City Council Meeting Page 1 of 36 January 23, 2023
7 City of Lafayette
City Council
Meeting Minutes
Teleconference Meeting – Watch on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel at January 23, 2023 http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube Submit public comments to [email protected] 6:30 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/88103166034?pwd=SFBOMHc5ZjJxWmRJUXBQNHVKVHAwUT09 Passcode: 511787 or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128; Webinar ID: 881 0316 6034 Passcode: 511787
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 36 January 23, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Anduri called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Anduri, Vice Mayor Dawson; Councilmembers Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok
Absent: None
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Patrick Golier, Transportation and Circulation Program Manager; Suzanne Iarla, Communications Analyst; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Councilmember Candell asked to move up Item 7C on the agenda, and Mayor Anduri suggested addressing this when the Council gets to it on the agenda.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Gerringer/Candell) to adopt the agenda, as amended to remove Item 7B. Vote: 5- 0 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (For items under Closed Session).
ELIOT HUDSON said he is not going to speak during the Housing Element item and spoke about what he believes are failures of the City Council and staff through non-preservation and destruction of downtown Lafayette.
5. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Gov. Code 54956.8)
Property: 3471 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Lafayette, CA
Agency Negotiators: Niroop K. Srivatsa, City Manager and Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director
Negotiating party: Craig Ballard
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
OPEN SESSION/REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION – 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Anduri announced that the City Council directed staff to agendize a special meeting on Monday, January 30, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss whether to exercise their option to purchase 3471 Mt. Diablo Boulevard which currently houses the Police Department.
6. PUPBLIC COMMENT – 7:00 p.m. (For items not on the agenda) City Council Meeting Page 3 of 36 January 23, 2023
HENRY SYMONS, BART, Government and Community Relations Representative for Contra Costa County, said BART has a major construction project over President’s Day weekend that will impact Lafayette residents where they are replacing 2,400 of rail between Orinda and Lafayette stations and working on maintenance projects in the Berkeley Hills Tunnel. The work will occur 24 hours a day and will involve lights and backup alarms to keep workers safe. Over the weekend, BART will operate a bus bridge between Rockridge, Orinda, and Lafayette stations and riders should expect a 30-minute delay. All Lafayette residents were sent a mailer within one-quarter mile of the BART trackway alerting them to the work and providing contact information. He also sent the City Manager and Council an email last week with details about the project and he was available for questions at any time. They could also arrange a briefing with BART’s construction staff managing the work and BART Director, if interested.
7. PRESENTATIONS
A. Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director
Introduction of New Employees: Sonia Urzua, Assistant Planning and Building Director and Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson introduced and gave a brief background of new employees Sonia Urzua, Assistant Planning and Building Director and Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner. Each employee provided brief introductory comments, and the Mayor and Councilmembers welcomed new employees.
B. Lt. Ben Alldritt, Chief of Police
Introduction of New Officers: Detective Sergeant Amanda Sears; Sergeant Scott Pliler; Sergeant Danny Wells
Recommendation: Receive and file.
This item was continued to the February 13, 2023 City Council meeting.
C. Patrick Golier, Transportation and Circulation Program Manager David Early, Placeworks Senior Advisor; Torina Wilson, Placeworks Associate; Matt Kelly CCTA Senior Transportation Planner
Draft Lamorinda Action Plan Update – Status Report and Presentation Recommendation: Receive and file presentation and provide comment on the draft Action Plan for CCTA/Placeworks.
Matt Kelly, CCTA, spoke about the Lamorinda Action Plan which comprises of Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga as partners. David Early of Placeworks will describe the work done in Lamorinda and allow for feedback from the Council and public.
David Early, Placeworks, introduced Project Manager Torina Wilson from Placeworks who has done most of the work, and gave a PowerPoint presentation and gave an overview of the Measure J Growth Management Program, the project for updating the action plans and CTPs, the Countywide Plan and Transportation Plan, public outreach conducted, and next steps. He then said he and Ms. Wilson can answer questions.
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 36 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Candell referred to the capacity on Pleasant Hill Road and she asked if there is a way to add something that states the capacity on Pleasant Hill Road cannot get any worse.
Mr. Early said yes, this comment can be suggested to the LPMC-TAC and try and move it forward. He has some concerns as LOS is expressed with letter grades A-F and F is below one or greater the value to capacity so you cannot get worse than F, but you can have a worse number. So, they could calculate that volume to capacity ratio and say you do not want it to slip below what it is today. The problem is you cannot control the numbers of residential units being built, the number of jobs being created, particularly residential units given State housing mandates, and they do not have a way to enhance capacity on the roadway. So, if you continue to see increases in volume and no increase in capacity, even if the goal or objective were to maintain the volume to capacity ratio that exists today, if volumes increase and capacity does not increase, that ratio may get worse and they cannot control that. That is why they suggest no standard. The City could try and say they do not want it to get worse than it is today, but frankly he was not sure they would achieve that.
Councilmember Candell asked what is defined as “downtown”.
Mr. Early said each community has its own definition of the “downtown” and deferred to City staff.
Transportation and Circulation Program Manager Patrick Golier said he would have to confirm the definition in the DSP for “downtown” and he can work with Placeworks and CCTA in defining that.
Councilmember Candell said the City had an earlier draft of this plan back in October. There were two more goals than they have now and the second one was Goal 9. It states, “Minimize congestion and improve mobility on routes of regional significance within Lamorinda” and this has been removed, and she asked for an explanation.
Mr. Early said they did speak about this at some length and he deferred to Ms. Wilson, as there were comments asking that it be removed.
Torina Wilson stated this came from a City of Lafayette letter submitted by staff and the LPM-TAC. When they met with the LPMC-TAC last week on the 18th, they had a request to add that goal back in and not have it removed. Mr. Golier is working on looking into why the request was made and whether they should add it back in. So, this is a comment Mr. Golier is already considering and will be discussed at the February 15th meeting.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
MIKE MCCLUER, Moraga, thanked CCTA and the LPMC-TAC for all of the work done in the draft of the plan, sees many good ideas he likes, and had some questions. Traffic congestion from Moraga to Orinda and Lafayette via Moraga Road to Moraga Way is heavily congested today. All three cities have goals to add thousands of residential units required by the State with thousands of new residents and vehicles.
The only bus service in Moraga is a County Connection service which runs every 30 minutes which does not attract people. As congestion will worsen without significant steps, the best idea he has heard is shuttles and has not seen progress on that. He spoke with Matt Kelly and he mentioned the Delta Transit Program of “Try My Ride” which is a shuttle demand-based system with an app where you use your phone and say where you want to go and schedule a $2.00 per person trip, requiring two riders with 15 minute intervals. He thinks ideas like this are great, successful, and they are expanding.
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 36 January 23, 2023
Mr. Kelly also mentioned the pilot program at Rossmoor with an all-electric shuttle demand-based system.
He does see a specific reference in Appendix B; can you confirm that a shuttle program like this will be an objective for Lamorinda with the review analysis and a draft shuttle plan prepared for Lamorinda as a top priority?
His second item comes from the November 17th meeting where a person at the meeting made a request that the St. Mary’s Road that goes to Olympic and Pleasant Hill Road become a route of regional significance. He thought that was a good idea due to the increased traffic seen. There is a significant issue of cut-through traffic coming over the Oakland Hills, through the local areas of Moraga and local neighborhoods of Lafayette and then pours out into Olympic and Pleasant Hill Road. These drivers tend to commute to Danville, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Concord. His second question is, has the CCTA and LPMC discussed making this route a route of regional significance and if not, he asked if this is something that can be discussed.
Mr. Kelly said Ms. Wilson is best at what language is in the plan, but he thinks there is language included about running smaller shuttles on-demand service in the Innovation or Transit section.
Ms. Wilson clarified it is Innovation and Technology-2 which is in Chapter 10. It is about seeking implementation of new technology in terms of autonomous buses and shuttles.
Mr. Early said Lafayette is free to finetune that language or add something to build off of the pilot being done at Rossmoor if the City wants to make it more direct, but they think these things are constantly evolving whether they are all electric, hydrogen, fully or partially automated so they do not want to be tied into a particular technology but they want the flexibility to be able to run whatever is most appropriate in the community.
Mr. Kelly said regarding Canyon Road, they did have extensive discussions about that at both the LPMC Policy Board level, committee level or TAC level and although there are a number of commuters who use that hill, their modeling and information they have is that it is not enough to qualify as a route of regional significance. They also considered it from the point of view of evacuation and know it is a very important potential evacuation route, particularly for Moraga but could also come into play for Lafayette and Orinda if there was some disaster that broke people off being able to get from some of the southern portions of Orinda and Lafayette. They might need to evacuate through Moraga and out that way.
There was a consensus at the TAC level and ultimately at the Policy Board level that those things did not raise it to the level of becoming mappable as a route of regional significance, but it was considered in some depth.
STELLA WOTHERSPOON thanked CCTA and Placeworks for the presentation of the draft Action Plan changes to date. She referred to comments she sent in a letter regarding the roadway RTO 3 which would take away any level of service standard for the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Deer Hill Road. They heard information about volume capacity, but she said removing that LOS standard means the City is not only discontinuing trying to improve the intersection LOS to a Good D which is in the current plan, but it will also allow the intersection LOS to get worse with no upper limit. LOS F has no upper bound. It is 80 seconds or more of delay. Good D is in the range of 35 seconds. Everyone knows that intersection functions way beyond the minimum of LOS F.
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 36 January 23, 2023
The table in the plan states the AM peak is 124 seconds, the PM peak is 211 seconds. This points to a big problem; however, in terms of thinking about volume to capacity ratio the intent of many of the actions in the action plan are to reduce auto volumes and single occupant vehicle volumes by increasing carpooling, increasing use of public transit, and increasing active transportation modes which are all good things.
So, she does not think they can say the volume will always be what it is now. Maybe it will increase a little but she thinks it is important to have some kind of standard that they hold themselves to or an aspiration or goal to try for and perhaps maintain what it is now, which is not a good LOS F or maybe add 10% onto the current delay we are seeing in the 2019 values and say that is what we are aiming for. She thinks it is very important to consider future changes. This is potential change way down the road in 2035 with respect to MTC’s future freeway study where tolling might be introduced on freeways that have parallel public transit. That could be I-680 and Hwy 24. MTC acknowledges this might have the effect of distributing demand onto local roads and that is a challenge that the study will have to sort out. So, she thinks we need to think about not just what is happening now but the future and think hard about maintaining some degree of service for residents that depend on that road and on that intersection.
ROBERT LAVOIE said it seems the overall goal is to eliminate cars and increase bikes which is a great idea as a biker but realizing how the City is laid out with narrow, windy and hilly roads it is not practical for most people. He asked if the return of the sales tax is based on population or some sort of income adjustment so they might get less than what would be their pro rata share or whether it is based on the source of the sales tax. A concerning comment he read is, “The Action Plan is written in a manner that supports and prioritizes non-automotive modes on certain routes of regional significance, including transit and active transportation.” Again, if they push bike lanes onto regional transit routes it will just make the capacity smaller and make the LOS even worse.
There are also many large goals for electrification and talking about eliminating all of the vehicles in just a few number of years and he is concerned about their electrical grid which is already unreliable with no plan for it to be more reliable. He reminded everyone that when people charge their cars in the evening, most of the charging comes from natural gas and other fuel burning sources. Another concern is that it states, “Major collisions, severe injury and death can happen if a safe system approach for infrastructure is not implemented.” It then states, “Collisions that result in death and severe injury increase proportionally without the safe system.” He asked if there is evidence that some of these systems can eliminate collisions resulting in death and severe injury, as he does not think there is any evidence for that.
Mr. Kelly said the return to source funds comes from a combination of centerline road mileage and population.
Mr. Early said the question was whether or not we believe there are actions to take to reduce serious accidents including death and serious injury to zero. It is an ambitious goal, is an articulated goal of CCTA’s Vision Zero plan as well as a number of other plans so it has already been adopted by CCTA and other agencies. He thinks it is ambitious. One of the biggest issues is drinking while driving and other intoxicated driving, distracted driving with cell phones, weather issues, and others that are completely outside of their control. So, for those reasons it is ambitious they will get to a level of zero, and at the same time, they know through education programs and geometric improvements at dangerous places they see improvements and lessening of deaths and serious injuries.
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 36 January 23, 2023
He said they talked a lot about the goal when putting together the plan and ultimately came to consensus both that no one wants to articulate a goal of only a few deaths and they already have adopted goals that say let’s try to get to zero. There are a serious of actions to make the roadways and other systems safer which are in the plan, but honestly, they will not get to zero but hopefully a place closer to zero.
LAUREN HERPICH asked if there are any plans or studies regarding increasing the County Connection bus service to Acalanes High School, or Route 625. She asked if the County currently supports a formal carpool matching program. If not, she asked if it would be open to working with the school districts or city to create one which residents can utilize and tap into. She lives on Moraga Boulevard and has the Las Trampas School down the street from them, and many times there is a County Connection Link Shuttle that sometimes sitting there. She thinks it is for reservations only or they call ahead, but she asked if there is a way to optimize those vehicles that could supplement Route 625.
Mr. Kelly said this is an overall plan with larger programs in it. It refers both to maintaining the school bus program through County Connection and refers also to encouraging carpooling and ride-sharing. It does not get more detailed than that. According to the website, the Acalanes High School bus only runs once in each direction which could be considered. 511 Contra Costa helps to run that along with County Connection and he encouraged Ms. Herpich to contact them and they will do on-going planning to use the funds available through the bus program to enhance service. Similarly, 511 Contra Costa on its website has a link to a service called “Merge” which is a website that allows people to find carpool matches, and that might be expanded somewhat as a particular implementation option that would be considered by 511 Contra Costa.
Mr. Early also suggested working with employers to set up ride-share programs at work site locations.
They work with schools closely in terms of overall bike and pedestrian trainings, but he was unsure as to whether they handle the actual ride-match programs at schools for employees, but they do it for businesses.
SHERYL MACDONALD said she supports Ms. Wotherspoon’s comments and questions and the speaker from Moraga brought up good points about carpooling and shuttles and she wondered if carpool lots would be something that would benefit Moraga and Lafayette such as the lot across from Acalanes. She asked what are the pros and cons of having Mt. Diablo Boulevard put in place as a regional route of significance and how would it affect neighborhoods and streets that intersect with Mt. Diablo Boulevard form the east end to the west end.
Mr. Kelly said there are only advantages of designating Mt. Diablo Boulevard because it requires the other two jurisdictions to work with the City and inform the City about projects that are underway or pending that might affect the boulevard. It also elevates Mt. Diablo Boulevard to be a facility that is acknowledged as of regional importance and therefore, perhaps more appropriate for regional transportation funding than if it did not have that designation. There is no guarantee of funding though, but it does elevate the roadway in that regard, so both CCTA and MTC working regionally may be more likely to fund projects the City would propose because of that designation.
City Council Meeting Page 8 of 36 January 23, 2023
There has been some confusion about this. It does not give the other jurisdictions authority to decide what happens on that roadway. Each of the three jurisdictions still maintain control over their regional routes and so the City does not have to do something Moraga or Orinda would tell you to do. It does not require Lafayette make improvements of a certain type or maintain a certain level of service. Those things are all in Lafayette’s jurisdiction, but it has the two features of cross-jurisdictional disclosure and elevating it for possible regional funding. So, in that sense the roadway meets the definition of a route of regional significance. It carries significant through-traffic, serves the region as a whole, is of interest to all three jurisdictions in the sub-area so it meets the requirements and criteria, and he does not think there is a downside.
Ms. MacDonald asked if neighboring streets would be protected and talked about.
Mr. Kelly said the designation applies to the major roadway only and it does not really affect the side streets, per se.
Mayor Anduri closed the public comment period and asked for Council comments.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the Pleasant Hill Road LOS and he shared his screen. Mr. Kelly mentioned the Pleasant Hill Road and Deer Hill Road intersection and today there is a LOS aspiration of D, but yet when measured they are at an F which is worse than their goal. By 2050 they are still expecting it to be an F. He asked if there is a downside to continue to have an aspirational goal of LOS D which is challenging there. If they remove the goal, it will get worse, and he would like to see the City make efforts there through technologies.
Mr. Kelly said it is not his place to tell the Council what policies they should make. It is up to the Council as to what to recommend to LPMC that will take those things under advisement. As he understands, the existence of that set of standards did become an issue in the Terraces’ approval process and the lawsuits.
It might have created some confusion among some people and that confusion was not necessarily a desirable thing. But, to the extent everyone understands it is only an aspirational goal, if it can be articulated, he does not think there is a huge downside. If it were up to him, he would say it is wiser to do what Ms. Wotherspoon suggested of having an aspiration goal to not get worse or even to make a marginal improvement getting from F to a Good D, but it is the Council’s choice and then the LPMC Policy Board as a whole of the three jurisdictions.
Councilmember Kwok then referred to the BART parking lot. He appreciates how BART ridership has been modeled, given COVID and whether people will return to work, etc. They also modeled first and last mile access to BART, so this was a productive way of thinking through 2050 of how people would get to BART.
What he did not see was the point of view if they put housing on the BART lots in the future. The quantity of parking spaces is reduced, and he asked how that impacts the planning between now and 2050 with regards to the other assumptions. They would like to plan for housing on the BART parking lot with a likely reduction in parking spaces for the public, and he asked how that could be synergized with this plan.
Mr. Early said one of their RTO’s is looking at access to BART. They will be tracking that over time, and they update the plan every 5 years and can update their actions that go along with that. So, this can evolve over time.
City Council Meeting Page 9 of 36 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Candell said she supports trying to get the LOS back, even if it is aspirational. The reason why is because that is an evacuation route through a very high fire hazard severity zone. She also would include this in the downtown on Mt. Diablo Boulevard which is also an evacuation route.
Vice Mayor Dawson referred to Moraga and St. Mary’s Road, and said that route also leads to Reliez Station, Olympic and Pleasant Hill which is an alternate route and an evacuation route which people are taking, and that traffic is building up. With new housing, there will be more traffic and she asked how often these routes are re-evaluated.
Mr. Early said St. Mary’s Road was added to the map. It is part of the corridor but not its own line. He believes they have a couple of study intersections where St. Mary’s Road meets Moraga Road and a couple more along St. Mary’s Road. That has been added in this action plan and 5-year update because of those comments. Also, these plans are updated every 5 or so years so there will be another update in the future and there is nothing from keeping Lafayette or Moraga from tracking those intersections on their own even if they are not tracked regionally.
Councilmember Gerringer said she thought a LOS was added on Mt. Diablo Boulevard and asked if it was decreased or removed.
Mr. Early said the way Councilmember Candell expressed it is correct. As drafted, the new action plan does not have a LOS objective for either Pleasant Hill Road at Deer Hill because of its proximity to the high school nor the downtown intersections along Mt. Diablo Boulevard because they are in the downtown.
So, the Council through LPMC could add them back in and suggested asking Mr. Golier to return to the TAC meeting in February with this and they would work with specific language. The Council does not have to try and exempt them. They could set it at D, E, what it is today, what it is today plus 10% or they want today but want to try and get it down to 90% of what it is today. Ultimately, it will be up to the three members of the LPMC Policy Board to make that decision with input expressed through Mr. Golier, and Councilmember Gerringer as the member of LPMC.
Councilmember Gerringer said if the LOS is changed, she asked what are the ultimate downsides of having that aspirational goal and not achieving it. Mr. Kelly said there are no penalties associated by having an aspirational goal. The problem he thinks is that it creates confusion and perhaps even legal liabilities because of confusion about it for a project such as the Terraces. He would also suggest that if the Council is going to add the goals back in that they acknowledge they are aspirational, and it may not be possible to meet them.
Mr. Kelly confirmed there are no penalties for not meeting those thresholds; however, a lot of the thought that went into why they decided to move the thresholds at some of these locations is because the tradeoffs against the active modes and safety issues, by saying you are going to prioritize a level of service, that has some trade-off’s that could come at the expense of other goals and objectives in the plan. So, if they do come up with something that is aspirational, it be something like Ms. Wotherspoon suggested, such as doing no worse instead of naming a specific threshold.
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 36 January 23, 2023
Mayor Anduri said one of their priorities for this year and most likely next year and the year after will be developing a Mt. Diablo Corridor Specific Plan and updating their DSP. As part of that, they will be looking very closely at how they can encourage multi-modal active transportation. He asked if it would be reasonable to defer their own discussion of what they would like to have as the LOS for each intersection when they do that plan. And if they do that and as part of their plan, they say, this is what they are looking at a LOS for each intersection he asked if they can establish that within their own plan and he asked what significance that would have.
Mr. Early said there are two separate documents—one is the LPMC Action Plan which is ultimately adopted through the CTP by CCTA and that is very separate from your own General Plan, Circulation Element, and the plan for Mt. Diablo Boulevard and the downtown. His opinion is that you probably create more flexibility for yourselves later if you do not put a LOS objective in place now. If you ask strongly through LPMC to have CCTA establish LOS-E as a standard in the downtown and then you later were to decide you could only get to LOS-F, then they would be inconsistent with the action plan you already helped to create. So, having no standard might give the City a little flexibility later. But again, he thinks it is fine for the Council to ask LPMC change the draft to say something like “no worse than it is today” and you will still have a lot of flexibility within the context of your Mt. Diablo Boulevard plan.
He added that it is the case that enhancements for both transit and pedestrians and bicycles can have a negative effect on level of service for cars. Many of those who do downtown planning accept the idea that in order to make a more vibrant downtown, they will enhance amenities for pedestrians, for bicycles, for buses, and they understand that may make LOS slightly worse for the cars. The City of Livermore is an example of this where their main street was a State Highway with two lanes of traffic in each direction, no real capacity for parking, dead businesses along it, and they changed the street to make it much worse for through cars. They did this on purpose, put in diagonal parking, a lot of street trees, and revitalized that street into one that is now a much better place.
Councilmember Candell said the City is in a very high fire severity zone, have evacuation routes already in their EIR which is totally different from the other cities. It is why they still may want to create a LOS and not let it get any worse for now until they understand it and then pursue that later. It is always something they can change later.
Mayor Anduri asked if the Council would like to provide guidance on LOS or provide individual input.
Councilmember Candell said she would like the Council to support the wording in and talk to Con Fire.
Mayor Anduri asked for comments on LOS:
Does the Council want to have a LOS for Pleasant Hill and Deer Hill? After brief discussion regarding language stating “aspirationally not getting worse” and the point there are several actions in the report which are separate from the goals that talk about developing sub-regional corridor management plans for Pleasant Hill Road in the roadway chapter, Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers agreed that Council has provided comments to representatives and they will leave it in their hands for Pleasant Hill Road Mayor Anduri asked for comments on Mt. Diablo Boulevard. He suggested keeping this as part of their corridor specific plan, but he was open.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 36 January 23, 2023
Vice Mayor Dawson agreed. Councilmember Candell said at Mt. Diablo Boulevard and Moraga Road is at 86 seconds which is almost a D so she thinks it can be kept as a D until they decide not to put it there.
Councilmember Kwok said he thinks a decision should be made later during the Mt. Diablo Corridor Specific Plan planning time, and Councilmember Gerringer agreed not to include LOS until they have done work on the Mt. Diablo Corridor Specific Plan.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers thanked representatives for their presentation and answering questions.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed there were no Councilmembers, public members who wished to remove items from the Consent Calendar, and no public comments.
A. Minutes – January 9, 2023
Recommendation: Approve.
B. Quarterly Financial Report – 1
st Quarter, FY 22/23
Recommendation: Receive and file.
C. Letter of Support for Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Grant Application Recommendation: Authorized the Mayor to sign a letter in support of a joint Contra Costa Transportation Authority/Contra Costa Health Services grant application for a pedestrian and bicyclist education campaign.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Gerringer) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A, B, and C. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
9. OLD BUSINESS
A. Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager and Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director Resolution 2023-06 Adopting the Final Municipal Budget/Workplan for FY2022-2023; Updating the Appropriation Limit for FY2022-23; Authorizing Transfers and Expenditures Including the 2023 Capital Improvement Program and finding it Categorically Exempt from CEQA (Class 15301, 15302, and 15304)
Recommendation: Adopted Resolution 2023-06.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson gave the staff report and overview of changes and key points of the Final Municipal Budget/Workplan for FY2022-23, updating the Appropriation Limit for FY 2022/23, authorizing transfers and expenditures including the 2023 CIP and finding it categorically exempt from CEQA.
She pointed out that the Five-year model still predicts deficit spending and if it continues, the City will not be able to maintain the General Fund Reserve goal beyond FY 2025/26. She also called attention to the revenue forecast, stating the consultant who predicts and forecasts sales tax, there was a change for ongoing sales tax numbers which decreased over a 5-year period. They changed it by $660,000 over the 5 years which is putting pressure on the overall 5-year budget.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 36 January 23, 2023
At the end of the City Manager’s Report is a program called, “Challenges and Opportunities” which include revenue levels, considering raising parking rates, and these are policy decisions for the Council to consider over the next few years. Inflation also may have unknown impacts on revenues and expenses, and this is something the Council needs to be cognizant of.
She then presented two amendments for the budget: 1) a typographical error in the Narrative. She said they put $75,000 additional money into Fund 550 which is general expenses to accommodate expenses that were part of the office upgrade. She is missing $25,000 due to a type and so she would like to include an additional $25,000 in Fund 550 so they have enough money to cover expenses; 2) In December, the Council authorized a bonus pool of $225,000 that was paid for out of Staff Vacancies. She did not include that lump sum figure because she would have had to go through and take those vacancies out of several programs and it would skew the 5-year model.
The Council can adjust this budget by $225,000 in Fund 550 with the understanding the City will come in under budget by a similar amount in other programs combined, or, the budget can remain as is and in October of next year during the audit, they will come to the Council and indicate the budget was overbudget by $225,000. The cleanest thing is to authorize the $225,000 which would make the auditor happy with the understanding they will come in under budget in several other areas for personnel expenses and this is staff’s recommendation.
Vice Mayor Dawson asked and confirmed the transfer to the $225,000 would be $25,000 and all are in Fund 550.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Councilmember Kwok said he appreciates mention of structural deficits in Core Area Maintenance and Stormwater Pollution. This is something regularly brought to the Council, and $500,000 is a big number of unfunded costs. He asked whether other cities have resolved this, stating he would like to do something about it.
Ms. Robinson said these are good questions and thinks this might be worth agendizing the matter at a future date. She believes Mike Moran would be knowledgeable and said there are specific things that Water Quality Regional Board requires cities do. The City receives some revenue, but the requirements increase each year and their ability to collect revenue remains the same.
Mayor Anduri said he appreciates the mention of deferred maintenance. He thinks all departments have done well in terms of keeping infrastructure repaired and residents approving bond measures for roads and storm drains which set the stage for the infrastructure they have now.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2023-06, adopting the Final Municipal Budget/Workplan for FY2022-2023; as amended by adding $25,000 to Fund 550 for renovation and $235,000 to Fund 550 for salary pool and City Manager bonus; Updating the Appropriation Limit for FY2022-23; Authorizing Transfers and Expenditures Including the 2023 Capital Improvement Program and finding it Categorically Exempt from CEQA (Class 15301, 15302, and 15304). Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Anduri called for a break at 9:03 p.m. and, thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 36 January 23, 2023
10. STAFF REPORTS – None.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Greg Wolff, Planning & Building Director; Renata Robles, Senior Planner; Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant Housing Element Update – City of Lafayette 6th Cycle Housing Element housing plan to promote preservation and production of housing and housing opportunity sites identified to accommodate the mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 2,114 units assigned to Lafayette, plus a buffer, which total approximately 3,000 new units between 2023-2031. The draft Housing Element Update can be found at www.planlafayette.org.
Recommendation: 1) Conduct the public hearing; 2) Adopt Council Resolution 2023-04 certifying the Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report, adopting a statement of overriding consideration, and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; 3) Adopt Resolution 2023-05 adopting the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
Planning and Building Director Greg Wolff gave the staff report and update on the Housing Element Update and provided the current status regarding the schedule, environmental review done to date, with minor revisions, comments received from HCD and revisions to the materials in response, goals, policies and programs, opportunity sites, AFFH, and other minor revisions. He prefaced his comments by saying the bulk of the presentation has already been discussed by the Council.
Ms. Elrod reminded the Council there are two jurisdictions with a certified Housing Element. Staff submitted the draft on June 20, 2022, received a 13-page comment letter and revisions are shown in redlined and the matrix attached to the staff report. They also included additional explanations and analysis and timelines. All programs received more definitive timelines for completion per the letter. Some programs were revised to include actions or required information. Some programs were added as required by law. Two programs were removed because of projected resources and/or time constraints and the Council already reviewed the updated programs as a reminder on November 28th.
With respect to opportunity sites, Mr. Wolff said the Council directed to modify the prior inventory to eliminate the BART site and not include the De Silva South site, focus on a downtown-only, and also tier the density southward from the freeway, and keep a lower profile at the boulevard with stepping to the north. The Chamber of Commerce sent a letter which was considered and brought back scenarios for the Council to consider which imposed increasing densities in areas 2, 3 and 5. Staff has addressed them as best they could and the PC is recommending the revised opportunity sites inventory in the packet.
Mr. Wolff presented a density map of the revised inventory showing the highest density of 75 du/acre to the north along the freeway, Areas 7 and 8 north of the freeway have been eliminated as they are in a high fire hazard zone. Density is stepping down towards the boulevard and further stepping down to the south towards single-family residential.
One of the opportunity site changes in the table is an expansion of Site 36. In June, the inventory included .91 acres which is the light blue polygon and has 3 property owners. In discussion with the property owner to the east, they support for expanding that site for a more likely part of the overall center that could redevelop without affecting the multitude of smaller leaseholders and Whole Foods to the east.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 36 January 23, 2023
He then presented the summary of the inventory sites the PC considered and is recommending which reflects densities. He noted a small area of concern for staff is that overall, the buffer is adequate; however, the focus of HCD as mentioned is in the very low and low income, which combined, is right on the cusp of the 15% to 30% recommended by HCD. He presented a comment letter from Colin Elliott which would have Area 1-B, 3-B, and 4 remain at 35 du/acre. Two of the three do not have any opportunities in them. The last does and so the numbers on the right diminish slightly but still hold at the 14%.
One or more public commenters encouraged the Council to increase the number of ADUs and accommodate more RHNA through ADUs. HCD has told the City they must use an average of the last 4 years and use that as the basis for projecting ADUs going forward. If they take that average, they have projected 30 du/acre totaling 240 over the 8 years, which is an increase above what the average is of the last 4 years. It has ticked upward, however, significantly since 2020 when the State implemented streamlining with respect to a multitude of ADUs.
Ms. Elrod added HCD specifically requires the City not to look at approved units but permitted units. So, they cannot average the approved units, but rather the permitted units. Mr. Wolff said there is no assurance just because they receive approval means a person will get a permit and build it. Staff sent out a survey to applicants to understand that better.
Ms. Elrod then spoke about and presented slides on AFFH, stating they find out whether the proposed location of future units improve or exacerbate concentrations of poverty or poor environmental outcomes, which she described.
Lastly, staff recommends the Council conduct a public hearing, provide feedback to staff, adopt Resolution 2023-04 certifying the Housing Element Update, EIR, adopting a statement of overriding consideration, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program, and adopt Resolution 2023—05 adopting the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
Mayor Anduri asked Mr. Wolff to address the messages received from the Glen neighborhood about how the fire danger is referred to. His reading of the EIR is that it states the Glen is in a very high fire severity zone, and he asked what the implications are for any plans or development.
Mr. Wolff agreed it is a clearly sensitive issue for the community and also for staff and Councilmembers, and the highest priority for public safety. Staff had advocated strongly for recognition that half of the community is in a very high fire severity zone and appealed their RHNA allocation to ABAG. Ultimately, the body chose to only include three factors, two of which were transportation-related, and one was access to high resources areas.
There is guidance through Appendix G and case law that help inform the decisions about level of significance in the EIR. The guidance is whether the new growth would impede the City’s ability to execute its Emergency Operations Plan and Evacuation Plan. Based on staff’s discussions and public attendance from the Chief of Police and Deputy Fire Chief McAllister, their assessment is it would not impede the City’s ability to execute its emergency operations and evacuation plan. It would take more time to evacuate more people and more vehicles but by itself, increased evacuation time does not itself constitute a significant and unavoidable impact.
City Council Meeting Page 15 of 36 January 23, 2023
If a project is proposed such as the BART’s parking lots additional environmental review and projectspecific environmental review would be required. Information like points of ingress/egress, how the traffic control mechanism would work, signal pre-emption, and other factors would be evaluated in a project EIR.
Mayor Anduri asked if it is correct to say the 80-page resolution the Council is to adopt tonight makes no finding with respect to the impact on the Glen and sets no precedent of Alternative 1; the distributed alternative. Mr. Wolff said this is correct. The distributed sites scenario is no longer a component of the EIR; thus, the resolution does not make a conclusion surrounding Scenario 1; the distributed site scenario.
Mayor Anduri asked if it would be correct to say that if their next step were to do an overlay district for the BART lots the City would need to make environmental findings and they would not be bound by anything in the DEIR or FEIR. Mr. Wolff said this is correct, and he would say informed by but not bound by.
Mayor Anduri asked if the DEIR, FEIR, and the resolution states that the areas north of Hwy 24 are in very high fire severity zones. Mr. Wolff stated yes, those documents do. All three documents explicitly state that those areas are no longer part of the Project.
Councilmember Candell asked and confirmed with Mr. Wolff that Mr. Elliott’s change to the resolution plus the extra change to the FEIR are staff’s recommendations tonight.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the ADU calculation regarding approved versus permitted. Ms. Elrod said they have received guidance the Council needs to pick the approved versus permitted, and they need to go back 4 years and not just 2 years. Ms. Elrod confirmed it is permitted and not approved. Staff has explicitly been told by HCD that they cannot rely on any experience in Southern California pertaining to ADUs or other methods of understanding the inventory.
Councilmember Kwok said if they went back 4 years he asked if they would start with 2022 at 37 units, plus 21 units, plus 15, plus 7 which totals 80 units, which, divided by 4 equals 20 units/year. Ms. Elrod said right now they have in the inventory 30 units per year and staff thinks they can make a good argument for that, given the number of units approved and the trajectory has gone up, and an uptick in approved and permitted.
Mayor Anduri referred to the slide which showed in 2022 there were 21 permits and only 5 completed, and he asked if this is what would be expected giving timing of building ADUs. For 2020, it is 15 permitted but only 7 completed. Ms. Elrod said her guess would be supply chain issues during the pandemic, inability to find contractors to do the work, and other issues like this that ground things to a halt. She then described incentives in place to reduce fees, simplify the process and reducing cost by having preapproved plans.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the opportunity sites and 14% buffer for very low and low income. When the Council saw this slide in November 28th version, the 14% used to be 20%. When looking at the 20% there was a note that said “The target buffer for lower income should be at least 15% to 30% and the City is at 20%. Now they are falling just under the range of 15% and he asked why. Also, he asked if there is a way to submit a number and a proposal where they bring the number back into the target buffer of 15% to 30% rather than 14%.
City Council Meeting Page 16 of 36 January 23, 2023
Mr. Wolff said he does not have hard analysis on specifically why the number went down, but they went through the changes made to the opportunity sites. One of those included a recognition one of the sites off Oak Hill Road where they were projecting a certain number had some existing dwelling units already on it, thus they were using the gross net versus the net increase. This affected the numbers, but he did not know that fully accounts for the 6%. So, he would need to look further into that. Whether there is a way to increase it to 15% or higher, he thinks they would need to explore that further.
Ms. Elrod said if the City wanted to identify its own property and account for a higher percentage of affordability on it, that would be helpful. She also feels some of the loss was due to the BART and DeSilva South site.
Mayor Anduri asked what is on 949 Moraga Road as far as low and very low income, as this would be the best candidate. Ms. Elrod said she did not know but can look it up.
Vice Mayor Dawson said if this were done on City property, she asked if a program would have to be added to explain it. Mr. Wolff said no, but staff would articulate that on the site inventory data sheets.
Mayor Anduri asked if there is a reason it is 4 years out for the RFP, and Mr. Wolff said of the many, many programs, staff must try and balance them out.
Councilmember Candell asked if HCD early on said the City can add the parking lots in front of McCaulou’s.
If they added a little more, the City would probably get over their buffer at 75/acre. Instead of 2.2 acres there if they put in 2.5 acres they would be at the 15%.
She referred to Item M.1 relating to fire impacts. On page 22 of the EIR it states, “Additional fire facilities are not expected to be required to serve the population as a result of the HEU. She questions this given discussions with the Fire Chief about the ladder trucks and looking at sites. In the 5th cycle it was not included, and she asked how they justify they will not need new fire facilities in the EIR.
Mr. Wolff said based on the input and feedback from MOFD, the current number of stations is sufficient to serve the existing community and the projected growth, not setting aside the fact that two of those stations warrant seismic upgrade because only one station in Lafayette is up to seismic standards, as well as part of that being able to house a ladder truck. The closest ladder truck is in Walnut Creek and will continue to serve in the foreseeable future. MOFD is exploring adding another station in Walnut Creek able to house a ladder truck and serve Lafayette, and in the future, the City may be able to also have a station that can accommodate a standard ladder truck.
Councilmember Candell asked why that is that not a significant impact but completely mitigatable so it is reduced to insignificant. Mr. Wolff said he would need to talk to the Chief. The impact on fire and police services is generally a function of the level of service and response times. So, if the City were geographically expanding and there were insufficient stations to be able to get to those new residents in a timely fashion, that would warrant new facilities and could be a potentially significant impact because they would not be able to be served in the level of service outlined in the General Plan. This is not the case here. The response times would be adequate, but the facilities do need upgrading.
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 36 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Candell said in Appendix D and the AFFH under the regional local lawsuits, she asked who wrote that mostly because it is factually incorrect. She asked why the first two paragraphs would be included and not include any of the other lawsuits. They also added lawsuits that are not in the City, such as Richmond. It is very inflammatory, and she questioned why it is included and asked whether it can be removed and instead put the final paragraph where it should be.
Mr. Wolff said the City does not have expertise on the AFFH in-house. It is a new, very broad topic and requirement under State housing law, so they retained Root Policy who has done this for many jurisdictions and has a relationship with HCD to gain an understanding of what HCD is looking for. So, the City is using their experience to craft what is shown. Ultimately, the Council can modify it, provided it is accurate and they can be more general in nature rather than calling out any one specific lawsuit and permitting others.
Councilmember Candell referred to Appendix G with BART, they are set up to have quarterly meetings starting now. It seems like if the City is not including the BART station, it seems like it is a lot now and thought they might rather switch into the later half of the 4 years.
Mr. Wolff said what they have learned from BART is that by their nature and trying to accomplish higher levels of affordability and work with affordable housing developers, and given the nature of TOD projects, they take a long time. Including this is to maintain dialogue and it is quarterly, but there is not a significant amount of staff time that needs to go in preparation for such meetings. If they are having an on-going dialogue and keeping each other informed, it can be pushed out some, but not 4 years.
Vice Mayor Dawson said BART is still in the very high fire hazard severity zone, and she asked how they treat that if they are removing it and later it will be included.
Mr. Wolff said at every stage, the City will acknowledge that it is currently mapped in a very high fire severity zone and State law currently prohibits development in these zones. The AG’s guidance encourages higher density concentrated where the natural landscape is no longer the predominant landscape but a manicured, designed landscape much easier to manage fuel loads. The State has advised that sites can be removed with appropriate rationale so that can be done given arguably it would not have the same characteristics of the greater very high fire hazard severity zone in the topography, access, fuel load, etc.
Mayor Anduri opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Lavoie ceded her time to Robert Lavoie.
ROBERT LAVOIE said this is the most critical decision the Council will make; either to take a stance on the ADU count and yields or justify to the community why they did a massive upzoning of all of downtown to make them look like Walnut Creek without a necessity to do that. He proposed considering adding the
2.74 acres for the Safeway Shopping Center which is the only area he would upzone at 75 du/acre like BART and second, to increase the ADUs.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 36 January 23, 2023
The current data came in higher than his projections which he is pleased about. Also, there is the question of whether they can use a precedent of Yorba Linda. He thinks it is unfair for HCD to arbitrarily say it is okay for Yorba Linda to use 6 months of actual applications but deny Lafayette if they use one-two-three years of applications, which he demonstrated works, stating he thinks they can only upzone the Safeway site and then keep all other sites at 35 du/acre by increasing the ADU count and tweaking the yield a touch. He thinks the model can still work using current year permits of 37 x 8 = 296 and put buffers at 100% for all locations, which gives a 14% VLI and LI buffer. Or, they could allocate some units from the City lot and move them over to make the 14% a little higher. He asked the Council to please make the right decision and do not upzone downtown when it is not necessary.
He supported Mr. Eliot’s and Mr. Griffith’s comment about the EIR and AFFH. Regarding the desirability of living by the freeway, the 50 Woodbury Court sold for $1250/square foot which is the highest value in Lafayette except for Lafayette Circle condo. It is higher than homes in Happy Valley and higher than any other single-family home in the community. Therefore, if it is such a bad area to put housing, why are people paying top dollar.
Councilmember Candell questioned the model of 296, and Mr. Lavoie said you can either adjust the yields to 100% for both Mt. Diablo and non-Mt. Diablo which he thinks is justifiable, and Ms. Elrod suggested they can take units from the other buffers where there are way too many units in those other buffers, and it is easy to get over 14%.
DAVID CLARK thanked the Council for flushing out information regarding the very high fire hazard severity zones. He said Mr. Wolff said if there were a second EIR or an additional project EIR it would be informed but not bound by the EIR presumably being adopted tonight. There was a lot of discussion of insignificant and unavoidable so presumably, the second EIR would conclude that the danger was significant and unavoidable as opposed to insignificant so they would not be bound by the insignificant conclusion in the first EIR.
Mayor Anduri clarified “insignificant” was never used in the EIR. The finding was “less than significant.” Mr. Clark apologized and said he wants to be sure the additional project EIR is on someone’s radar or reminder. Assuming the Housing Element is submitted as is and it is on time, the City has three years to upzone, so they do not have to upzone properties early so there could be room for switching possible units through the additional project EIR. Therefore, he suggested not upzoning right away.
TOM MAYHEW, Housing Action Coalition, said they submitted a letter explaining why they think the Housing Element is not yet ready. It has math errors, internal inconsistencies, and there is substance which is wrong. As an example of the law the City must apply is that one of the sites on the inventory is a parcel owned by AT&T. It has a building used as a network connection point for the Lafayette phone and internet system. Because the draft claims that the AT&T parcel will help accommodate the need for lower income housing, the Council must make a specific finding. The Council must decide if they think it is likely AT&T will stop using its network connection building during the next 8 years. If they cannot make that finding, this is not realistic. He would submit to the Council that they cannot make that finding because they have no evidence that AT&T will stop using its property. This is 85 units on the inventory and 38 lower income units where evidence is lacking to certify the Housing Element.
City Council Meeting Page 19 of 36 January 23, 2023
Another example are the ADUs, but this has been covered. Another example is Desco Plaza. A site inventory overestimates by 38 units because someone mistakenly wrote down 5.39 acres at some point instead of 5.03 acres. So, the draft currently over-estimates the realistic capacity, and if the City is wrong, it does not have a valid Housing Element. The City currently has a buffer that is too small to protect the City from mistakes or criticism. If HCD or a court finds any significant issue with the inventory, the Housing Element will be thrown out. Therefore, he suggested asking staff to find more realistic sites to add to the inventory and to return with a Housing Element that has a substantial buffer. Just increasing the density on the same sites is not realistically going to meet the entire need.
Mayor Anduri asked if Mr. Mayhew believes there are multiple examples of where the Housing Element overstates the number of units that can be built.
Mr. Mayhew said yes, and they submitted a very detailed letter late last week. They are seeing many mathematical and inconsistency type errors, but also when looking at what the existing uses are on the sites, he does not think the City can make the prediction based on evidence here that those existing uses are likely to stop in the next 8 years. If the City cannot make that prediction and say it is likely, then they should not count it towards the lower income RHNA.
LIBBY HENRY said she wrote two letters which she hopes the Council read and she is shaking because she is so upset by the former speaker’s input. She heard over the weekend that the AG will send out the Housing Accountability Unit where they are policing cities and making demands. She thinks this person has a lot of nerve talking about being in accordance with the law when HCD has proven to be outside the law. During Mr. Wolff’s report, both DeSilva North and South properties are south of Hwy 24, so she does not understand it keeps getting referred to as in the high fire severity zone. As far as the 4-year average on the ADUs, SB 9 was only put into effect January 1, 2022 so again, HCD is outside of the law and inconsistent. There was no acknowledgement that the City has no control of when builders pull their permits, so the City will be at their mercy. She wondered why the Council or staff has not returned to HCD and questioned and discussed these issues because they are so important. There is no law that says you must upzone immediately and she asked to remove that. Otherwise, the City is inviting builders to come and ruin the City.
Mayor Anduri pointed out that DeSilva is south of Hwy 24 and it is in a high fire severity zone which come over the freeway.
MAX HENINGER said overall this draft is a major improvement from the initial draft submitted to HCD last summer. He thinks there is more work to do and Inclusive Lafayette and East Bay for Everyone have outlined in previous letters ways the Housing Element would have a greater likelihood of being approved.
In particular, by concentrating the highest densities along Hwy 24, they leave themselves open for affirmatively furthering fair housing challenge and he cited challenges with air quality being worse by highways and with more EVs, this policy will still have a desperate impact on low income residents.
He also noted that Inclusive Lafayette is in agreement with the many people during public comment who noted the community needs more affordable housing. He turned to the goals, policies, and programs, stating it looks like the waiver of impact fees for 100% affordable projects was not in the final draft despite several Councilmembers previously expressing interest and including it as a policy. He asked if this can be added back in. It would be responsible going back to the beginning of the low-income housing tax credit program which is the backbone for 100% affordable housing.
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 36 January 23, 2023
There have only been two Lafayette projects going back to 1985 so unlike market rate projects with the inclusionary component, they are not looking at waiving impact fees for many projects each year. It would be done strategically and 100% affordable housing much like the type they hope to build on City-owned sites. They cannot support strongly enough Councilmember Gerringer’s comment on the timeline for publicly owned housing and asking it to be moved up. Right now, they are not going to start drafting the RFP until 2025, and it was 2029 where they show the projects being approved, and it can be another 3 years to get tax credits or longer. So, if they proceed as they are now, they will not open units for families until well into the 2030’s. This is the single best lever to create affordable housing in Lafayette and he thinks it should be prioritized, understanding there are many constraints on time. He thanked the Council for its leadership and work, given the challenges.
SHERYL MACDONALD said she appreciates Councilmember Candell bringing up M.1 in the EIR report regarding fire services. She first met Deputy Chief McAllister at a GPAC meeting, and she found out that the City was in trouble with not having a fire ladder truck. She brought it to then Mayor Candell’s attention and Deputy Chief McAllister came to the September 27th, 2021 Council meeting. He talked about fire impact fees and that there was no place for a ladder truck, and at some point in the future the City will need one. If they get development more quickly, then the ladder truck will be needed. The north side of the freeway is proposed to be very tall buildings and she voiced concerns with not having a ladder truck.
She thinks this part should be put back in and .1 should talk about how facilities are needed in Lafayette downtown. There was no timeframe given by Deputy Chief McAllister and she asked to put this back in to protect residents living in high rises and those living in the downtown near them because embers will land on their roofs. Lastly, she supports Mr. Lavoie’s comments and asked the Council to consider them.
MICHAEL GRIFFITHS said Councilmember Candell brought up Appendix D and Mr. Wolff said it was new territory for staff. Given that, he would encourage caution and take out all reference of Save Lafayette and the Terraces because that item is still under appeal. Secondly, with regard to Ms. MacDonald’s comment, he listened to the fire executive when the question of wildfire came up and whether they can get there in time. The explanation he provided for saying he could assure the audience it would not be a problem was his gut which told him. He is not sure that HCD would accept the “gut” as being scientific, so he would suggest something more profound. He is glad that people are pointing out that we want to be relatively timely in providing things required to the State, it is also important to understand the context of how others are doing in this regard. The 538 cities that are required to provide their report to the State, only 29 have currently done so and have been fully accepted. 11 of the 29 only must provide10 units and of the total of 29, the average allocation is 207 units, which is very small. Most of the larger entities are taking their time and doing it right.
The second point is that the statistician locally wrote an article in the paper pointing out that three criteria that were not applied to HCD’s statistics were allocation numbers which totally wipe out the allocation.
These are bona fide data points. So, these numbers are contrived. The statistics speak for themselves.
HCD from the audit has failed and so this is something to consider.
Finally, builder’s remedy has been out there 32 years and an advocate for development said it is a very poor piece of legislation. He hopes the AG would work with others in the State government to come up with a better product. This will be at least a year away, but no builder has used that approach yet because they know it is a poor piece of legislation, so he asked the Council not to be scared by that. He suggested getting legal counsel involved and the Council will see there are all sorts of gaps in the legislation that change the playing field for the City.
City Council Meeting Page 21 of 36 January 23, 2023
Mrs. Elliott ceded her time to Mr. Elliott.
COLIN ELLIOTT said he submitted an email this morning and thanked Mr. Wolff. It sounds like the amendment to the resolution has been accepted which is a good thing. He also brought up the no brainer suggestions for changes that make sense. He asked staff to share the map of areas 1A and 1B, etc. His suggestions were that that Areas 1B and 3B which are planned to be upzoned to 50 du/acre have absolutely no opportunity sites in them at all. So, it makes no sense to upzone those two areas. They may as well stay at the 35 du/acre they are currently. She does not see why we would give them value increase to all those properties when none of them are in the inventory. The second error he pointed out and he showed was Area 4, which is the area south of Mt. Diablo. It actually only has two opportunity sites in it and moving that from 35 du/acre to 40 du/acre literally adds just 7 units. It does not make sense upzoning all of that just to gain 7 units. Mr. Wolff showed on the summary that if you kept it at 35 du/acre, the actual percentages or buffers did not change, so it is really a rounding error. He suggested keeping Area 4 at 35 du/acre which matches the areas immediately surrounding it. Mr. Wolff showed that, and he did not agree with it, but he thinks those changes could be made without having any impact.
He then referred to Plaza Center of the Safeway and the Whole Foods shopping center. All that was before was Millie’s Kitchen which is .9 of an acre, but none of the rest of the center was. He has been harping all year about why they are not proposing any of Plaza Center in the inventory, so he is grateful staff is finally putting some in. He thinks they could put more in. The whole center is about 11 acres. If they take out the Safeway and its parking which is in separate ownership, they have 7.6 acres. Of that 7.6 acres and that does not include Millie’s Kitchen, staff has added just 1.3 acres. Staff showed the map and how they came to that, but in the February 15th GPAC meeting, staff did study the center based on HCD’s feedback of saying they are just putting the acreage of the parking areas, which was about 2 acres. So, the City could certainly put in more, add at least another acre, and he can help staff adjust the written description if needed, but they could go higher. Out of nearly 8 acres of land, he did not see why they could not put as much as 4 acres. They are upzoning this to 75 du/acre. It makes it a very attractive development site, is focusing on adding development where it should be which is on a large shopping center site where they can do a nice project. Therefore, he thinks this is the low hanging fruit they could add at least another acre or perhaps up to another 3 acres to this.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the Safeway parking lot at 1018 Oak Hill and said it shows 2.22 acres currently. He asked if Mr. Elliott is suggesting that should be 4 acres or that there is room for 4 acres.
Mr. Elliott said he thinks staff originally had .91 which is the Millie’s Kitchen. He thinks that whole site could be as much as 4.91 acres.
Councilmember Kwok asked staff to put the site up on the screen .
Mr. Elliott said it is difficult being precise because most of this center is one parcel and then Whole Foods and its parking is a separate parcel. If you break that out and do not include the banks down the front, there is about 4 acres. So, they could include all of that, but he is suggesting the City fall back on something they heard from HCD earlier which is just include the acreage of the parking areas. This would be 2 acres.
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 36 January 23, 2023
So, there are numerous ways they could write this up and justify it, but clearly, the center is going to be a focus of interesting feasibility and other analysis in the next 8 years. He suspects what will happen is nothing, but very much likes what is there today other than perhaps the Safeway which can stay where they are. He is working as a consultant for at least 4 of these around California where the City has upzoned as Lafayette has done and the owners are looking at how they thing these kind of redevelopments with tenants are right now but leases are typically only 5 years long, so the City can really do something quite exciting here. He thinks it is easy to justify more increase than put in right now.
Councilmember Kwok said just to clarify, he asked if the Council would agree that the two blue squares are 2.2 acres and to get to 4 acres, he asked where the additional acreage is coming from. Mr. Elliott said it is coming from the parking areas in front of Whole Food and the rest of the center. He said Mr. Wolff is calculating what that is, and he asked and confirmed it was an additional 1.8 acres.
Mayor Anduri closed the public hearing.
Mayor Anduri suggested the Council talk about the ADUs and their calculation, look at opportunity sites and how that might impact the zoning level for each of the different areas, and then once tentative decisions are made the Council can go back and look at the entire plan. There was a comment made about the timing and lack of necessity to get this done by January 31st. He asked Mr. Wolff or Ms. Elrod to address this.
Mr. Wolff said the deadline to certify is January 31, 2023. There are jurisdictions which will not meet that despite best efforts, and some have chosen to go beyond that because they just are unable to meet it and are comfortable with that. Staff’s recommendation is to adopt by January 31, 2023. Staff is happy to follow Council direction and if the Council wishes staff take more time and extend to address specific issues, they can do that; however, staff recommends adoption by the 31st.
Mayor Anduri confirmed there were no comments regarding the deadline of January 31st. He turned to ADUs. He said Ms. Elrod mentioned the way HCD is looking at it, it does seem that it is completely unfair to treat the City differently than Yorba Linda, but he asked if there is any room for maneuver on that argument.
Ms. Elrod said no. The best they can do is to push for 30. She thinks HCD would prefer the City to do 20 units each year on average, but she thinks the City can make an argument for 30 units, but not beyond that. There are no jurisdictions in the Bay Area she knows of that have significantly pushed up their ADU count. San Mateo is in a similar situation like Lafayette and they have had to dial it back. She does not think they could get any leeway with HCD on something significant like what Mr. Lavoie had suggested so she confirmed with Mayor Anduri that the City will have a difficult enough time getting HCD to agree to 30 per year and the City will have to develop more analysis on that.
Mayor Anduri asked if any Councilmembers wished to challenge that.
Councilmember Candell said San Mateo is very different than Lafayette. Lafayette is more like Yorba Linda which is why that was such a nice comparison. San Mateo has many little lots. The way she looks at it is the City is going to certify and adopt before January 31st. HCD may make them come back and do it again, and she understands that. Taking their current run rate of 37 per year and extending that for 8 years and even upping it to 35 units she suggested writing justification for that because it makes such a big difference. So, she would like to have as many as they can and make that buffer bigger.
City Council Meeting Page 23 of 36 January 23, 2023
Mayor Anduri said it makes no sense that HCD does not see there is a change in situation in both the legal environment for ADUs and in the encouragement for ADUs, as well as a chart showing a clear ramp up.
He would rather put in 35 units and let them come back to the City. They have 37 permits and are above the number being proposed, and they should make the argument they are on an upslope, will do more units, and he would not want to sell themselves short. He would support going for 35 units so this would be 280 in total.
Vice Mayor Dawson agreed and asked if they need to have a formula for that, and Mayor Anduri said the City has already achieved that in terms of numbers of permits. He thinks it might continue up for the next couple of years, and Vice Mayor Dawson voiced support of 35 units.
Councilmember Kwok said this raises the question of how aggressive the Council wants to be with their numbers. They can raise the number to 35 or higher. He talked a bit about the buffer for very low and low income being now below the 14%. If they do not add more housing stock to try to remedy and bring that up, this is another bit of aggressiveness. They could be taking out other properties and being even more aggressive to not upzone too much. If they think they are not going to get approved, possibly they should bid low or become aggressive because they are not going to get approved. He suggested getting the feedback, expose themselves to builder’s remedy but in the next round they do the adjustments. He thinks this is one strategy about being very aggressive versus what they have been presented with from staff—trying to give something very likely to be approved the very first time by adhering to guidance and trying to play by the rules. So, he thinks it becomes a judgment call of how aggressive you get and thereby decreasing your chances of getting a first-time approval.
Mayor Anduri said he does want what the Council submits to be likely approved.
Councilmember Candell said she is under the understanding that if they certify the EIR and adopt a Housing Element before the 31st the City is protected against the builder’s remedy regardless of whether HCD accepts or approves it, possibly for a year.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said this is what the City would argue if someone sued the City. They would have to defend their Housing Element and say they were in substantial compliance with Housing Element law.
City Manager Srivatsa cited the time as almost 11:00 p.m. Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed with the City Clerk that the Council cannot start any new item after 12 midnight.
EXTEND MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Dawson) to extend the City Council meeting to 12:00 midnight. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
Councilmember Gerringer said she has concerns with putting all units in the ADU basket but will support the Council moving forward for the purpose of discussion. She has not seen the data to show that very low- and low-income units work out that way because most of the units she has seen for rent right now are not affordable. She thinks 30 units is fine, but questioned how ADUs help the City, particularly on very low and low affordability.
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 36 January 23, 2023
Mayor Anduri referred to sites, and the first one is the suggestion about allocating counts from the City property. They will look at what was in there for low and very low on 949 Moraga and related properties, whether it is 15% or another percentage.
Mr. Wolff said the allocation for the City and related properties for 949 Moraga is the same percentages as the RHNA allocation which on the summary shows as 28% very low income, 16% low income, 15% moderate, and 40% above moderate. Those percentages have been used throughout and were also applied to the City owned property.
Ms. Elrod said they can redistribute units to that collection of sites if they want to. She does not have a spreadsheet that would say what that would look like, but they could certainly make those sites and designate them as lower income rather than above moderate and change the distribution from the RHNA allocation.
Mayor Anduri said he would support that. If they are going out with an RFP and the City has control over the process, this is something they would want to do.
Councilmember Kwok asked to display the opportunity site inventory and point to those sites being referred to, and Mr. Wolff displayed the inventory and explained the percentages and sites they apply to.
Ms. Elrod said they can change the distribution for this to something like 30%, 30%, and whatever then equals 74. They can decide to identify these as a lower income development site.
Mayor Anduri asked if all Councilmembers agree with that. Ms. Elrod said the Council can work on this, and Mayor Anduri asked if that would require a special meeting on January 30th. Mr. Wolff said staff can apply the percentages in real time and can also do it as numbers versus percentages. Ms. Elrod said they could have 30 units very low, 30 low, 10 units moderate, and 4 units above moderate income.
Mayor Anduri said this is a great site for a 100% family low income housing across from the school and near all facilities. If they do that and decide later they do not want to go out for 100% affordable, he asked what they would do. Ms. Elrod said she thinks the most important thing is to plan for and identify whether they have capacity for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Whether that gets built is a different question and it may be that a site was going to be identified as primarily a lower income development, they need to make sure if something else gets developed on that site like for above moderate or not even housing, there is still enough capacity in the inventory to accommodate those units.
This is the purpose of the buffer. To her, redistributing the lower income categories for this site is going to help the City with the buffer.
Mayor Anduri said he thinks all Councilmembers agree they are going to re-allocate.
Councilmember Kwok said there was mention earlier of the AT&T site potentially being inappropriate to calculate such a large number. He asked staff to explain the rationale of why they think it is possible that AT&T would accommodate this request. He asked if it because AT&T would accommodate this request because residential can be built around their equipment and they can co-exist.
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 36 January 23, 2023
Mr. Wolff said he believes this site was in the last Housing Element. The Council will see the bulk of the site is surface parking. He said this is a long-standing switch center for AT&T. The parking lot has been under-utilized for many years. Formerly, the City leased it and released the spots for employee parking, businesses in the downtown, and he believes the move to the Cloud and miniaturization of equipment would allow existing and future needs to occupy the same footprint. It is not the case there is a need for this much parking. There is adequate capacity on site to do housing.
Councilmember Kwok asked if there has been a conversation with AT&T and asked if they would consider writing a letter agreeing to this. Mr. Wolff said he has not had that conversation in the last year but would be happy to reach out to an AT&T real estate representative.
Councilmember Kwok said a speaker mentioned there is a miscalculation in 5.93 acres on Desco versus
5.03 acres. He asked if this is on the opportunity sites inventory for Desco Plaza 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Wolff said the number is accurate, but staff will double check.
Councilmember Kwok said Mr. Elliott mentioned the possibility of upzoning 1B and 3B to 50 du/acre.
Mayor Anduri asked to look at specific sites and then return and look at the areas. He then wanted to address the Plaza Center issue, and he asked what possibilities are there for adding additional acreage there.
Ms. Elrod said she has concerns primarily that if they are too generous with the number of acres, they will run into many questions about how it would be staged because they would be removing all of the parking, which is an important part of this specific area. When they came up with the most recent number of acres to be included based on the Bruzzone letter, etc. they had concerns about the fact they cannot remove all of the parking which is what would be required to accommodate all that acreage. So, it could be that in the future more of the parking could be taken up.
For this site and the development between Whole Foods and McCaulou’s, etc., they said you must look at the interstitial areas. So, for this development they have included McCaulou’s because that is what Bruzzone had recommended and some of the other area to the west of Bruzzone’s, but not the parking lot in front of Whole Foods because of concerns about will there be enough parking for the community.
That was the decision; to take a more conservative approach to that site. It is possible to include more, but again, this would be a big lift to explain to HCD why this is reasonable and that it could be developed in the 8 years. If there is part of the site that could be developed within the 8 years, that is great, but they cannot say the entire area can be because it would have to be staged and probably could not be done within 8 years to do the entire thing.
Councilmember Candell said she remembers talking with them and they said some of the parking behind on the aqueduct could be used.
Ms. Elrod said the area behind McCaulou’s not fully on the aqueduct is included in the development site they have included.
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 36 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Candell said she knows Colin Elliott said to include the parking lots, but she asked why not include the building there which is under-utilized. Ms. Elrod said they are including the McCullough site. Councilmember Candell asked if the Noah’s Bagel and the back of that is included. Ms. Elrod deferred to Mr. Wolff to pull up the site and see what is included, stating at this point in time they do not have rights to do anything in the aqueduct. That would take a lot longer in negotiating with EBMUD.
Councilmember Candell said McCullough ends at the end of their building, but McCaulou’s goes beyond that by the back end towards the aqueduct which is the back half of the entire shopping center and red brick building. Ms. Elrod asked Mr. Wolff to highlight all of what is being included.
Ms. Wolff clarified Councilmember Candell wanted to extend the polygon to the east to include the additional square footage. Mayor Anduri noted most of those spaces are being used on the first floor, but it is two stories.
Councilmember Candell said this would be a question for Mr. Bruzzone if he would want to include that.
Mr. Wolff clarified that the property to the north and rear is the EBMUD aqueduct which is a long, linear parcel and they are not including any of that as an opportunity site. He thinks they discussed the fact that if some or all of the surface parking lot is built with housing on it at the Plaza Shopping Center property, they asked where employees would park. Whole Foods created an off-site employee parking lot to the north so one option would be to engage EBMUD to see if that would be feasible to do on their aqueduct property, not unlike BART has used EBMUD Aqueduct property for parking to the west.
Mayor Anduri confirmed what is in the opportunity site now is what is in the U-shaped polygon, and Mr.
Wolff confirmed and said it is the dark blue polygon which includes everything from Oak Hill Road over to and including the McCaulou’s building, the parking lot in front of McCaulou’s to the south, and does not include Safeway.
Mayor Anduri said if it were to be expanded beyond that, he asked if they would be taking parking from in front of Noah’s Bagels, Peet’s, Jamba Juice, See’s. Ms. Elrod said yes, this is what has been recommended by members of the community.
Vice Mayor Dawson asked if the back building behind Peet’s is something Mr. Bruzzone did not think would be feasible to consider, or she asked if it can be considered.
Mr. Wolff said he is happy to have that conversation with Mr. Bruzzone. Just from his experience with the center over many years, the front or south building which includes Noah’s Bagels, Jamba Juice, etc. has historically been well occupied and frequented with high use all the way to the back paseo. The building to the rear has had some tenancies but it also has had a fair number of vacancies. So, he agrees of those two buildings, the north building is a much better candidate for redevelopment and could be part of a greater project while leaving the thriving businesses to the south and the parking.
Mayor Anduri asked what difference that would make if included. Mr. Wolff said it would result in just shy of one-half acre.
Mayor Anduri asked if Councilmembers think they ought to include part of the parking and expand into the parking area for opportunity sites, which is the proposal from the public.
Councilmember Candell said maybe some, but not all.
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 36 January 23, 2023
Vice Mayor Dawson said if they could get consideration for that other half-acre, she would prefer that over losing parking.
Councilmember Kwok said he is supportive of looking into development of the whole area there. Putting in a parking lot and housing and blocking frontages of major retailers is not necessarily something Whole Foods would like, given they would be tucked behind, even if parking was maintained. So, he would prefer the idea of zoning the back portion and having housing there.
Mayor Anduri agreed and said for 19 years he stayed in a hotel while working and traveling, which was across from a large open space where there was a one-story shopping center. Over the 19 years, they redeveloped the whole thing into a two-story development with more retail and a Whole Foods in the corner and parking on second and third floors, which is something that can be done. It seems like their best bet for now is to include the additional half acre.
Ms. Elrod said she is very concerned and said if they are going to prevent a builder’s remedy issue, they need to adopt by January 31st and send it off to HCD. Obviously, many concerns being raised are super valid and at the same time, she does not know if these are things potentially steering people away from considering what needs to be done to adopt a Housing Element that is in compliance with State law. Staff has done a remarkable job trying to put together a Housing Element that will potentially meet all requirements of State law and she just is concerned that many of these issues are valid but also things that may prevent the Council from getting to the finish line. Some could be developed later in more detail, but she thinks this Housing Element will get the City to a point to prevent a builder’s remedy issue.
Councilmember Candell said she agrees these options should be reviewed and even if HCD tells the City to try again, the City is still okay with builder’s remedy. She thinks they are very close and not arguing about big things anymore. So, adding in another half-acre behind the back side of McCaulou’s makes sense.
Mayor Anduri asked if Ms. Elrod sees a major issue in adding the half-acre which is the back building.
Ms. Elrod said she does because they need something written from the owner and they need to justify why they think the uses on that site now will be discontinued within the next 8 years, and she does not think they know enough about the site to say that.
Councilmember Candell said she thinks Mr. Wolff does know enough about it. Half of it is already McCaulou’s. Their offices extend into that and are above it and it is all McCaulou’s. The City just did not include it, and this is how she looks at it.
Vice Mayor Dawson said it seems like a good building for mixed use where retail could be on the bottom and then build up, if they chose to do that. But, she asked if a letter from the owner is necessary.
Ms. Elrod said the State has said the gold standard is owner interest. Even though Mr. Bruzzone and his family have expressed interest they did not express interest in this site.
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 36 January 23, 2023
Mr. Wolff said they did not talk about that granularly. Staff does have two letters from Mr. Bruzzone representing the ownership; one from March and one from December in support of listing this property as an opportunity site at the 35 du/acre that was contemplated in March and now at the 75 du/acre. It is not the entire parcel, and it defines it more finely. He has knowledge on the rear building, and they did discuss the McCaulou’s building and Councilmember Candell is correct; that it does extend into the rear building to some degree. He thinks they can obtain clarity from Mr. Bruzzone on that and affirmation.
Mayor Anduri said the City has a letter saying he is in favor of the site and the Council is saying not the whole site but just the areas indicated which includes the extra half acre, and it seems that would work.
Staff clearly has reservations about including the front parking lots given their utility to the community and the businesses. They did add in the rear parking lot and the McCaulou’s building based on a subsequent conversation with Mr. Bruzzone and he thinks the rear building could be included and the case made for that, and it would still preserve those front businesses to the south that are the vital businesses and parking.
Mayor Anduri said he would like to shift to the other items on the agenda and then come back to this discussion and start in with each area of 1A, 1B, etc. He asked what is needed to undertake the next Item 13 on the agenda. Ms. Subramanian said she thinks the Council can shift and she asked to be clear for the public.
RE-ARRANGE AGENDA:
Mayor Anduri moved up Item 13A.
12. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
There were no reports.
B. City Manager’s Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Manager Srivatsa had no report.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
13. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Sara Regan, Executive Director, Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, for upcoming Chamber events in 2023:
1. Request to use Lafayette Plaza on Tuesday, May 16, 2023 from 4:00pm to 8:30pm for the annual Taste of Lafayette. The Chamber will secure an ABC daily liquor license and provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2023-07 Exhibit A.
City Council Meeting Page 29 of 36 January 23, 2023
2. Request to use Lafayette Plaza for the Rock the Plaza summer concert series on Fridays from 4:00pm to 10:00pm June 2, 9, and 16 and Friday, June 23 from 4:00pm to 10:00pm for the Lamorinda Arts Council’s annual Lamorinda Idol performances. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2023-07 Exhibit B.
3. Requests for the annual Lafayette Art & Wine Festival from 7:00pm Friday, September 22 until 11:59pm Sunday, September 24. Permission to continue the banner program on the medium light poles, cooperation and coordination with the police and public works departments, and the City’s assistance in publicizing the event in the Vistas, Roundup and the Park and the Park and Recreation newsletter. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2023-07 Exhibit C.
4. Requests for the annual Lafayette Res Run for Education Sunday, October 22 from 6am to 11am. Assistance, cooperation and coordination with the police and public works departments, the City’s assistance in publicizing the event in the Vistas, Roundup and the Park and Recreation newsletter. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2023-07 Exhibit D.
5. Request to Use Lafayette Plaza for the annual Trick-or-Treat Street Friday, October 27 from 3:30pm to 6:30pm. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2023-07 Exhibit E.
6. Request to use Lafayette Plaza on Sunday, December 3 from 4pm to 6pm for the annual It’s a Wonderful Life in Lafayette Holiday Celebration. The Chamber will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Street closure and No Parking areas described in Resolution 2023-07 Exhibit F.
Recommendation: Discuss and consider adoption of Resolution 2023-07 Authorizing Closure of Certain Streets and Establishing No Parking Zones for Lafayette Chamber of Commerce Special Events in 2023.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed there were no questions of Councilmembers on the six requests. He then opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Gerringer) to adopt Resolution 2023-07 Authorizing Closure of Certain Streets and Establishing No Parking Zones for Lafayette Chamber of Commerce Special Events in 2023.
Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
B. E-mail from Jennifer Napper requesting a proclamation recognizing March 6-10, 2023 as Divorce With Respect Week in Lafayette.
Recommendation: Consider approving the request for a proclamation recognizing March 6-10 as Divorce With Respect Week in Lafayette.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Gerringer/Dawson) to continue the item to February 13, 2023. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
City Council Meeting Page 30 of 36 January 23, 2023
C. E-mail from Greg Meronek resigning from the Environmental Task Force effective March 1, 2023.
Recommendation: Accept Greg Meronek’s resignation and thank him for 12+ years of volunteer service.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers recognized Mr. Meronek’s work on the ETF and voiced appreciation of his work of over 12+ years volunteerism.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Dawson) to Accept Greg Meronek’s resignation and thank him for 12+ years of volunteer service. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
D. E-mail from Eric Fonstein resigning from the Environmental Task Force effective immediately.
Recommendation: Accept Eric Fonstein’s resignation and thank him for 12+ years of volunteer service.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers recognized Mr. Fonstein’s work on the ETF and voiced appreciation of his work of over 12+ years volunteerism.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Dawson) to Accept Eric Fonstein’s resignation and thank him for 12+ years of volunteer service. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
RETURN TO ITEM 11A:
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers returned to discussion on Item 11A.
AREA 3B and 4:
Mayor Anduri referred to Area 3B and asked whether there was Council consensus to move Area 3B back to 35 du/acre. He would like to see 35 du/acre on both sides of Mt. Diablo Boulevard for that stretch between Dolores and First Street. He asked how many units would the City lose by doing this and asked if there were any policy reasons they should be aware of for not making that change.
Mr. Wolff displayed Area 3B and said there were no opportunity sites identified in Area 3B which is the north side of the boulevard in the core area and heart of the downtown where the DSP calls for the paver sidewalks or an enhanced streetscape, shopping, and pedestrian experiences which is not ripe for redevelopment in this cycle.
Therefore, the City would lose no units. On the south side, it would be a total of 7 units and 3 sites. The Council has expressed the desire and sensitivity to the pedestrian experience in the core of the downtown and stepping up and not exceeding 3 stories at the boulevard and creating a deep canyon. Staff would maintain its support for increasing the density at the east and west ends but again, stepping from the boulevard. Therefore, he would not identify any issues of concern for that relatively narrow area in the core staying at 35 du/acre on the north and south sides of the boulevard in part because of the City’s ability to meet RHNA.
City Council Meeting Page 31 of 36 January 23, 2023
Further, the State has rules and regulations around housing and housing production and programs, but no similar programs regarding jobs/housing balance or just jobs, in general. It is critical for a welloperating community to be able to serve those residents. This is where those goods and services happen in the downtown along the boulevard. The policy considerations would be to maintain it at 35 du/acre and not upzoning it and having an unintended consequence of businesses being displaced by housing in this narrow core area.
Mayor Anduri said therefore, tentatively the Council is saying they want Areas 3B and 4 to be moved back to 35 du/acre.
Area 1B and 5B:
Mayor Anduri asked if any Councilmembers wish to consider any other area for a change.
Councilmember Candell suggested Area 1B be at 35 du/acre or the same, as there are no opportunity sites there. She recommended saving this for future growth since the City is not taking advantage of it now.
Mr. Wolff confirmed and said there are no future projected opportunity sites in Area 1B. The one site which is identified as a pipeline project is the Lennar project currently under construction which has 3 stories, 66 units, 15% BMR. The Veteran’s Building is in that block as well as a relatively recent office building. The opportunity sites are limited; however, it would follow the Council’s direction to step down from the freeway which Area 1A will be 75 du/acre as proposed, so Area 1B would step down to 50 du/acre. South of the boulevard, the Council currently has Area 2 at 50 du/acre, so it would maintain the 50 du/acre on the north side and the south side, and he did not think it would realize a lot of development that would raise concerns the Council has been trying to address with the shorter heights in the core area.
It would also provide parity that the east and west ends on the north of the boulevard would be similarly situated. So, it would be 75 du/acre all the way across where the additional height can be realized up against the height of the freeway, the shoulders of the east and west ends would be at 50 du/acre, and the core area just discussed would be 35 du/acre both on the north and south.
Staff would therefore continue to recommend 50 du/acre in 1B and 5B.
Councilmember Candell asked if there were any sites at all there. Mr. Wolff said there is just the Lennar site. Staff did not identify further sites, so a change or reduction would not materially affect the RHNA.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed with Mr. Wolff that that there are properties that could be developed, but they are just not opportunity sites.
Councilmember Candell suggested putting them in and upzone them. Mr. Wolff said they are not included because they are smaller properties.
Mayor Anduri said he sees a benefit in keeping it at 50 du/acre which reinforces the argument the City is providing for more housing along most of the downtown and it gives more justification for keeping the 35 du/acre along the core area, which they are differentiating.
Vice Mayor Dawson agreed there is parity on the different ends of town as they structure a step down on both sides as well as the east and west ends.
City Council Meeting Page 32 of 36 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Gerringer said with Mr. Wolff’s description, even though there are no opportunity sites, she would support leaving it in at the 50 du/acre. Initially, she questioned this because there are no opportunity sites, but she thanked staff for the explanation.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed the Council did not wish to discuss any of the other areas. He confirmed the Council tentatively agrees on the following changes:
1. Increase ADUs from 240 to 280 units, providing more in the low and very low;
2. Reallocate the City property at 949 Moraga Road and other properties there and the Council would come back as to how to do that. This would not garner more units but it would provide more low and very low units;
3. Increasing the Plaza Center and increasing the opportunity site by one-half acre which would provide roughly 30 more units. This would net 70 additional units; and
4. They are adding to the very low and low and changing Area 3B from 50 du/acre from 35 du/acre, and Area 4 from 40 du/acre to 35 du/acre, and only losing 7 units Percentages/Buffer/Income Levels:
Councilmember Candell asked to confirm this comes out to a 19% buffer now for the low and very low.
Mayor Anduri asked how she allocated 949 Moraga Road, and Councilmember Candell said she did the 30/30/20/20.
Ms. Subramanian clarified that for the 949 Moraga Road parcel, if this is going to be rental, they want to stay at 49% or less low or very low.
Mayor Anduri asked what is the total now. Councilmember Candell said there are 74 units total, so if she multiplies that by .25 it is 18.5 very low and 19 low, and the other ones go up, so it would be 25%/25%/25%/25%. She asked if this is okay. Mayor Anduri stated it must be 49 and he asked if they put it in units or percentages.
Councilmember Kwok said it is 21/12/11/30 which equals 73 units, and Councilmember Candell said she did 18/19/18/19 across the board. Mayor Anduri said this is 50%, so he suggested 18/18/19/19.
Vice Mayor Dawson said originally they have 21 units VLI and 12 as it stands now. Councilmember Candell said it is whether they put it in the Housing Element and it might not be necessary to do it, but they may want to do it because of other reasons, but she is not sure it would change their numbers that much. Vice Mayor Dawson said she thinks it is important to increase the buffer realistically if they are not going to pursue policy on this plan too for more affordable housing there. Councilmember Candell said that may be the reason why they do it.
5. Mayor Anduri suggested, and Councilmembers agreed, to propose 21 very low, 15 low, and then 19 and 19 for moderate and above moderate-income levels.
Mayor Anduri then suggested going through the Housing Element and call out any specific amendments and then confirm changes. Councilmember Kwok confirmed with Mr. Wolff that staff will refine the final chart on the 5 changes.
City Council Meeting Page 33 of 36 January 23, 2023
EXTEND MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Kwok) to extend the Council meeting until 1:00 a.m. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
Mayor Anduri said he has given his typographical errors to staff, referred to the Housing Element identified with “H” on them, and he asked Councilmembers for any comments on the 56-page document. • Page H-52: (Anduri) Program 10.1.12 under Summary of Inventory: add a period after “RHNA” and the words “with the upzoning of the BART parking lots” will be removed. • Page A-38 of Appendix A: (Anduri) At the bottom there is something missing. It states, “In order to address the needs of substandard housing, the City participates in a property assessed clean energy PACE.” He asked to add a period and state, “PACE is a financing mechanism.” • Appendix B: (Anduri) He discussed with Mr. Wolff about multi-family housing and why they are where they are, mentioning civic services and retail, but they do not mention “schools” when the downtown is walking distance to distinguished awards and outstanding K-8 schools.” Mr. Wolff agreed to add that clause to references.
• Appendix C: (Kwok) He said there are a couple of “error-reference source not found” errors which need to be cleaned up. Mr. Wolff said staff will pull those back in from the prior draft. • Appendix D: (Anduri) He asked to take out any references to NIMBYism and the first full paragraph on D-19 can be struck which starts with “Safe Lafayette lost their lawsuits.” Councilmember Candell asked that the prior paragraph is factually incorrect on a couple of different levels. It states, “We approved the project” but they did not in 2015. She asked to strike both of those, as well as the third one because it talks about the lawsuit against the City of Richmond.
Ms. Elrod said this is included because there is a requirement in AFFH to talk about issues pertaining to other jurisdictions within the community broadly spoken which includes the County.
She thinks staff can edit the program requested, but she would leave in the reference to Richmond because it talks about the County generally. Councilmember Candell agreed. Mr. Wolff agreed to edit the first paragraph, delete the second paragraph, and revise the third paragraph. • Appendix E: No edits.
• Appendix F:No edits.
• Appendix G: (Anduri) He referred Program 4.1.B and asked if this is meant to be deleted, and Mr.
Wolff said yes; this is meant to be deleted as it was not a program identified that would produce units.
• Appendix G: (Gerringer) Program 6.1.G: She said this is the program regarding the decision to move up the timeline for putting out the RFP, particularly since the Council is trying to increase that on publicly owned properties. Ms. Elrod said this was something HCD specifically asked them to do and it has already been moved up. If the Council wanted to move it up more, it would be better, but this is what they are proposing right now.
City Council Meeting Page 34 of 36 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Gerringer said this program talks about providing more affordable housing and make the commitment, and she recommended moving it up to be a higher priority than some of the others.
Mayor Anduri said he is looking at what the City staff and Council will be spending time on, and they do not know now what is happening with the Plaza properties, and once they get know, they will have a better sense on where they will need to spend time. He is concerned that over the next year there will be a lot of public input spent which will take time. He asked and confirmed these are calendar quarters, and said he was nervous about changing it.
Councilmember Candell said she was proposing pushing the BART items out and push the other one first which might help.
Councilmember Gerringer said the Council directed staff to continue discussions with BART and it is not intensive time spent, but the Council made this direction when they decided to pull BART out. Mayor Anduri said 2026 is in a column headed “Completion Timeframe” but the description goes out beyond and states “Analyzing the feasibility of proposals by the end of 2026.” He said he will support changing the column from 2026 to 2025, and then change the column on the right to Quarter 1 2024, but he asked Mr. Wolff to weigh in.
Mr. Wolff said in looking at the Gant chart, he thinks they can accommodate that by pushing out Program 6.1.C which is updating the “Inclusionary Housing Ordinance” given there is nothing mandating that or compelling that in the shorter timeframe, and he understands the Council’s desire to prioritize the RFP because this could realize actual additional units in the near term on City controlled properties.
Councilmember Candell asked if this is delaying the nexus. Mr. Wolff said no, and he said this is Program 1.2.A. She therefore supported this. Vice Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers Kwok voiced their support of this change.
• Program 10.3.B (Kwok) He said these are changes on BART and what he highlighted in yellow which states, “The City will continue to take actions necessary to ensure….” which is an incomplete sentence. Mr. Wolff said he has not had a chance to revise that, and Mayor Anduri said they were going to include something that states they would work on “a transit-oriented development overlay district” as a separate overlay district.
Mr. Wolff said the first bullet is no longer applicable which proactively upzones the sites to 75 du/acre pursuant to SB 2923.
Vice Mayor Dawson asked if the overlay district could be part of the specific plan and state the City is working on a DSP prior to which will be an overlay for transit-oriented development.” Mr.
Wolff said it might not take that form. The scrutiny of the plan and expansion of the geographic boundaries to include the full length of the boulevard extending north to include the BART parking lots is a specific plan that looks at land use, transportation, development standards, etc., so rolling it into that effort and not having a separate effort is probably the best path.
Mayor Anduri said he would rather leave that decision for a time the Council can really discuss it, so he thinks they want to leave something in here that indicates that they are going to be working toward development of the BART site, so a general statement is all they need to do. Mr. Wolff agreed to strike the first bullet and leave the remaining wording and complete the sentence in the first bullet.
City Council Meeting Page 35 of 36 January 23, 2023
• Opportunity Site Inventory: (Anduri) He said this needs to be updated as the Council discussed.
The only thing to do with the Housing Element is to look at the updated chart to ensure they are comfortable with that, and if so, they need to look at the resolutions.
Mr. Wolff said with respect to Desco, it looks like there was an erroneous duplication of one of the parcel sizes, so staff will reduce it down as recommended by the speaker and he displayed the chart, stating the yellow highlights are the changes. Row 12, Site 25 is the one he just mentioned where it is now 225 and before it was 265, or 40, which offsets the ADUs and takes out some of the very low and low. Councilmember Candell also asked Mr. Wolff to add one-half acre at McCaulou’s. He said it was 2.2 and now it is 2.75, and the City-owned parcel reallocating those to 21/15/19/19. The summary gets them to 17% buffer for the very low and low income.
Councilmember Kwok asked staff to display Area 3B again on Row 24 going back from 50 du/acre to 35 du/acre, and after showing Column C, which was hidden on the chart, he confirmed 3B is now 35 du/acre.
• Resolution No. 2023-04 certifying the FEIR and making findings (Kwok) He asked that the two “Whereas’s” indicate “, as amended.” Mr. Wolff said the proposed revision proposed by Colin Elliott which staff supports. The revised resolution would include the red lines shown on page 1- 6 of the FEIR with minor modifications.
Mayor Anduri asked for a motion to adopt Resolution 2023-04 certifying the EIR, et al.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Gerringer) to adopt Council Resolution 2023-04, as amended, certifying the Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report, adopting a statement of overriding consideration, and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Candell, Dawson, Gerringer, Kwok, and Anduri; Noes: None).
Mayor Anduri referred to Resolution 2023-05, adopting the Housing Element Update, as amended, understanding that all changes discussed tonight will be incorporated.
A motion and second was made by Vice Mayor Dawson, and seconded by Councilmember Kwok to adopt Resolution 2023-05, as amended.
DISCUSSION:
Councilmember Candell said regretfully she is going to vote “No”, stating she preferred their first Housing Element submission. She thinks they could have gotten more sites and not have to upzone as much.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Kwok) to adopt Resolution 2023-05, as amended, adopting the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. Vote: 4-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: Candell).
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers thanked Mr. Wolff, Ms. Elrod, the Town Attorney and BBK, Planning staff, GPAC, the Planning Commission, and the public for their amazing amount of work.
Mr. Wolff confirmed staff will convey the documents electronically and physically to HCD and will advise the Council when it is posted.
Ms. Subramanian stated staff will schedule the Special Council meeting for January 30th to only discuss the potential acquisition of the Police Station property.
City Council Meeting Page 36 of 36 January 23, 2023
14. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT – None.
15. ADJOURNMENT – 12:37 a.m.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Carl Anduri, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk