regarding the hammerhead, he will not talk about it, but one thing he would say is developing collaboration is the key to having happy neighbors, which is sorely lacking here. The applicant has been working on their own without involving neighbors. Mr. Heydenfeldt gave an example of working on the hammerhead which none of the neighbors have been involved in. The applicant has been working directly with the Fire District to come up with the design. He would also comment on the trees have been recently cut down. The applicant mentioned that he was told he can take down small trees 4 feet and under, but those cut down are not shorter than 4 feet. They are 6-8 feet tall and there are some inconsistencies with what is being said and presented, and what the reality is.
CHRISTIAAN MAARSE said he lives diagonally across from the Dellamar site. He has been in the architectural business for about 40 years and fully understands the difficulties and challenges associated with a steep lot like this. Last October, the Dellamar design team introduced this project with a site walk with the neighbors. The initial take was a total shock. The proposed three-level house will be the second largest house in the neighborhood and not one of the smaller ones, and the three-level appearance is inconsistent with one- and two-story existing homes. Concerns were also expressed with the proposed long driveway which resulted in extensive tree and soil removal, and privacy concerns for 4146 Los Arabis, as the proposed location of the house will look right down onto that property.
At that time, the neighbors requested the applicant relocate the house to the center of the lot and closer to the road, which would reduce the driveway length, minimize the three-level impact, and the amount of tree removal. Unfortunately, the applicant insisted that the proposed location was the only spot where they had a view of Mt. Diablo. In the Lafayette residential design guidelines, it states the siting and massing of the house should minimize impacts to neighbors, views, and privacy. In his opinion, the proposed design clearly does not comply. Eventually, after six months the applicant rotated the house slightly towards the north in the same spot; however, this did not minimize impacts to neighbors’ views and privacy. The proposed three-level house creates significant visual impact from Los Arabis Drive and downhill neighbors, especially with all trees removed for the driveway.
The house is still located 20 feet above the road and the roof of the proposed house is 31 feet above the garage floor level. To put this in perspective, the roof will be 80 to 90 feet above the downhill neighbors, and with the tree removal for the driveway it will expose the entire mass of the three-level structure. The long driveway at the top is elevated approximately three feet above natural grade level and on the upslope side of that driveway, with a concrete retaining wall it will be 3 and 4 feet concrete tall. Behind that wall, there is another 2 to 4 feet of retaining walls for a total height of approximately 10 to 12 feet tall concrete walls that will run the entire length of the driveway. The visual impact of this three-level house and the required concrete retaining walls for this proposed development is enormous on this neighborhood and he requested this not be approved as presently proposed.
City Council Meeting Page 21 of 36 September 26, 2022
RICHARD DREYER said he and his wife are the neighbors across the street at 4139 Los Arabis, and he shared his screen. He is a registered civil and structural engineer for the State of California and also an architect.
He wants to talk about drainage, which is a real concern to them, probably more than anyone in the neighborhood. He pointed to a gully and a very heavy loaded catch basin that then feeds a pipe that goes through the hammerhead, which will have to get relocated and redesigned, crosses Los Arabis, goes over the Simon property and winds up going down to the creek between his property and the Simon property.
With increased impervious paving in the area here, it will only add more load to an already at capacity system. One of the bigger concerns he has at his home is that there is no ditch along here. Everyone down on this street along the north side or uphill side of Los Arabis has a drainage ditch right along their property. He thinks it used to exist here, but since it is an undeveloped lot it is probably filled in with fill and they are not getting the right drainage.
What happens during a storm like last October is water comes down off of this hill and there will actually be more because of impervious materials, falls down onto the road and then cuts downward, and somehow because of a warp in the pavement, comes down their driveway and winds up in their yard. Last year they had erosion damage from it, so he has looked at some of the applicant’s proposed drainage drawings, and they do not address the fact that they need to have a continuous drain along here. All uphill properties have this, and it is a pretty substantial ditch. So, this is their main concern and this driveway will also drop a lot of water onto the roadway as well.
JIM WHEARY, said he lives adjacent to Mr. Dellamar’s lot. He submitted his email input for this meeting which he hopes the Council has seen and considered. His remarks tonight focus on the 3-D renderings prepared by Ms. Chivers intended to show how the house and land improvements would look on the lot.
He thinks some of these renderings are inaccurate and misleading. From his home’s view, just one of Ms.
Chivers’ renderings shows only a partial view of the plan house, massed by a large bush or tree that does not currently exist. A comparative view today should show the sloped lot and reflect the eliminated oak trees.
In late July, he asked Ms. Chivers to send him a revised CAD drawing. What he received was another 3-D rendering view of the home as shown from the bottom of the proposed driveway, not the clear view he would like to see from his home. Ms. Chivers’ renderings provided are not color photo renderings he had requested last October. They are merely rough CAD drawings that do not accurately show the land topography and the trees that would remain after construction. A qualified architect, when requested, could provide color photo renderings that show the new structure as placed on the lot. He thinks they should not include new landscaping, non-existent trees, or large bushes that mask a view of the home.
Any new plantings will take years to mature. What they should see in color photo renderings is a clear picture of the new home as developed shown alongside a photo of the land in its current state. That is what he had requested, and this is not what the applicant’s representatives have provided.
The attachments to his email submission for tonight’s meeting show other inaccuracies than the 3-D renderings submitted by the applicant. In summary, he cannot support Mr. Dellamar’s plans and project unless and until he can see professionally prepared colored photos or renderings or the equivalent that give them a clear picture of how the home would look on the lot. He thanked the Council for considering his suggestions and objections.
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 36 September 26, 2022
Vice Mayor Anduri said he has three questions about suggestions that have been made by other neighbors to get Mr. Wheary’s sense of them. The first suggestion was moving the hammerhead from the south end of the property to the north end which means it would be bordering his property. He asked how he feels about that.
Mr. Wheary said he has looked at that as an idea. What he would like to see is a drawing or rendering showing how that would work, but he does not think at this point based on how that might be done that it would affect him. He really does not have a clear view of the lower part of the driveway. So, as long as it does not disturb his land, he does not think he has a problem with it.
Vice Mayor Anduri said there is another suggestion that the garage be moved from the south end of the house to the north end. He asked if this would impact Mr. Wheary at all. Mr. Wheary said he does not think it will, but again, he would like to see a drawing or plan that shows how that will be done.
Vice Mayor Anduri said finally, there was a suggestion that what appears as a third-floor mass be moved to the end of the second floor which would move it closer to Mr. Wheary’s house. Mr. Wheary said if it is going to be at the same height of the very high level, he thinks he would have some concern about that, but if it would lower the mass of the house he does not think he would have a concern about it. But, he would like to see a color photo rendering that shows what this looks like.
LOVELLE YANO ceded her time to Phil Simon.
PHIL SIMON said his wife is Dr. Lovelle Yano, and they live at 4141 Los Arabis Drive. The house was designed and built by his parents in 1947/48 and he has to say that his experience in this neighborhood have been one of neighbors communicating, collaborating, and cooperating with each other. His chief concern is that the turnaround as it is proposed is going to interfere with his driveway in such a way that it will encumber his property and title, and unnecessary complexities the way they have ownership or any other future ownership that might occur. Their private property and taking responsibility for it by a third party is very objectionable to himself and his wife. The hammerhead and the way it is proposed and designed would make it so they effectively lose control of their private property because it will encumber the property in perpetuity. That is not something they could tolerate.
Therefore, he would like to be collaborative and cooperative with Mr. Dellamar, but this does not seem to be possible right now. Besides that, the scope of the right-of-way and the language when it was created in 1943 is such that the whole easement issue, hammerhead, and how many feet here or there really encroaches on their private property and he does not hear anyone addressing or speaking to that. He and his wife will use every means available to not allow this to happen, as they do not want their property to be encumbered and the title encumbered. This is basically what his objection is aside from other issues because they are on the downhill side of things.
Councilmember Candell said the Council heard from Mr. Simon’s neighbor about drainage issues. Since he is on the downward side, she asked if he had any problems with drainage from the Dellamar property.
Mr. Simon said yes, absolutely. The last significant rain they had a river of rock and mud coming down his driveway and he has not seen anything in the plans that adequately deal with or consider the drainage issue, and it is a major issue.
Mayor Gerringer closed the public comment period, and Vice Mayor Anduri suggested a brief break.
City Council Meeting Page 23 of 36 September 26, 2022
BREAK
Mayor Gerringer called for a 5-minute break at 9:44 p.m. and thereafter reconvened the matter at 9:49 p.m.
Mayor Gerringer called on the applicant or applicant’s representatives for rebuttal.
Rebuttal – Applicant
ALLAN MOORE said there are so many comments and he reminded the Council that the neighbors submitted a 13-page letter with new claims and new information on Thursday night at 7:00 p.m. which he received this afternoon. He thinks it would be difficult and improper for the Council to rely on that type of testimony to deny the project. He asked for a continuance. It is extraordinary because they read the staff report earlier to understand that the Fire District did not have a problem with their current proposal with the hammerhead. If there are issues they want to confirm he will work with them.
He has been a Planning Commissioner for Walnut Creek for about 10 years and he works well with neighbors. He was not involved at the August hearing, but he would offer pro bono to his client to work with neighbors as they move forward with a continuance to see if they can iron out the hammerhead issue which might be able to be done to everyone’s satisfaction, and work on each neighbor’s individual issues.
They would want to confirm this is a siting and massing hearing and not the type of hearing generally where you talk about some of the issues brought up tonight, but they are going to be brought up later anyway in Phase 2, so he does not mind addressing that.
Therefore, he is offering some pro bono work for the client and asking for the City to continue the matter rather than accept the documents just submitted they saw today at 2:00 p.m. through no fault of staff, and give them a chance to work on these issues. Again, in 5 minutes he will not address tree removal, drainage, and all other issues. He asked the Council to allow them the continuance. Also, they believe they turned in a survey for the project, including the right-of-way. There were several issues brought up where they just want to have a regroup with Mr. Wolff and Ms. Tran and have a better hearing next time where, even if people disagree on impacts, they agree on the basics of whether the turnaround is acceptable, is the legal issue decided, and other issues so they cannot have such a disjointed type of hearing. He hopes the Council will allow this, and he asked Ms. Chivers to comment on any specific issues.
DONNA CHIVERS said she has nothing further to add and thanked Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore added that they have their arborist here tonight, but he thinks time would be better served working with neighbors. They recognize this was an extraordinary deal where the Council appealed the matter and had the right to do so under its ordinance, but given that, he thinks a continuance would be appropriate.
Mayor Gerringer asked if there were any questions because she has thoughts on how to proceed.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked whether the City Attorney sees any issues with stopping the discussion now and continuing this matter.
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 36 September 26, 2022
City Attorney Subramanian said she does not, but if they do continue it, the Council may want to continue to a date certain if the Council does not want to re-notice it. If the applicant is not yet ready to determine that date, staff can re-notice it accordingly.
Mr. Moore said they would agree to staff’s judgement as to what date that would be.
Mayor Gerringer said one of the questions in terms of process she was hoping to bring back was whether or not the Council felt like they were ready to go to the findings or other information in the packet to begin moving towards a decision or, she asked if there were additional questions or did the Council wish to continue the matter. She personally still has questions and voiced support for continuance so work can be undertaken with the neighbors. She asked if the Council wants to direct staff to work with the applicant and their representatives and neighbors and return with a proposed date.
Mr. Wolff said with respect to a continuance date to a date certain, staff would recommend October 24th which would give a couple of weeks for the applicant to meet with neighbors and turn around materials.
Staff can always continue it if additional time is needed, but this would be the minimum.
Councilmember Candell said two weeks seems quick to achieve consensus but as long as the date can thereafter be continued, she voiced support.
Councilmember Dawson said in hearing what the neighbors are bringing up, she asked if opposition to items would be enumerated such as grading, massing, etc. and then return with resolution. Vice Mayor Anduri said he very much appreciates Mr. Moore’s offer because he is very skilled. One of the things they want to accomplish is bringing the neighborhood together.
Councilmember Kwok concurred and appreciates Mr. Moore’s offer to work together with the neighbors.
He would actually suggest a date in November of about six weeks out, given he did not want them to feel pressured and would like adequate time to work with the 10 neighbors. He suggested November 14th as the continuance date.
Councilmember Dawson said she understands from Mr. Bachman’s comments that he was supportive of the plan as it stood based on if the neighbor was also in agreement. Mayor Gerringer thanked Fire Marshal Bachman and said she knows he will have the ability to continue to work with the applicant in moving forward.
Fire Marshal Bachman said if the hammerhead required that the neighbor agree to it, then they would request that take place. It is more of a legal argument if it is within the easement or whether it passes the easement line and neighbors’ approval or agreement of that must take place. He thinks if they could not come to an arrangement and they needed the neighbor’s agreement to it, and it could not be done. His point was that there are other options they would work with the developer to move the hammerhead down, make it wider, or evaluate whether it could be done at the driveway location. They did not identify it had to be at the location it was at. This was the proposal from their design and engineering team who felt it was the least amount of dirt work and tree removal to put it at its current location. But, they have identified what the bare minimums are, provided them with their apparatus spec turnaround and not the Fire Code requirement, and they would be willing to work and evaluate different proposals if they feel this is an agreement they make with the neighbors or feel the condition would meet the needs of the City.
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 36 September 26, 2022
Mayor Gerringer thanked Fire Marshal Bachman for his assistance, and she confirmed he was available at either the October or November dates, and he asked that staff notify him of the date.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Dawson) to continue matter to November 14, 2022. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Candell, Dawson, Kwok and Gerringer; Noes: None).
Mayor Gerringer suggested continuing the two Consent Calendar items to the next meeting and then consider Item 8.D. which was on the Consent Calendar. There is a time-sensitive item on Item 13.C, and she would like to undertake that item. They can table Item 13.D, and then they can get to the second Closed Session item prior to midnight. City Attorney Subramanian said she would want to be sure there are staff and the consultant available if Item 8.B, the Housing Element EIR, was continued, and she confirmed with the Mayor that a simple majority vote is needed for the item.
Councilmembers then discussed potential continuance dates for Items 8.A, 8.B and 13.D, and confirmed everyone was available for these continuances to October 4, 2022.
12. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
3. September 12, 2022
Recommendation: Approve.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Dawson) to continue matter to October 4, 2022. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Anduri, Candell, Dawson, Kwok and Gerringer; Noes: None).
B. Resolution 2022-51, Approving certification of the 6th Cycle Housing Element EIR Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-51 Approving Certification of the 6th Cycle Housing Element EIR.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Dawson) to continue matter to October 4, 2022. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Anduri, Candell, Dawson, Kwok and Gerringer; Noes: None).
D. Resolution 2022-59 Approving the Filing of All Project Applications for Funding Assigned to MTC as Part of the OBAG-3 Grant Program, and Committing Any Necessary Matching Funds and Stating Assurance to Complete the School Street Class I Multiuse Facility Project Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2022-59.
Transportation Program Manager Patrick Golier gave the staff report and overview of the item, stating the resolution is required by MTC as part of the OBAG-3 Grant Program application he is preparing to submit. He provided background of his work in submitting two OBAG-3 applications to CCTA which have been reviewed, and 10 projects were shortlisted by that panel and will be submitted to MTC for their consideration. The School Street project is one of those 10, and this particular project is for a Class 1 facility on School Street and Topper Lane and a sidewalk on St. Mary’s Road between Topper Lane and Birdhaven Court.
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 36 September 26, 2022
The grant would fund planning, design, environmental and construction phases for the project. He spoke about the opportunity which came up this summer after the completion of the Toole plans which is not an ideal timeline, but he said he added in the resolution a qualifying statement that states the project would be implemented as described subject to completion of the conceptual and detail design, public engagement and environmental clearance. This way, they do not lose the opportunity for the grant and they are committing to design and a public process.
Councilmember Candell said people are concerned about Topper Lane, as well as School Street, but many comments came in around Topper because they have not discussed it. If the City gets the grant, she asked if it means they automatically have to use the money or she asked if they could get the money, propose the design, and if there is not buy-in from the public the grant would go away.
Mr. Golier said there are a number of ways this could play out. They could be successful in their entire ask, they could get nothing, or what most likely is they will get partial funding and they will be asked to scale the project appropriately and return with an updated scope. They could also start the planning process and realize they did not budget enough and again; they would have to scale up or down. He thinks there will be on-going conversations with MTC if they are successful, but they have committed to a planning process and it would include discussions with the community.
Director of Public Works and Engineering Mike Moran added to remind the Council that last summer the Council gave staff direction to start the design process for School Street only. This grant includes the perimeter around three sides of the junior high, with School Street being the primary. So, they began that design process and will conclude a design for School Street whether they get the funding or not. Should they get the grant, it will expand the scope and they will be able to turn the corner literally at Topper off of School Street and then again at St. Mary’s Road.
Vice Mayor Anduri said if the Council approves the resolution the process they would go through for anything related to any development on Topper or St. Mary’s would be the same as if they hadn’t approved the resolution. In other words, there will be no cutting back on public input. Mr. Golier confirmed. It is just the timing of the grant application, which was due this summer, so it is a bit of reversal of the phasing.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period.
MARC BRENNER ceded his time to Johanna Gladieux.
JOHANNA GLADIEUX referred to residents getting full discussion on the issue, she cannot believe this is true. She has been told there is no plan, but there is a plan to put a Class 1 pathway on Topper Lane and residents are told there are three options; they take the east or west side, and the one-way has been taken off the table. So, it sounds there have been decisions made about a Class 1 pathway and what that entails on Topper and no input has been allowed on that whatsoever. They either choose the east side or west side and a one-way option is not available. There is no option for discussions on how to make Topper safer and put money and applications towards where they will really matter.
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 36 September 26, 2022
They feel this application and this idea was lobbied by two people who have connections and have caught the attention of a few people and have excluded them. They have no agreement or discussion in the neighborhood, and they feel it is a breach of participation requirements for MTC and in fact, there has already been a complaint filed with several homeowners willing to pursue legal options. They do not feel they are getting a straight story and feel this pathway will give options for Birdhaven to have a Class 1 pathway to the trail and School Street. This, heading south, will only add to congestion in the one option that Stanley has for off-loading students.
This Class 1 path heading north would have absolutely no function except to lead people to Birdhaven on the one paved block of St. Mary’s. This option makes no sense and it leaves neighbors on Topper living in an alley for no real benefit and costing the City a lot of money to relocate telephone poles, drainage, a fire hydrant, possibly taking area from driveways, home frontage, and they just do not see why any of this makes no sense whatsoever. She has canvassed everyone on School Street and Topper Lane and they hope School Street gets the money but they all feel it is time to get extremely serious about asking for funds and doing serious planning to remove congestion and improve traffic flow at the drop-off at School Street.
She has heard last week of three incidents where there were jam ups and people trying to go around other cars, dropping off, picking up students and exactly the same behaviors that resulted in a deadly event, and she thinks Mr. Moran witnessed one of those over the last week or so. Circulation, traffic flow, and safety have not improved, and they will not improve with a Class 1 walkway after lots of money and destruction on Topper Lane. She asked the City to please focus on St. Mary’s, putting a walkway on North St. Mary’s, putting some sort of access for pedestrians and bicycles on the west or east side of Stanley Field, and develop a drop-off out of Acampo on St. Mary’s. The City must get the congestion out of that drop-off on School Street.
This plan for Topper makes no sense except for those living on Birdhaven and every other street east of Birdhaven has access to the trail besides Birdhaven because they were shut out when the owners changed and cut off their access. They can walk one block to Hope and access the trail just perfectly, as everyone else does in the neighborhood. She thanked the Council for listening and she hopes the Council takes the letters they received very seriously. They are very serious, and they are not going to have their street transformed the way a Class 1 pathway envisions.
CONNOR BEGLEY said he moved to Lafayette about 4 years ago with his wife and 3 kids and to Topper Lane about one year ago, and he is appreciative of all the work the Council is doing. He appreciates the work and efforts with grant money when it is available, and with that said, this particular plan does not make much sense. He knows it comes down to 4 issues: 1) there is resounding consensus among the Topper Lane community this is not something they want in any of the current formats being proposed; 2) adding this in benefits a very small number of people at a very high cost and he presented a graphic of; 3) if the goal is to increase safety around schools, this will have almost no effect and in fact may have a negative effect by limiting the width of Topper Lane that will increase traffic congestion. If the City is trying to increase safety and reduce congestion, an alternative path should be developed for dropping off students, which is clearly St. Mary’s Road where there is space and a park.
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 36 September 26, 2022
Lastly, 4) although the City is moving quickly, and he appreciates taking advantage of the opportunity the reality is they will be dealing with some cost fallacy here where now the City has the grant money and plans they have to do it. Unfortunately, this is not going to accomplish objectives being stated, and frankly is something that will actively detract from those who live on that path to benefit almost nobody.
Therefore, he asked to have this removed, reconsidered, and the City can re-apply later, but this is not something the residents want, provides no benefits to the community, and comes at a high cost.
SCOTT ELLIS, 821 Topper Lane, said he submitted one of the letters the Council reviewed to document his strong opposition to the inclusion of Topper Lane and the resolution being discussed. He echoed comments of Connor and Johanna, he would like to think he is in complete alignment with neighbors. He has three points in addition to his letter: 1) The proposal for Topper Lane sidewalk as was mentioned appears to have been added very late in the process, and it is also completely unnecessary and will be used by a handful of families. It will not make the street or community any safer and it actually will increase risk because pedestrians will be added to a very narrow and busy roadway for school drop-off; 2) He is very disappointed in the level of resident engagement by the City. He knows it is important to move quickly and secure funds, but his expectations are much higher and being engaged in something so important.
He would say they have had insufficient visibility, communication, and engagement on this topic. This is the topic that will have a huge impact on residents of Topper Lane, particularly his family, property, and quality of life; and 3) This is too important an issue to have this lack of transparency. He asked the Council to take a pause and think about it.
Lastly, he requests that the Topper Lane component be remove from the resolution. If the component is not removed, neighbors will be compelled to explore legal options. It is too important to chase the money without a full understanding of the plan and the neighborhood and this is not something that will be utilized or needed or requested by residents of Topper Lane.
MICHELLE read a statement and email from Patrick Golier, and she thanked him for his work on September 26th where he writes, “There is no project on Topper Lane. To date, I applied for funding through the OBAG grant program for a project on School Street, Topper Lane, and St. Mary’s Road and if successful, the City will start the planning process with the community. However, without that funding there is no project.
End of Statement.” So, without funding there is no project but with funding there is a project and it includes a Class 1 facility down Topper Lane, so Resolution 2022-59 serves three purposes; it authorizes the filing of the grant application to get the funding, commits $700,000 worth of matching funds from Lafayette taxpayer dollars, and it states assurance by the City to complete the project if the grant is received.
Furthermore, by the City approving this resolution assures the sponsor it will complete the project as described in the application. Therefore, she hopes the Council understands their concern and perhaps confusion about there being a project on Topper Lane or not. On behalf of all residents on Topper and a few on Birdhaven, they oppose Resolution 2022-59 and ask that it be amended to delete any language regarding a multi-use path on Topper Lane. However, they are in clear support of the resolution as it pertains to installing a permanent Class 1 facility on School Street to connect the trail to Moraga Road.
They feel a permanent path will make the temporary changes constructed on School Street this summer much safer by means of a raised curb, ideally landscaping, hedging or some other barrier such as a fence that could act to separate people from moving cars.
City Council Meeting Page 29 of 36 September 26, 2022
A few reasons they do not support the Class 1 facility on Topper is 1) support safer routes to school, and the money devoted to a path down Topper does not make anything safer for hundreds of children who still need to get driven to school from Burton Valley and elsewhere and dropped off on St. Mary’s Road.
If you look at the chaos on St. Mary’s Road and its side street like Acampo and compare that to what is occurring on Topper Lane, the Council will see firsthand where there could be more impact for the greater good and this is not by constructing a Class 1 facility on Topper. She asked to table the vote for Resolution 2022-59, amend the resolution and grant application to exclude any language including Class 1 facility on Topper Lane and this way the City can proceed with the grant application and proposed Class 1 facility on School Street that would enhance the safety of temporary changes already made.
GARY RISKE, 843 Topper Lane, strongly asked the Council to amend the resolution and delete the reference to a Class 1 pathway on Topper Lane. That was never discussed back in the summer when all of the discussions about School Street efforts were discussed, and which he strongly supports. They want to encourage safety of students coming in and out of Stanley. A Class 1 pathway on Topper Lane does nothing about safety and security for those students. It benefits a couple of people from Birdhaven that instead of walking to the left coming to St. Mary’s and going down Hope Street which does have access to the pathway to try and add something on Topper Lane, which is properly named a lane and not a street, and to take any available facility space off of Topper Lane makes no sense.
Again, he strongly encouraged the Council to amend the proposal, amend the resolution to delete any reference to Topper Lane. There has been no outreach to residents on Topper Lane and they are those affected and none of them are asking for or are in favor of this. There are a couple of people supportive of this from Birdhaven and there are other alternatives for them to get to the pathway. He would also encourage the City to look at St. Mary’s Road if they want to amend the proposal to extend a pathway from St. Mary’s to Birdhaven to the back of Stanley and have access from St. Mary’s onto the Stanley facility because there you will get the benefit.
JINEE ELLIS said she lives on Topper Lane, and as voiced there is significant objection to addition of a Class 1 pathway on Topper Lane for a variety of reasons. She and her husband, Scott, sent a letter and most concerning to them has been the lack of transparency and the addition of this component of the OBAG-3 grant application and resolution. Her concern has only increased as she has had the opportunity to read through the rest of the letters from all neighbors, and she highlighted some observations. First, there is very clear surprise from all neighbors to learn about this resolution, tonight’s vote, and the inclusion of Topper Lane. Quite frankly, they have all been shocked at the lack of transparency and the speed in which the City is pushing this item through without requesting any input from residents that would be most impacted from this change.
She is also a bit disappointed to hear the timeline and process for this grant application is being positioned.
As stated, there has been no public purview of including Topper Lane, yet the City will be approving a resolution that commits them to completing the project as described in the application if the City receives the funding. While she appreciates the time constraint the City is under, she does not think it permits the City to bypass any required processes and submitting the grant. In fact, she just heard the Council talk about providing adequate time in order to address all considerations in the previous matter. While she understands there are tight constraints the City is under, she looked at the timelines provided on the CCTA website and she thinks there was general awareness in January. The CCTA Board adopted the OBAG-3 program application in May and applications were due in July. It is now September and residents just only heard about this days ago.
City Council Meeting Page 30 of 36 September 26, 2022
In addition, she was also surprised there are current and past Transportation Circulation Commissioners who are more savvy on City routines, and they were also caught off guard at how this did not seem to follow proper communications. Given the lack of public discussions and proper processes were not followed, she is very interested in understanding how Topper Lane got added to the resolution, and she firmly believes the City cannot in good faith approve a resolution of local support for School Street that includes Topper Lane when there has not been adequate transparency, and given strong objection and potential legal litigation that residents are willing to pursue. In addition, they will notify CCTA and MTC of their concerns and intentions on this.
ERIC LAW said in listening to comments and reading some of the letters, he was a bit shocked since the folks on Topper Lane do not want the money, he would like to volunteer Solano for money to be spent on burying their utilities because he knows that increases property values. Bike and pedestrian paths increase property values so they would like to have one of those, and also he thinks it should be a oneway street because this would result in substantially less traffic for them. These are all great solutions that would benefit residents, and if Topper residents want to maintain a two-way street and a dangerous section for themselves they are more than welcome to.
There are many opportunities for improvement in this area. They get a lot of traffic because they are wedged between a middle school and a private school. He thinks everyone needs to focus on those and know these are public streets that are shared by everyone—pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers, and unfortunately in listening to tonight’s comments, there is not a lot of sharing going on. There is a lot of “mine, mine, mine.” That is not what occurs on public streets; otherwise they need to close all of the streets according to residents on Topper and put up gates and toll plazas which is what they are proposing.
He asked not to do that. As the City of Lafayette does and their schools do, they are sharing, caring, and giving and being respectful to each other and that is not what is occurring in these comments. There are personal attacks which are unacceptable and straight up selfishness. He was hoping residents are a lot better than this. So, if the Council needs other projects there are many opportunities to use the money for, but he thinks Stanley is a good opportunity. He thanked the Council for their time, and he hoped residents can show more respect to each other and neighbors, and he asked to solve problems by building infrastructure.
ABBY FATEMAN thanked staff for taking initiative and starting to apply for grant money for these areas that have been identified in a series of studies over the past decade. She thinks it is important to demonstrate the City hired new staff to start looking at this and took quick action on it. She appreciates they are looking at it as a little bit more of a network as opposed to just a segment of a street. This is an important part of looking at safer streets, more complete streets, and pulling together networks for people to move, whether to school or within the community. Could it be bigger? Sure. Could it be smaller? Sure. Nothing will be quite perfect, but what this grant does is provide the City with an opportunity to start having those discussions to do the studies, figure out what design concepts can and cannot work, and there is not a specific project.
She thinks there is some misinterpretation of the word “project” at least from her experience as a planner.
What a “project” means is doing the outreach and doing the studies is part of the “project”. The “project” might end at the point where you do not have something that can go to construction. But, doing the studies and getting the input, having the process and the funding to do it properly is what this grant is about. If they get through this to a place where they can construct, that is a huge victory. This is a lot of money for a very important area with vulnerable people moving through it multiple times a day.
City Council Meeting Page 31 of 36 September 26, 2022
She applauds staff for pursuing this. It sounds like there has been some miscommunication and some people who are very concerned, but she is hoping the City can work on the communications to make people feel better about the process ahead if the City is awarded the grant, and she encouraged the Council to adopt the resolution submitted and doing this in other neighborhoods.
There are many neighborhoods that could use infrastructure improvements. They are expensive and the City has cost sharing and a policy that helps the City guide how they make decisions to prioritize zero deaths and reducing deaths from bikes and pedestrians and interactions with other road users. It is very important to stick to the policies adopted, use them as guidance, and have clear communication with the community about what is really happening so everyone can work together and not create tension and divisiveness in the rhetoric being used. She hopes people can come from a place of trying to understand more and communicating facts and not coming from a place of fear or feel they are being attacked because this is a huge opportunity for everyone to study and make this work.
Vice Mayor Anduri said in looking at the text of the resolution, the first “whereas” which is underlined refers to the School Street Class 1 Multi-Use Facility project herein referred to as “Project”. Then, nowhere else in the resolution is Topper or St. Mary’s referred to. There is a reference to an application.
Under “Resolved, the project will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution”. He asked if the complete application has a reference to Topper Lane.
Also, within that, the Council heard many references to Class 1 pathway on Topper and, in fact, the staff report does refer to a Class I path on Topper as being part of the application. He asked if this is correct. If so, they need to change the resolution to ensure what is being covered.
Mr. Golier said it is in the application, yes. It states, Class 1 facility on Topper Lane between Topper Court and St. Mary’s and then the sidewalk on St. Mary’s.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if states what side of the street on Topper. Mr. Golier said what is envisioned is on the east side; however, his narrative describes they need to go through the planning and design process.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if including Topper in any way harm the City’s chances of getting the grant for School Street. Mr. Golier said he does not have an answer to that question and does not know.
Ms. Iarla noted there was another public speaker who had their hand raised wishing to speak.
PATRICIA KENNEDY-RISKE said her husband spoke and said they live at 843 Topper Lane, said she wanted to reiterate about communication. She thinks a lot of what has been said by the two prior speakers could have been avoided if, as residents, they were given some type of clear communication. The number of emails she received in the last few days about what is happening on Topper Lane and how it has come about it really confusing.
City Council Meeting Page 32 of 36 September 26, 2022
She thinks the application initially was submitted July 15th and two months have gone by and a notice or something to the residents would make things a lot easier. She wants to also reiterate that the implementation of a Class 1 pathway on Topper Lane will only benefit a few on Birdhaven. It would be much more cost-effective to have a pathway going from Birdhaven, cross over the top of Topper, down St. Mary’s Road because if a pathway is put on Topper Lane, it will be more of a nightmare during school pickup and drop-off. Therefore, she asked the Council start to engage with residents and ultimately leave out any language in the resolution that refers to Topper Lane.
Councilmember Candell asked if the resolution can be changed and remove the Class 1 from it, or can they modify it. She asked if that is even possible at this time. Mr. Golier said the application will be submitted to MTC and is due on Friday. He can probably change the application, but it has gone through the CCTA review panel and they are the ones submitting to MTC.
Councilmember Candell asked if staff could contact CCTA to rescind part of it and asked if this would be possible. Mr. Golier said he can talk with CCTA about it.
Mayor Gerringer said tonight the Council is being asked to approve the resolution that supports the application. The application is due on Friday so one option would be to adopt the resolution for support contingent upon removal of the Class 1 on Topper Lane being studied as part of the whole piece and still leave in St. Mary’s. Then, if CCTA grant panel says no; that it is already in process, then the motion would be not to do any of it. In the resolution of local support, there are a number of requirements in the “Whereas” clauses and it comes down to completion of the project, subject to environmental clearance and if approved in the MTC-TIP. Part of this process is that it must go through this study, design, and communication. She asked if there is a way for the Council to approve it subject to the Topper Lane Class 1 coming out and still not have another meeting while still checking with CCTA.
Mr. Golier said there is one more option which is that this resolution is technically not due to MTC until they are ready to issue funds. So, he wanted to submit the whole thing as one package, but there is the possibility if the application goes through as written the City may not get the full amount and will get a partial amount which would add clarity to the resolution to what it is the city is agreeing to.
Councilmember Dawson said one of Toole Designs aspect of study was Stanley and Topper Lane. The study has just been completed, and she asked if that was what factored into staff including it in the grant application.
Mr. Golier said yes; last April the Rapid Implementation School Safety Plan came to the Council for Stanley Middle School and Lafayette Elementary School. This was a recommendation out of that study. Mr. Moran has been working hard to get through as much of the short-term projects as possible, but this grant gave them an opportunity to start chipping away at some of the longer-term recommendations.
Councilmember Dawson said the City does not know how much it will get funded, and staff may have to reduce the project for it anyway. If the resolution is not yet due, she suggested not turning it in right now.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked what the recommendation was in the Toole Design report. He finds it very difficult to make a substantive decision on what happens where tonight because they do not have the information, but he asked what their recommendation was as a medium- or long-term solution.
City Council Meeting Page 33 of 36 September 26, 2022
Mr. Golier said it was a longer-term project and it was to install sidewalk on the east side of the street and if there is enough right-of-way to install a shared path for walking and bicycling.
Vice Mayor Anduri said in the application itself, he asked if it uses that same kind of language for the project. In other words, what are they applying for and, if at the end of the public process, they decide to do something else on Topper, is the City allowed to use funds for something else? Mr. Golier said scopes change all the time with grant funding so often times they are issued before detailed design is done and so scopes have to change. Typically, yes, scopes can and do change. The qualifying language he added to this resolution is subject to planning, design, and environmental.
Mayor Gerringer said in moving forward with the grant application with this language is that in the Toole report and the longer term, it does begin to touch St. Mary’s Road and there are many “what if’s”. She apologized for however they got to the lack of communication or the idea that something is absolutely happening right now without everyone being part of this, feeling like it is being rushed, but in the report and application and in applying for the grant, based on recommendations received from different reports over the last year and with the Toole report, this network is one the city is looking at and how they connect from the trails. In the Downtown Congestion Plan 10 years ago, they looked at what things can be done on St. Mary’s Road. If putting a sidewalk in and working with the School District because that property is theirs, those are all discussions that have to take place.
The idea they can move forward with recommendations they already have, knowing they are going to have community engagement, review designs and plans that are realistic, cost-effective, have community buy in, and all of those things, she would like to finish this discussion tonight and be able to submit the application with her sincere apologies for however people feel they have not been listened to.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he supports that completely. He also apologized if there is a feeling that something has been pre-decided. Clearly there has not been public input but in looking at concerns here, he would give his personal guarantee and is sure other Councilmembers would join him that there was a concern that decisions have been made already. He can guarantee that if a decision has been made, the City would undo it and they would be looking de novo as to how they handle this project. Nothing has been decided on it, and he hopes the public trusts the Council on this. He identifies with Mr. Begley’s invocation of the cost fallacy. He can guarantee him that he is not going to buy into the cost fallacy as they discuss this. It is just not going to happen. It is unfortunate that it happened this way, it is fortunate grant funds are available to consider this, and he does not think the Council should jeopardize the opportunity to receive funds, and Councilmembers will all guarantee there will be a full public process, there are no pre-decisions, they will take everyone’s input into account and make the best decision for the community.
Councilmember Candell added that this was backwards, but they will do a better job again. She thinks it was unfortunate and she did not understand Topper Lane was included, and definitely no decisions have been made. They will try to do better, and she apologized and said they will learn from this. This is not over, and the City will discuss it with everyone. If it does not work out, it will not work out. Parts of this grant, however, and this program are so fundamentally important for the City, so they do not want to jeopardize it at all. She wanted everyone to know that nothing will move forward on Topper without a public process.
City Council Meeting Page 34 of 36 September 26, 2022
Councilmember Dawson seconded Vice Mayor Anduri’s guarantee, stating they will want to hear public comments. She thanked speakers for their concern and comments, and thanked Mr. Golier for jumping on this grant, knowing it is very difficult to get any funding. Hopefully, the community knows the City is open to having special meetings to provide public comments especially on something as important as safety on public streets and impacts on residential neighborhoods and streets.
Councilmember Kwok thanked members of the public for their commentary and again, he apologized and looks to the future to have a better dialogue and input into this process.
Mayor Gerringer asked Councilmembers if they wish to move forward with adoption of the resolution.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2022-59 approving the Filing of All Project Applications for Funding Assigned to MTC as Part of the OBAG-3 Grant Program, and Committing Any Necessary Matching Funds and Stating, subject to completion of conceptual and detailed design, public engagement, environmental clearance, assurance to Complete the School Street Class I Multiuse Facility Project. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
EXTEND MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Kwok) to extend the meeting to 12:00 midnight. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
13. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to continue the item to October 4, 2022. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
B. City Manager’s Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to continue the item to October 4, 2022. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
C. Mayor Gerringer
Letter from Supervisor Candace Andersen requesting a letter from the City of Lafayette for placement in a Time Capsule in the new County Administration Building at 1025 Escobar Street on October 4th.
Recommendation: Discuss the letter, authorize the Mayor to sign and submit the letter for placement in the Time Capsule.
Mayor Gerringer stated in the packet is a draft letter and ideas of things to respond to the request from Supervisor Candace Andersen to put into a Time Capsule for their meeting on October 4, 2022. The Time Capsule commemorates moving into the new administration building at 1025 Escobar Street. She asked for specific edits on the letter relating to other items to add.
City Council Meeting Page 35 of 36 September 26, 2022
Councilmember Candell said she thinks some photos of down along Mt. Diablo Boulevard as well as the Reservoir should be included. Vice Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed the information on the item was contained in the on-line agenda packet.
Mayor Gerringer opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Dawson) to authorize the Mayor to sign and submit the letter for placement in the Time Capsule. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
D. Vice Mayor Anduri and Mayor Gerringer
Lafayette: Celebrating 175+ Years
Recommendation: Review timeline, provide feedback, and approve the increase of $20,000 to City Council budget 011-110-861.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Dawson) to continue the item to October 4, 2022. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Gerringer, Anduri, Candell, Dawson, and Kwok; Noes: None).
14. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None.
15. CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Gerringer adjourned to Closed Session at 11:28 p.m. to discuss the following matters:
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Gov. Code Section 54956.8) Property: 990 Moraga Road (APN 243-222-023)
Negotiators: Niroop K. Srivatsa, City Manager and Tracy Robinson Administrative Services Director and Joe Kuvetakis, John Cumbelich & Associates Negotiating Parties: Scott Haislet and Charles Kolb, Representing Property Owners Under Negotiation Price and terms of payment
B. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Gov. Code Section 54956.8) Property: 3533 Plaza Way (APN 243-222-019)
Negotiators: Niroop K. Srivatsa, City Manager and Tracy Robinson Administrative Services Director and Joe Kuvetakis, John Cumbelich & Associates Negotiating Parties: Paddy Kehoe, Representing Property Owners Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING/CLOSED SESSION REPORT
The City Council reconvened its regular meeting at 11:58 p.m. and Mayor Gerringer announced that the City Council gave direction to staff on both matters.
City Council Meeting Page 36 of 36 September 26, 2022
16. ADJOURNMENT – 11:59 p.m.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Teresa Gerringer, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk