City Council Meeting Page 1 of 35 July 10, 2023
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall July 10, 2023 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 6:00 p.m.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, City Council/Board meetings will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing (Zoom) option. To participate virtually in the City of Lafayette’s public meetings and provide public comment, please follow these steps:
1. Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube.
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 no later than noon the day of the meeting. Those e-mails will be distributed to City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3. Live Remote Public Comments: Technology permitting, members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing by using the link below. 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.
4. At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89008805648?pwd=ODQxRGxzaGNHSWVITUVFalFuUHBIZz09 Passcode: 426199 Or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128 Webinar ID: 890 0880 5648 Passcode: 426199
7 City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 35 July 10, 2023
Mayor Anduri called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Anduri; Vice Mayor Dawson; Councilmembers Candell and Kwok
Absent: Councilmember Gerringer
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Sonia Urzua, Assistant Planning and Building Director; Renata Robles, Senior Planner; Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Dawson) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, and, Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Gerringer).
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Janet Thomas led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (For items not on the agenda)
There were no speakers.
7. PRESENTATIONS A. Mary McCosker
Lafayette Celebrating 175+ Years - History Presentation Recommendation:
Receive and file.
Mary McCosker, President, Lafayette Historical Society, gave a historical presentation on the libraries of Lafayette. She described the first library in Lafayette, formation of a library association by women, the Contra Costa Library system establishment in 1913 and the opening in 1915 with 60 books, purchase of the second schoolhouse moved from Moraga Road to the now Mt. Diablo Boulevard for the post office, telephone exchange, and library, Town Hall Library site in 1937 and Lafayette Cooperative Library Association incorporation as a non-profit organization in 1939, and fundraising done and WPA labor to build a library in 1940 on Moraga Road on School District land. In 1949, the Library deeded the library building to the County and leasing the site from the district for a nominal fee. The first President of the Friends Board was Mr. H.M. Smitten in 1940. She then described the county service area be established through tax funds for construction of a new library, and after looking at potential sites for a new library in 1959 the Library Association determined the existing building was the best location.
City Council Meeting Page 3 of 35 July 10, 2023
In June 1961, the groundbreaking ceremonies were held. In November 1961 the organization’s name was changed to the Lafayette Library Association. On March 25, 1962, the new Library was dedicated. Ms.
McCosker then described the donation of a book barrel from Gump’s, annual sale of gently used books, the formation of a historical committee under a joint funding agreement with the Lafayette design project that later became the Lafayette Historical Society, the Lafayette Library Association in 1973 becoming the Friends of the Lafayette Library and her mother, June Stewart as president that year.
She then described the bookmark contest’s beginning in 1987 where hundreds of entries are submitted by Lafayette students and winners at each grade level chosen, Hall of Fame awards for repeat contestants, money raised by book sales, opening of the Book Room in 1984 at the Lafayette Community Center, amounts of book sales and their use to purchase books and other amenities for the library, new carpeting, revamping of the parking lot and courtyard, a special teen area created and new tables and chairs purchased by the Friends.
By 1990, the library was inadequate for Lafayette’s needs and she described Library Vision 2000 which planned for a new library. A new site was chosen, and construction began in late 2007. The Lafayette Library and Learning Center opened its doors in November 2009, built from an $11.9 million State grant and generous corporate and community donations. Initially, programming at the Library was provided by the Glen Seaborg Learning Consortium, and over time, many bodies brought more programming to the library and the role of the consortium declined. She then described book sales which have exceeded $100,000 annually excluding the pandemic years, donations from the Friends provide over $100,000 annually to the Library Branch Manager for programming, collections, and equipment. In 2010, the name of the organization was changed to the Friends of the Lafayette Library and Learning Center. The Friends no longer collect dues for membership, but rather support the Library financially through bookshop sales.
Thanks go to the Friends Board and to the Bookshop volunteers who donate countless hours of their time to the community in support of the Library. Like the women of the original subscription library, they continue to bring to the public the advantages of reading.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers thanked Ms. McCosker for her historical presentation.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Anduri asked if there were removal of items, and Councilmember Kwok requested removal of Item 8A. He asked and confirmed there were no public comments or public requests for removal of items.
B. Resolution 2023-41 Establishing the Rate of Tax to Provide for Payment of Principal and Interest on Series 2011 and Series 2016 General Obligation Refunding Bonds During Year 2023-2024 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2023-41.
C. Reject all bids for the 2023 Surface Seal Project, No. 014-9739 Recommendation: Reject all bids for the 2023 Surface Seal Project, No. 01-9739; add the 2023 surface seal streets to the planned 2024 surface seat streets; and let the combined project out to bid by March 2024.
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 35 July 10, 2023
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Candell) to adopt Consent Calendar Items B and C Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes:
Anduri, Dawson, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Gerringer).
9. OLD BUSINESS
A. Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director
Financing for Purchase of the Police Station at 3471 Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Recommendation: Use cash from the City Offices Fund to pay for the purchase of the Police Office at 3471 Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson gave the staff report and overview of consideration of financing the purchase of the Police Station at 3471 Mt. Diablo Boulevard.
Michael Libera, SAMCO Capital Markets, spoke about previous rate conditions and current terms that are not very advantageous for the City, COVID activities and resultant bank conditions, higher interest rates, and the ability to refinance right now.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the chart in the staff report which compares the financing options between JP Morgan and NBH, and the last column related to fees. Mr. Libera said it is a small financing compared to what they normally see in the capital markets. When they do a larger financing, you get better economies of scale so there are minimum costs associated with going through the process and marketing.
They try to be conservative and do not have final fees, but they try to ballpark on the conservative side and try to come in below that.
Councilmember Kwok said there are legal fees, SAMCO fees, and asked if these correlate to the line items.
Mr. Libera said yes; this would be more cost effective in a public offering. This is a bank placement which they found as being the more economic option, even in current times. They could go through the process of doing full offering document and blast it into the market. This will be getting a rating from the rating agencies and more expensive and those all require fees. So, given a small financing of $1.65 million, you do not get great pricing when it comes to professional fees. A larger financing of about $10 million, you start to get benefits from economies of scale.
Councilmember Kwok recognized the small deal, but he asked if it would still require $75,000 in Orrick.
Mr. Libera said this is a ballpark figure and they can update the Council on the financing. They would receive a formal bid from Orrick should the Council proceed. So, again, this is a high estimate, ballpark figure.
Councilmember Kwok asked if SAMCO was doing any transactions with other cities or clients in the $1.65 million range, and he asked what type of options they were looking at. Mr. Libera said typically no. These are small. Usually when going to the capital markets it is usually $3 to $5 million. Plus, given the state of the capital markets a lot of the proceeds get chewed up by fees and they have seen a lot of people wait.
Councilmember Kwok said if in the future the City paid cash now but then later wanted to roll this project into another project and have 2 deals financed together in that $4 to $5 million range, he asked if this would be possible. Mr. Libera said he thinks there is some time limit from when you can finance an acquisition, so he would have to follow-up with that. Possibly with some additional renovations, they can City Council Meeting Page 5 of 35 July 10, 2023
shoehorn it in, but they can look at this. He thinks a few years the City would be out of the window, but he could follow-up.
Mayor Anduri said when the City originally decided to go down the financing route, Ms. Robinson had alerted the Council to the fact that if they changed their minds there might be a consequence.
Ms. Robinson said the Council had to pass a resolution that allowed the City to finance after the fact and there is a time limit. John Palmer at Orrick told her at the time the IRS generally does not like it if you do not do it and you said you would. So, before recommending this she touched base with Mr. Palmer again and she asked if the City would be in trouble. He said no and it probably would not be a big deal because they are not going to force the City into something that is not financially responsible. So, it is not necessarily that the City changed its mind on a whim. They changed their mind because the circumstances around the financing have changed so it is not economically responsible.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Councilmember Kwok commented that he had hoped the City would be able to finance this transaction, so he was looking for a way for that to happen, but they know the interest rate environment has changed and it puts pressure on projects. If this is no longer viable an opportunity, he can accept the City use cash, but this becomes a lost opportunity once they pay cash as they cannot refinance, and it is also a burden in that regard. But, everything is a trade-off and he can support the recommendation.
Councilmember Candell concurred and it is an actual savings the City will be making by purchasing, which is substantial, so she supports staff’s recommendation.
Vice Mayor Dawson concurred and said it makes financial and practical sense.
Mayor Anduri suggested a motion.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Dawson) to use cash from the City Offices Fund to pay for the purchase of the Police Office at 3471 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, and Kwok; Noes:
None; Absent: Gerringer).
10. STAFF REPORTS
A. Greg Wolff, Director and Sonia Urzua, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Director Request from Sunflower Hill for City contribution toward a 38-unit below-market-rate housing project for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities at 3470 Mt. Diablo Boulevard.
Recommendation: Direct staff to issue a commitment letter and prepare a long-term loan agreement for up to $1.5M from the successor agency housing fund to support Sunflower Hill at Lafayette Lane. The loan agreement will be modeled on that executed for Eden’s Belle Terre project and will be brought back to the City Council for review and approval.
Planning and Building Director Greg Wolff gave the staff report regarding a request by Sunflower Hill and Novin Development for a City contribution towards the project known as Sunflower Hill at Lafayette Lane.
Aman Novin of Novin Development and Jen Leonard-Benson of Sunflower Hill.
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 35 July 10, 2023
Jen Leonard-Benson, Executive Director, Sunflower Hill, gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of Sunflower Hill at Lafayette Lane. She spoke about celebration of their 10-year anniversary, their purpose and mission to co-develop affordable housing, programs for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the 38 unit development where 37 units would be those with IDD and 1 unit for a property manager, restricted rents and affordability, prior approval by the City Council on January 25, 2021, the LP created and their work with Pacific West Communities, Novin Development, and Sunflower Hill in order to ensure they have managing partners, emerging developers, and general partners. There will be different non-profits on site. The Housing Consortium of the East Bay will do residential services, FPI will be property management, enrichment services by Sunflower Hill all of which she described, a teaching kitchen, a fitness center, and a rooftop terrace with gardening.
Aman Novin, Novin Development, gave a background overview of Novin Development, said they are an experienced sponsor of large, multi-family development projects with over 17 projects in the pipeline with over 700 units, said they strive for a balanced development approach around social responsibility and environmental sustainability, and provide housing to a broad spectrum of incomes. He described sources and uses of funding for the development, said the site competes well for MHP funding, and they have a funding gap they are looking to solve, which he described. The total hard costs are about $24 million and of that $14.8 million is the structure and prevailing wage components, said Miramar Mt. Diablo, LLC is the current land owner has donated the land to the partnership and their most recent appraisal shows the land value of $6.1 million which they can count towards their commitment of public funds which is pursuant to an inclusionary housing requirement. They also received a commitment of 13 project-based Section 8 vouchers from the Contra Costa County Housing Authority which allows them to serve a lower AMI while beefing up services.
Councilmember Kwok stated this is a very worthy project for the future of the City, asked what changed from 2021 and now that requires the request for funding.
Mr. Novin replied it is a combination of increased interest rates and construction costs, as well as evaluating the competitive landscape. He said this is the second Super Nova ever to be had and no one knew what the tie breaker needed to be to be competitive the first time the State issued the Super Nova. He thinks many projects applied with big hopes and it was oversubscribed by about 300%. In looking at what other projects did not get funded, these will be their competition this round, and they are working to identify and understand what tie breaker they need to get to in order to be successful in this round.
Councilmember Kwok asked what measures Novin Development was taking to reduce costs or reduce the scope in order to bring the budget back in line with financing.
Mr. Novin said they are a vertically integrated development team where they have their own construction arm and services team integrated into the project and can better control costs than other groups. They are always looking at ways to bring value engineering to the work they do. They also include reasonable hard and soft cost contingencies in their underwriting. By doing so, they want to ensure this is viable without any future cost increases.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the value engineering done and asked if between last year and this year have they taken costs out of the project and changed the scope, materials, or reduced the project size that would bring it in line with their financing.
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 35 July 10, 2023
Mr. Novin said they have not changed the size of the project and do not want to change the entitlements more than what would open it back up to obtain re-entitlements. They have made some minor adjustments to entitlements, including making sure there is sufficient amenity space and a bike room, so in terms of cutting out space, they are underwriting high interest rates of 8.8% rate for construction going in and a 7% interest rate on the perm side so that is a big part of what is causing this gap. That said they are at a stage where if they get the HCD funding award, they would then go to the market to get 3 bids from subcontractors for each trade as part of the buy-out process and at that point, should there be cost savings, they would have provisions in their loan agreement with the City that they would be able to repay any loan sooner. So, at this point it is about being competitive for State funding applications.
Vice Mayor Dawson said if prices increase when bidding, she asked what the backup plan is, as well as if they do not receive the award.
Mr. Novin said they have sized a healthy contingency to be able to deal with potential cost escalation over the next year. Once they get an HCD funding award, they still are not 100% there. They would need to apply in the first round of next year for State tax credits and there they have an opportunity to revisit and ask for the right amount needed to qualify for the tax credits, as well. They recognize things change and if they are successful in the Super Nova application and are not successful in the tax credit application, they will continue to apply annually until they are successful.
Councilmember Kwok said the request is a $1.5 million long-term loan. He asked if there is an interest rate proposed. Mr. Novin said typically they see it structured as a 3% residual receipts loan and this is what they would be proposing.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed Mr. Novin is satisfied with the staff recommendation on this matter.
Mayor Anduri said if the Council moves forward with this, they will be lending 75% of their affordable housing money. He asked if it helps the tie-breaker if this could be relayed to them. Mr. Novin said this would be of great support.
Mayor Anduri asked if when the project came to the Council it had the details like the teaching kitchen and multi-purpose rooms in the plans. Mr. Wolff said he did not recall and deferred to Mr. Novin.
Mr. Novin said he thinks the original entitlement that came to the Council was driven primarily by the master development team and probably focused more on the larger 5-acre master plan. In that time, they spent a lot of time with architects as a team focusing on the Lafayette Lane building and amenities within.
Up until midnight last night they were still working on the right size for the teaching kitchen, the bike room, and many amenities seen are the result of over 1 ½ years of work with Sunflower Hill to take the learnings they have from the Irby Ranch project in Pleasanton and bring that into the current proposed project.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
REBECCA CALAHAN-KLEIN said as a parent she can say the thing one thinks about most is not only what happens when you are alive and you are doing everything to help your child grow into a successful, selfreliant adult but you are also worried about what happens when you die and what will happen to them.
One of the things wonderful about Sunflower Hill and this project is they provide not only housing and City Council Meeting Page 8 of 35 July 10, 2023
services, but most importantly, community. It is that community that helps provide the support over a lifetime for people in successful adult living. Her daughter, Lilly, has several classmates at Irby Ranch and they are very strong supporters of this effort and would love to see something like this happen in Lafayette.
She thinks there is a real need for affordable housing in Lafayette, especially one that serves the lowest income residents. People with developmental disabilities and special needs are typically amongst the poorest residents of any community. Living on SSI means living with $12,000 to $15,000 a year which is impossible without projects like this. So, she thinks the project is well-structured, thoughtfully financed, has already leveraged dollars and will leverage more, it has strong community support, and acts as a model for other communities to emulate.
BILL BUCHER echoed comments of the previous speaker, asked if the development is being done by the same developer, Miramar, or he asked if the project runs separately. If Miramar slows down their development he asked if Sunflower Hill still moves forward or vice versa and voiced his support for the City providing the long-term loan.
Mayor Anduri confirmed there were no other speakers, and he asked Mr. Novin to address the speaker’s question.
Mr. Novin said one of the things they worked on when the project was first entitled until now is the original entitlements had a below grade parking structure that was partially below the parcel that the Sunflower Hill and Lafayette Lane community would be built on which tied their projects together. Understanding how market rate projects can fluctuate with market dynamics and affordable housing projects can often times come together quicker with the right mix of State and local funding contributions. They made a concerted effort to separate the projects physically. At this time, the master developer has made those changes through their building permit process and they now have a clear separate pad that could move forward should this project be successful in applying for State funding. If they are successful, they would know by the end of the year if they have State funding, and they would apply the first quarter of next year for tax credits and would know by June 2024 that they had the full capital stack to break ground. At that point, they would work on building permits and start.
Councilmember Candell said this is the best way a government can be. This is the kind of program that she wished the State would do more to help the City, but Lafayette is little, but they have some and she feels strongly the Council should definitely support this loan.
Vice Mayor Dawson agreed and echoed comments.
Councilmember Kwok asked and confirmed the $1.5 million is 75% of the City’s affordable housing fund, that money has not flowed out of that account for 10 years, but there have been funds deposited from the Belle Terre project, and $2 million remains in the fund.
Mayor Anduri said he was very happy to see what amenities are being done on the site. He agrees with Ms. Callahan-Kline that this is going to be a community. He would encourage the group not to cut back on the elements that make the development a community.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Candell) to direct staff to issue a commitment letter and prepare a longterm loan agreement for up to $1.5M from the successor agency housing fund to support Sunflower City Council Meeting Page 9 of 35 July 10, 2023
Hill at Lafayette Lane. The loan agreement will be modeled on that executed for Eden’s Belle Terre project and will be brought back to the City Council for review and approval. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Gerringer).
B. Greg Wolff, Planning & Building Director; Renata Robles, Senior Planner; Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant
6th Cycle Housing Element Update – consideration of additional housing programs to meet statutory requirements to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
Recommendation: Provide direction to staff on which additional programs to include in the revised Housing Element Update.
Senior Planner Renata Robles gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, public hearing, and consideration of additional housing programs to meet statutory requirements to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Staff is seeking direction on a suite of 7 options the City can incorporate into the Housing Element to AFFH, which she highlighted and described.
Housing Consultant Diana Elrod provided examples of one option to provide the “missing middle” housing type, which is to create a maximum average unit size for a given multi-family development. Ms. Robles then continued describing other options.
Ms. Robles said staff will continue working on updates in response to additional comments and hopefully return in August with other overall changes to the Housing Element for review.
Vice Mayor Dawson said out of the suite of options, she asked what was the basis for recommending the particular 4 options.
Ms. Robles explained staff felt this would address AFFH from many angles. 1B would reduce the lot area required for many single-family areas and therefore create opportunity for smaller scale multi-family development in those neighborhoods. Allowing a second JADU with income restrictions would ensure these new housing units would be affordable and it is a lower barrier means of producing housing. The average unit size item was to address the kind of single type of unit that is being constructed in Lafayette, and the short-term rentals was an item discussed previously by the Council and staff thought it was relevant for anti-displacement purposes and bringing housing units back.
Councilmember Kwok referred to #6 which mentions allowing conversion of existing single-family dwellings within the existing development envelope and asked what this means.
Ms. Robles explained to minimize the impacts to existing neighborhood character, this can still produce an additional unit or two within the existing envelope.
Mayor Anduri said he sees this was part of the Los Altos Hills example. He asked if they committed to making that change.
Ms. Elrod stated yes, and they just received certification from HCD after they added that program. She noted Veronica Tam provided a number of different options that may be variations of the 7 staff presented here, but specifically from Housing Elements that are certified.
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 35 July 10, 2023
Mayor Anduri asked if staff knows what the expectation was that in Los Altos Hills people would split their homes.
Ms. Elrod said she thinks it is an unknown because they do not know what people are wanting to do. It is not unlike SB 9 in the sense there are options available, and the question is whether people will take them up as an option. She believes it will be dependent upon an individual homeowner’s decision.
Councilmember Kwok referred to Option 5; the churches and said staff recommended having 20 units per acre. He asked how the number 20 got picked.
Ms. Elrod said 20 units to the acre tends to get at the “missing middle” housing development. There are jurisdictions allowing a number of ADUs to be built on site rather than actual housing development.
However, the City of Orinda has a program almost exactly like staff’s proposal to allow 20 to 25-units to the acre which, was specifically noted by HCD as meeting the expectations for AFFH.
Councilmember Kwok said Ms. Robles mentioned that some of the churches have expressed interest in this. He wondered if they have come out with a number they would like to see as a viable number and whether the City is able to accommodate that.
Ms. Robles said it was more preliminary conversations of what can they do, and unfortunately the answer was not as much as one would hope. They are happy to reach out back to them and get a sense of what they are looking to do and try to tailor the program more that way.
Councilmember Kwok referred to Option 3 when staff showed Project 1 and 2 in the chart. He asked if Project 1 was better than 2.
Ms. Elrod said neither. The point was that either project would meet a standard if the City established an average unit size requirement for multi-family housing. This was to demonstrate that a developer could provide as many as 3-bedroom units as they want as long as overall the mix met the requirement of, in this case, 1,500 square feet per unit. This is also being promoted by Petaluma and Burlingame.
Mayor Anduri said he is having difficult with that because at times they say one of the things they want to encourage, and he thinks the State wanted to encourage was affordable housing for families because there is a shortage of that. He asked if that would hurt the City’s ability to do that, and on the other end, he asked if this would cause a problem if the City wanted to provide a large quantity of affordable housing of small units.
Ms. Elrod said no, in both cases. The reason is this kind of activity is not to address affordable housing meeting low income and below. This is to get more moderate or median income. So, the idea here is that by requiring an average, you are getting somewhat smaller units in the development instead of all of them being 4,000 square feet. This will produce a mix of things that will address the needs of a single person who would like to live in a studio, but it is not a product type necessarily a developer in a market rate development wants to produce.
Mayor Anduri said if there is a market rate development with 100 units and their inclusionary ordinance means 15 of those are going to be affordable. He asked if they could make them all the small units.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 35 July 10, 2023
Ms. Elrod said no; they would still have safeguards against those kinds of things. They have not gotten to how this would work exactly in terms of that. But, as a conceptual idea, the idea of requiring a maximum average size of unit overall would help create potentially more smaller units that by design would be less expensive than the giant units.
Councilmember Candell thanked staff for all the work on the options. For 1A, she knows staff is not recommending it, but if it went to 20/acre, she asked if they are changing the setbacks or heights as staff said it is streamlined and using objective standards.
Ms. Robles said yes; it would be subject to objective design standards, but this would not necessarily mean a ministerial process that could be part of it. Regarding setbacks, if they were to increase the allowable density the City would need to modify the zoning standards to be able to accommodate that density.
Councilmember Candell asked what that might be, and Ms. Robles said she was unsure, but since they accommodate 35 du/acre on a 35-foot height limit currently, it might not exceed that, but it remains to be seen.
Councilmember Candell referred to 1B, she asked and confirmed with Ms. Robles that the R6 zone allows for 35-foot heights. Councilmember Candell said they do not see those heights as much in those areas and she asked why that is.
Ms. Robles said it is limited to 2 ½ stories technically so there are 2-story homes with attics. Staff reviews development proposals for 2-story single family homes in those zoning districts often, but it is not a full third story. She thinks that might be where the conflation of 35 feet and taller might be happening.
Councilmember Candell said in those areas she asked for staff’s thought if they did this with small lots and setbacks. To her, people are just going to supersize their homes in a way because they will have more room to go up and out and they would not necessarily split their lots. She asked if this is a possible outcome, she asked if the City would try to put any limitations on this.
Ms. Robles said it is a possible outcome.
Ms. Elrod said cities are all in the same boat in terms of proposing ideas to get more refinement on it and they do not have immediate success stories at hand about how this has been implemented, but they can look and see if there are those certified Southern California jurisdictions to see how they would address those kinds of issues. But, they do not have all of the details yet.
Ms. Robles noted an existing R10 lot converted to R6 would only get a 5-foot reduction in the side yard setback, so it is not a full-blown change in all standards.
Mayor Anduri said his understanding that with respect to height of houses, this is no change at all to what the current situation is. So, making this change would not result in any requirement or even likelihood there would be taller houses because the existing ordinance still applies. Many people wrote letters to the Council expressing concern about the homes next to them as 2 ½ stories, and he wants to ask staff to confirm that nothing would be different if they went down this path.
Ms. Robles confirmed and said the maximum height would not change across these zoning districts.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 35 July 10, 2023
Councilmember Candell referred to Option 3; the average unit size. Staff indicated there would be exceptions for special needs populations. She asked what special needs population would be affected here.
Ms. Elrod said they would be all the groups listed in the housing needs section of the Housing Element which would include farmworkers, single female heads of households, large families, people with disabilities, etc. These are all considered special need groups.
Councilmember Candell referred to the non-hosted short-term rentals (STRs) and said some cities have also said they must be 30-day minimum stay. She asked and confirmed this could be an option. She asked how this is monitored.
Ms. Elrod said there are varying levels of how to do this. She was in a seminar today about increasing affordability for ADUs generally speaking and not STRs but having them re-certify every year they are renting it out to some household. They do not care about income level served, per se, but want to be sure it is not being used as a short-term rental or owner occupied. It is increasing the permanent housing supply within the community.
Councilmember Candell referred to Option 5 and asked about public schools not being used as public schools.
Ms. Elrod said several jurisdictions are looking at institutions broadly spoken as “quasi-public”. She should mention this is not one staff recommended as part of the suite. It is something they can look at. Part of the reason it is not included is the process to actually make these changes happen would be a long time, and they would have to rezone, get developers involved, etc. The law already allows owners of church properties to develop housing on their sites, but in a limited way.
Councilmember Candell asked if there is new law being considered that would basically do this anyway.
Ms. Elrod said she was unsure about that. She said Orinda and other jurisdictions are looking at this as well as several jurisdictions in Southern California.
Mayor Anduri said if Option 5 is something the Council wants to do he asked why wouldn’t they do it even if it would take a long time. If the law changed next year to make it happen, he asked in the meantime wouldn’t the City have gotten some credit with HCD. So, he asked what the issue is with that.
Ms. Robles said she thinks all of these options are viable. Staff just felt the others were larger gestures towards these different angles of addressing AFFH. So, if the Council sees this fitting into the mix, staff will take direction.
Councilmember Candell asked if they can also make sure they are over an acre, and Ms. Robles said the details will be hammered out following the implementation of the Housing Element.
Councilmember Candell referred to Option 6. The way she read this as “existing envelope” she thought someone would have to stay inside and have 4 kitchens and 4 bathrooms and 4 units, or it would be like a group home. She read those as an inexpensive way to convert these things, and she asked if this is what is implied in here too.
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 35 July 10, 2023
Ms. Robles said the intention was not a tear down / rebuild. It was the re-use of existing structure. Group homes are permitted in the City and they can encourage that.
Ms. Elrod added that the idea here was up to 4 separate units in total within an existing building. The idea here really is not for group homes with a common kitchen. They are trying to create more units. A group home is a single unit regardless of the number of people who live there.
Councilmember Candell asked if this is a new class of a building. Ms. Elrod said it is technically a 4-plex or a duplex. It is turning a single-family home into a duplex or 4 -plex in the existing home.
Councilmember Candell said when saying within one-quarter mile downtown, she asked what this is. Ms.
Robles said it is one-quarter mile of the outer boundary of the DSP districts. It is the commercial zone along Mt. Diablo and one-quarter mile in all directions of those districts.
Mayor Anduri asked if it would be possible or desirable to defer a decision on this until the July 28th meeting. He asks this because this affects Item 1B and a large portion of Lafayette residents. He suspects that many of them are not aware the Council is talking about this tonight since it was the first time they would have seen it when the staff report was posted last week. He asked if there would be any issue with the HCD timing issue.
Ms. Elrod said they have a meeting with their HCD reviewer this week and so they would have to cancel that and push it to another time. Mr. Wolff said this is correct. If there was one the Council would like to hold off on they could have a follow-up conversation with the reviewer but still continue and have a conversation about the ones the Council provided direction on this evening.
Mayor Anduri said there were a number of comments from residents about HCD and their authority. He wants to be sure there is some clarity about HCD’s authority and role is in implementing the AFFH requirements.
Ms. Elrod said the State law (AB 686) was modeled on a Federal law; State law gives HCD direct authority, and it is explicit in all the things the Council is talking about in terms of mobility, increasing opportunities to access to services, access to high resource areas. The mobility question is the one primarily they are dealing with here which is creating options for people who may not have high incomes or median incomes to move into high resource single-family neighborhoods. HCD has issued guidance and has authorized by the State legislature to issue this guidance that tells the City it must do this.
Councilmember Kwok said he would like more clarification on 1B. He finds it difficult for him to understand how much more this is helping and just seeing the explanation and have the public comment on that, as well. He can understand how 1A works, but 1B looks quite nuanced.
Mayor Anduri asked how that would affect an individual homeowner, and Councilmember Kwok agreed and asked how a homeowner approaches this, so it helps AFFH and creating more opportunity.
Ms. Robles said property owners with a lot that is 12,000 square feet or greater could subdivide into 2 lots.
This is creating a smaller property and therefore somewhat less expensive and more housing units in the market.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 35 July 10, 2023
Councilmember Kwok said when a house sold to a developer he asked if the developer could split the lot at 12,000 or greater and build 2 homes there. Ms. Robles confirmed.
Councilmember Kwok said existing lots versus new lots, R6 existing, R6 new, and R10 existing and new, he asked what is existing and new in that example.
Ms. Robles said her understanding from the zoning text is that this first column was created when the zoning text was enacted and then they froze those laws in time and said from here on out new lots in R6 will meet these standards. The intention behind that is unclear, and then there is the R10 zoning district established for those larger 10,000 square foot lots. So, the proposal would be to have all R6 and all R10 lots subject to this first column.
Councilmember Kwok said on column 2 which reads 10,000 and 10,000, the minimum lot area numbers are changed to 6,000 and 6,000. Ms. Robles confirmed and a 60 foot average lot width from 80 and 80, and 90, 90, 90 stays the same, 2 ½ stories stays the same, but the side yards go down to 5 feet from 10 feet, and the setback in the rear is the same at 20 feet.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
BILL BUCHER, said as he sees this while they have struggled for years to figure out their RHNA numbers, they now have been hit with another State mandate. He appreciates the effort the Council must do to make this work, and said he supports #2, #3 in multi-development and a range of homes being a size that would also increase it, and #5, the public opportunities. He sees very market rate, expensive homes and if they are going to make it affordable or make it an option for the “missing middle” the City needs to find a way to make that happen.
He does not speak for any group, but himself and he absolutely disagrees with staff’s outline of 1A and 1B.
He thinks that is too much of a blanket approach and it is not correct. Given that, he asked how can they get houses that are affordable, and he spoke about Orinda’s Kennedy School parcel which was not redeveloped into multi-million-dollar homes but townhomes that were on a small lot. They were at a different price point than a type Orinda home. He is not a supporter of the Terraces project of apartments and was more supportive of the 42 homes there but with a lot of amenities. One thing that struck him is why a development like Orinda’s townhomes was not proposed there with townhomes which would allow a different level of income and allow people to become homeowners in Lafayette. The R10 zoning is probably the largest amount of homes in the City and he did not think having a blanket approach to that is right.
From a development standpoint, one of the problems is they already have SB 9 which allows him to go into any lot and split it. If he were to go into a neighborhood and buy a house and it is a 1500 square foot rancher on a one-quarter acre lot, the economics of tearing it down, splitting the lot, putting in utilities, and meeting the setback requirements do not make it feasible. So, there are probably selective neighborhoods in the R6 and R10 that could have duplexes in them, and he suggested looking at modifying zoning in those areas that make sense for townhome or duplex type of development that is closer to town.
REBECCA CALAHAN-KLEIN thanked the Council and staff for what has been a multi-year process and to hear a lot of perspectives with a lot of passion and for staff to be able to return with recommendations.
Her family strongly support all of the recommendations provided, think it is everyone’s responsibility in City Council Meeting Page 15 of 35 July 10, 2023
the community to provide affordability for existing and future residents in both rental housing and affordable homeownership. They support the changes that would upzone in their own neighborhood, would like to see more ADUs and they have one in their backyard that they have voluntarily rent-restricted to allow single moms with children to live with them and others.
They appreciate the portfolio approach and while staff has proposed limiting it to 4 recommendations, as a person of faith she expressed a desire to have the 5th one, even if it has a longer timeframe, and the same with recommendation #6. They love Lafayette because it is a forward-looking community, and this is a place they would like to see Lafayette being at the top of the list of communities that are doing things to expand affordability. Lastly, if the Council adopts this portfolio she asked what is the net impact of how many more units they would have in their community and would that satisfy the requirements for the Housing Element.
Mayor Anduri asked if this is something being proposed as something to meet the City’s RHNA target. Ms.
Robles stated no.
CAMERON ADKISON, said she supports the idea of increasing the number of units the City can absorb. She would encourage and something not reflected in some of the staff recommendation, especially in the zoning targeted in the majority of the recommendations, is the creek. Many people along Moraga Boulevard, Victoria Avenue, and on the other side as highlighted in the yellow slide already have significant Creekside setbacks restricting their buildable footprints on their lots. The idea there is a 15foot rear setback does not matter. They have a 10,000 square foot lot and it is 50 feet wide with a huge creek in the back. Their buildable footprint is less than 1800 square feet. Because of that, there are stretches of their neighborhood without sidewalks that are restricted with parking.
Their family had a car on Moraga Boulevard side swiped by a subcontractor from the City in a construction truck because it is so narrow, and they lost a car to just traffic in the neighborhood. They have bikers and many people who use their street. Their kids walk to get to the trail and back, and the idea they could have developers come in and buy single family homes, subdivide them into 2 lots and potentially add 8 units seems extreme, especially with the 35-foot height limit. She thinks the recommendations around adding another JADU are reasonable. Adding an ADU with a JADU is fine, supports the idea of having more availability in their neighborhood and maintaining the character of their neighborhood. What she would encourage is looking at the historical setbacks which are narrower than what is recommended. Their lot and their neighbor’s only have 2 ½ feet on each side and then 5 feet on the other. In order for them to add anything it would have to be in the front. The other idea for staff to consider is the possibility of reducing the front setback when an owner has a creek in their backyard to possibly 15 feet, which might allow people to add a staircase or bathroom for a JADU as part of their home.
ANDI BROWN thanked staff and the Council for their diligent work on the Housing Element. In reading HCD’s response to the City’s plan which required additional and arguably subjective work towards AFFH was both frustrating and disappointing. Regarding staff proposals, she does not think the City should enact Proposal 1A or 1B. The City and its stakeholders have already done so much work on thoughtful downtown rezoning and the City has already received much feedback throughout the Housing Element process to not rezone neighborhoods. Regarding 1A, downtown adjacent lots which are typically R6 are already the City’s densest neighborhoods with mostly small houses on small lots. The housing stock in its current form meets critical needs and, in many cases, is already a more affordable price point. There are occasional remodels on a rare double lot and that garners significant sale prices, but that is an outlier and not a norm. These City Council Meeting Page 16 of 35 July 10, 2023
homes are mainly bungalows and cottages and already have rented out ADUs. Rezoning these areas eliminates this type of needed housing and it would greatly change the neighborhood without even meeting key objectives of AFFH. If this was a sincere approach to AFFH, it would distribute policy throughout the City, into lower density neighborhoods and not just continue policy proposal focused on the area south of Mt. Diablo Boulevard which is already dense.
Regarding 1B, she feels there are unintended consequences of these proposals and many in the City do not fully understand what 1B completely entails. But, regarding feedback to date over the past 3 years it does not seem it needs to happen. Policies 2, 3, 4 and 5 seem to most meet the spirit of AFFH because they offer opportunity throughout the City without taking anything away from neighborhoods. Rezoning church and faith-based parcels which are inherently community-based provides community-based opportunities in a positive way.
In essence, she thinks that to provide for AFFH opportunities in Lafayette, they should be an equitable one throughout the City to truly enact it as it is intended. This can be accomplished without upzoning any neighborhood. It can be done with numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5.
JANET THOMAS, thanked the Council and staff for the years of work that went into the City’s Housing Element, said she is here to promote Lafayette as a vibrant city with a thriving involved citizenry, family/community focused, and interest in preserving the open spaces and good schools that are cornerstones of their culture. As they talk about what they want for their community in the future, she hopes they embrace creating more of a place for the missing middle class for families of teachers, nurses, police officers, public servants, store owners, and employees. She supports the options presented by staff tonight to loosen some of the zoning in some of their neighborhoods. She does not feel such changes would result in dramatic changes in the nature of their city as some fear, but would allow the potential for increased numbers of homes, smaller in size, and potential homeownership or rental for those who might not be able to currently afford or rent in Lafayette.
She also supports the potential to build on church property and promoting a range of unit sizes by establishing an average as was mentioned and allowing duplexes or 4-plexes in some areas. Her husband and she currently moved into an ADU half the size of their old house which is now occupied by their son and his family 100 feet away and they realize they really do not need a large yard to be able to appreciate the natural beauty of this area. The City, through design standards, has the ability to create criteria for building so a lot of 6,000 square feet gives ample space for a family home without deterring from the comfort of neighbors. As the City grows, they will face challenges such as need for more public spaces, for enhanced transportation opportunities, but she feels they have the talent and creative energy to meet these challenges.
As a retired local high school teacher and Director of the Lafayette Community Garden she knows many young families, some live in very small spaces, apartments or townhouses, and would love the opportunity to buy or rent a house here in town. Young families struggle to stay here. Childcare costs run about $2500 a month. Property taxes, insurance, rising health care costs all are rising, and we need to be aware of this as the City plans and consider ways to offer opportunities for a new generation of community members to join us, keeping Lafayette vibrant and alive. She asked the City Council to please keep this in mind as they give direction to staff.
The next speakers were participating via Zoom.
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 35 July 10, 2023
ALISON HILL thanked the Council and staff for its ongoing work with the Housing Element and was pleased to see Inclusive Lafayette, of which she is a member, named in the report. One of their concerns is with the “missing middle” and the smaller and more affordable homes in the area. One thought she has had for a long time is why is the City continuing to approve huge homes of 4,000 to 8,000 or more square feet.
The thought of a duplex or a 4-plex adding up to less than that causes horror and is changing the character of the City’s neighborhoods. It would be the same amount of land and probably the same number of cars because usually a large house has quite a few vehicles, whereas a smaller house has 1 or 2. So, she thinks the Council is not looking at this rationally or not looking at the footprint of these huge homes. They would be making more homes available if they had smaller homes which would be less expensive and less of a footprint on the land. They could fit 4 units where they now fit 1 unit. The idea this would greatly increase the traffic is not reasonable.
She has lived in a neighborhood on the fringes of one of these areas that has been reviewed and she is not sure she would be affected or not, but in the 50+ years she has lived in this area and have walked along Moraga Boulevard, during the first half of that time there were not cars parked on the street in her neighborhood or on Moraga Boulevard. Now, there are cars parked everywhere. So, there are many more cars in Lafayette than in the past and not a whole lot more people, so this great fear of traffic is mostly caused by all of these cars. Therefore, she wanted the Council to have more perspective on the size of the dwelling units and allowing more of the smaller units using many of the great ideas staff has come up with.
The City can fit more people into space without greatly changing the character of the town and give more people the ability to live in the City which she could not afford to live in if she had not moved here over 50 years ago.
MAX HENINGER, Boardmember, Inclusive Lafayette, applauded staff for the bold proposal that will meaningfully increase housing opportunities in Lafayette and affirmatively affirm fair housing. Several proposals they can support in particular 1A and 1B and 2 which are a great start, and 5, the church-owned site proposal can be very impactful for 100% affordable projects at a slightly higher density than is being proposed in the recommendations. They look forward to submitting a letter to the Council with more specific suggestions about all proposals.
Tonight, he wants to address an argument he heard at these meetings before and a little earlier tonight which is around affordability, specifically that “missing middle” housing will not be affordable. There is an element of truth there. A new market rate unit in a 4-plex will not be “affordable” like the project that the Council funded earlier tonight. Frankly, the only way to build new, deeply affordable housing in the Bay Area is either through more public subsidy for 100% affordable projects or through having it be part of a market rate project, either through inclusionary or through density bonus.
Frankly, Inclusive Lafayette thinks the Council should increase the local money for more affordable housing either through a local levy or by waiving impact fees for 100% affordable projects, which at one point the Council was considering in the Housing Element process. New “missing middle” housing is still far more affordable than the status quo and this is because the status quo in Lafayette is single-family. As of May, the Zillow home value index in Lafayette is $2 million. With a simple affordability calculation, 7% interest, 20% down payment, home insurance, property taxes, etc., the $2 million is affordable at 390% area median income for Contra Costa County. That is a household income of over $500,000 a year.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 35 July 10, 2023
For a 2-bedroom condo in a 4-plex such as at the Woodbury complex off of Mt. Diablo goes for just less than $1 million. Using the same assumptions, that 2-bedroom condo is affordable at 190% of AMI. This is not affordable for someone who qualifies for the Sunflower Hill project, but it is affordable for an upper middle-class family that is considering Lafayette or a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood in Oakland. Maybe the alternative to the Lafayette 4-plex is a new 4,000 square foot house in ex-urban Sacramento or Phoenix.
He questioned what kind of carbon emissions are being baked into the plan’s climate by not scaling to approve “missing middle” housing in relatively temperate and transit-accessible Lafayette. He thanked the Council for considering these big decisions, and he is happy to share his spreadsheet with his calculations.
Mayor Anduri said Mr. Heninger said they supports 1A, 1B, 2 and 5. He asked what his views are for 3, 4, 6 and 7. Mr. Heninger said they want to look at them more closely, had some initial concerns, but have not had a chance to confer as a board yet, but will provide a letter with some timely recommendations.
SHERRIN FARLEY thanked the Council and staff for their hard work, said she sent the Council a letter earlier today opposing program 5. She does not oppose program 5 because she thinks churches are well-situated to provide certain services and programs that other people cannot. She agrees with Councilmember Candell that utilization of vacant school property for housing would be a good addition to church properties. She asked for clarification of what is meant by one-quarter mile from the downtown. She knows staff explained it, but she asked to explain it again. She supports programs 2, 3, 4, and 5 and opposes 1A, 1B, 6 and 7.
LIBBY HENRY thanked the Council and staff for bringing this forward tonight, said she is very concerned, is glad the Mayor has recommended there be no vote on this today and to take more time. If the Council took information or recommendations from Inclusive Lafayette, the Council should give the same opportunity to members of the community that have a lot of ideas that have been submitted previously.
She sent a letter earlier and is very much opposed to upzoning of any single-family home neighborhoods.
SB 9 was written for totally the benefit of wealthy developers to come into single-family home neighborhoods to do exactly what Councilmember Kwok mentioned—to split the lot and be able to build up to 6 units on each parcel. She has a friend who is experiencing that right now in Albany in back of him and to the side of him. He is overwhelmed with being upset. She asked to avoid the one-quarter mile idea which goes up Happy Valley Road, up Laurel Lane, Glen Road, into many single-family neighborhoods, includes all of Moraga Boulevard.
Regarding SB 4, it was just heard in Natural Resources this afternoon. She did not know whether it passed or not. She thinks it has one more committee before it goes to the floor to be voted on. It seems there is so much mis-information and absolutely nothing in any of the housing bills that makes a requirement for anybody to make anything affordable, particularly if it is less than 10 units. So, numbers 1 and 2 are not viable and she asked to take more input from community members.
Councilmember Candell said she thinks the bill was SB 423 that was heard today, and Ms. Henry said both SB 423 and SB 4 were heard.
CHANCE BORECZKY, representing the 2,500 members of East Bay For Everyone, said they are a network of people working for the future of housing and transit in the East Bay. He recognized the work of City staff and consultants in preparing these recommendations, said they have different feelings on the particular package recommended for adoption, but again, this work is fundamental to have a basis for discussion.
They strongly support both 1A and 1B which are the most important of the 8 for promoting AFFH in City Council Meeting Page 19 of 35 July 10, 2023
Lafayette. Current zoning in the area covered by these provisions is a de facto ban on affordable housing development with land prices being what they are. It is extremely difficult to fit affordable housing projects of any kind in areas that are zoned like this. Focusing development in the R6 zones which are prime locations near Lafayette schools and BART would reduce the traffic burden of new development and put new housing near accessible jobs. They feel that 30 du/acre is a better target than 20 du/acre and would cover more of the full range of “missing middle” housing options that run up to 45 du/acre for some types.
They would also suggest consideration of expanding some of these rezoning efforts to D1 areas, the current duplex zoned areas. Option 1B on its own would not be sufficient as they do not feel a move from 4 to 7 du/acre in these single family zoned areas is going to be appealing to developers and retaining the singlefamily zoning does little to further fair housing and just might build more housing units. They share the concern about huge mansion development with potentially larger single-family units on smaller lots.
Options 2, 6 and 7 are positive and they support them but would not be sufficient on their own. They would suggest a modification in Option 2 in the monitoring process and does not want to see dis-used ADUs filled with household clutter instead of housing people and they do not want to see ADUs that are designated for affordable housing being rented out at market rates. Option 6 is only a modest improvement on what SB 9 already allows by right. Option 7 references San Ramon but that rezoning program also incorporated significant SFH upzoning. So, this is an option that should be considered there.
They feel Option 3 should be considered separately because it is difficult to quantify the actual impact on housing stock and those kind of changes to short-term rentals are not a substitute they feel to actually building more housing. They feel Option 4 is profoundly counter-productive and that the better solution to increase development of smaller and more affordable units is simply to increase density. Lastly, they support Option 5, as well.
LAUREN HERPICH, thanked the Council, staff, committee members, commissioners, GPAC, and hundreds of residents who have participated in this 3-year process. She thinks it is time for the Council to push back on HCD. HCD goals have already been satisfied but she feels like it is constant movement of the goal post.
She is feeling this is just the state bullying its way to get what it wants as Ms. Henry mentioned. They have already passed SB 9. She is worried about the future of their town. Here they are back at the drawing board, have had countless conversations and meetings about this, and it seems like no matter what is said, HCD will always come back and say it is not enough. Honestly, she is at the point now where she is worried about the future of the town not just from their character, but she questioned who will volunteer on commissions and City Councils if the City is just going to be a rubber stamp. She thinks it is time to start pushing back.
DAVID CLARK said he is in favor of not moving forward with 1A because on page 3 of the staff report it mentions the intention is to make a broader impact on housing choice mobility in areas outside the downtown. On page 4 , item 1A in the second paragraph, 5th line says, “The benefit of this option is all of these are near the downtown.” So, this result does not match what the stated goal was in the first place.
So, he thinks this inconsistency is reason enough not to move forward with 1A. The area 1A addresses were largely off the table in the RHNA discussion. He understands they are not doing this exercise with respect to trying to come up with specific lot designations, but nevertheless, they have had this conversation and it is disingenuous to try to use this argument to go back and do what the City did not do from the RHNA perspective. So, he was in favor of not moving forward with 1A and supports staff recommendations.
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 35 July 10, 2023
CAROL SINGER thanked the Council and staff for their work, said she does not favor 1A or 1B, but she has a technical question. The first sentence in #1 says “The current R6 zoning is effectively…….with lots sizes of a minimum of 6,000 square feet.” Under 1B the second states, “Currently, the R6 and R10 zoning districts have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for new lots that are created.” So, the 6,000 is for current lots and the R6 zoning minimum of 10,000 square feet is for new lots. It goes onto say, “This program would reduce the minimum lot size requirement from 10,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet, and it does not say anything about new lots. So, she asked if the program would reduce the minimum lot size requirement from existing lots if someone wanted to combine the lots.
CHERYL MACDONALD said she supports the Mayor’s idea of continuing this or voting against 1A and 1B, and there are many people who do not know about this. She supports Councilmember Candell’s school possibility comments as a good option, supports the churches, supports the JADUs, but again, many people do not know this is happening and she asked to continue the item to get more community input. She thinks there are other views that should be considered besides Inclusive Lafayette.
ROBERT LAVOIE asked to clarify the Mayor’s question about the height limit. He asked if the 35-foot limit is also true with density bonuses citywide because he believes it is not. He also agrees with the comments about including the schools and churches. He thinks it is important to focus on things that can economically be built more affordably. It is interesting that this whole effort is not focused on affordability but putting a mix of houses throughout neighborhoods, but in the next breath they are talking about what is affordable. So, they need to think about the options which have lower actual costs of building. So, his first priority would be item 5 for churches and schools, sees no reason to limit it to 20 per acre like Orinda did. The City will need all affordable units they can, and this is actually the most affordable except for possibly ADUs.
His second priority is the JADUs but no more than a 5-year deed restriction. It is a significant take-away of property rights to put a deed restriction on there, but he understands the need for the City to get affordable units. People’s needs change and longer than 5 years is not fair for the owner. Regarding the modified staff item #4, the ban of long-term rentals, he thinks it is important to look at permanent shortterm rentals which would be a unit that is purchased for the purpose of short-term rentals long term whereas compared to someone who just wants to rent their house out when they go on vacation to help with expenses. Those should not be restricted.
Regarding #6; conversion of existing homes to 2 to 4 units within one-quarter mile, he asked to get this drawn on a map, so people know exactly what area the Council is talking about. This is a great idea because everyone talks about where services are downtown, and if people want fewer cars, housing needs to be located there. Finally, staff item #7; increase the maximum density in the lower density multi-family from 17 to 20 du/acre. This is a modest increase. He thinks they should go to 30 on that. If you leave it at 20 it would show good faith the City is just not trying to get credit on the RHNA, and they are looking to solve affordable housing for the AFFH goals.
KRISTINE RASMUSSEN, said on behalf of herself and neighbors they are very opposed to 1B. She thinks it is important for the City Council to also consider that they cannot just have increased density in every R10 and R6 zone. Broad brush is not going to work. Many neighborhoods have individual characteristics or better for someone to add more housing units on current zoning given. For example, in Burton Valley they have different areas which would be more or less appropriate for having multiple housing units or increasing density. For example, some areas will be excluded because of very high fire zones, but she also City Council Meeting Page 21 of 35 July 10, 2023
asked the Council to consider that there are also areas surrounded by high fire zones on the CPUC map.
This shows part of Burton Valley is being touched, and she lost her insurance because of it. So, she does not want a broad brush to be everywhere that is R10 and asked to consider exactly where they are looking if the City goes this direction.
She also asked the Council to think about evacuation, Burton Valley and Moraga who are also increasing their amount of population using St. Mary’s Road and Reliez Station Road to Snake Hill to evacuate. The more homes added the more cars are going to be here despite what a previous speaker said. Again, she asked not to have a broad stroke that will upzone all R10’s and R6’s as it will not work. The other support she had was for the prohibiting of non-hosted short-term rentals. She believes it is important to focus in on different types of price points for rentals, and these short-term rentals are taking units off the market.
She has a unit she always has thought about doing as a 30 day, but she also decided it was not fair to a lower income person that it is nice to have someone who lives there permanently, and it gives them a home. She thinks this is much better than having non-hosted short-term rentals.
She also is in support of the Maher School that has come up several times, and thinks that area would be great for different types of housing for teachers and firefighters, etc. Also, the churches are an idea that she would support except it would have to be for larger lots. They would run into the same problem of over-crowding with vehicles with small lots. She was a little concerned about the Google map given for the churches, there was a strange church in the middle of Lafayette Valley Estates which is not a real church, so she hoped if they did go the church direction, they are making sure they are legitimate organizations.
BREAK
Mayor Anduri confirmed there were no other speakers and cited the time as 9:32 p.m. and called for a break, and thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Mayor Anduri referred to questions raised during public comment. The first question relates to what does the one-quarter mile from downtown means.
Ms. Robles displayed a map and pointed to the red outline of the downtown zoning districts. The option for the program would be one-quarter mile from the red line. Staff also recommended eliminating very high fire hazard zones, so these would be excluded from that proposal.
Mayor Anduri said the next question was about the R6 and R10 6,000 and 10,000 square foot question, current and existing.
Ms. Robles said the proposal in Program 1B is to convert all R6 and R10 zoning districts to the R6 standards for existing lots. All R6 and R10 zoning districts would be subject to R6 zoning regulations for existing lots.
Mayor Anduri said what that means is if anyone wants to do any sort of addition with their home the lefthand column will apply. Ms. Robles stated yes.
Mayor Anduri said another question was whether it was intended to cover all R6 and R10 or just those that were shown on the map. Ms. Robles said she believes this question was in reference to the map shown under 1A in the staff report. This would not apply to the area shown in that map. It would apply to all R6 and R10 zoning districts throughout the City.
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 35 July 10, 2023
Mayor Anduri said Mr. Lavoie wanted to clarify the height limit and how the density bonus impacts the 35- foot height limit in these zoning areas.
Ms. Elrod said it would the same it would impact 35-foot height elsewhere in the City. First, in order to get the density bonus, you would have to provide a certain percentage of units as affordable and a small development is not going to be able to do that. So, theoretically, the 35-foot density could be superseded, but in all likelihood it would not because the developments would not be large enough to trigger density bonus because of the single-family zone.
Mayor Anduri proposed the Council discuss this is first on a general level and then take it with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 so they can have a feeling of progress, and then return to 1A and 1B. Then, with the same understanding they did with the budget, nothing is finally agreed until everything is agreed. He anticipates going through 2 and 3, the Council will talk about whether they think it could be included but they would not be making a final decision about including it until they have gone over every item.
Vice Mayor Dawson thanked staff for bringing this back in response to the letter and she agrees with many of the comments because it is a bit frustrating because the City worked on this for the past 3 years and they are going at it from different perspectives now with AFFH. It is tough because the City does not have control over that part about how affordable housing is. It is market and cost-driven. That said these are a good suite of options that she looks forward to discussing further but she is weary of the unintended consequences of some of them.
Mayor Anduri said he agrees completely on unintended consequences. When the Council goes through these, it would be useful to draw those out. He confirmed there were no other general comments and suggested starting with Item 2.
Councilmember Candell voiced support for 2 and said she thought the 10 years was reasonable, but she could be convinced otherwise of that. She thinks this is one of the real things that can help get more affordable housing in the City.
Councilmember Kwok voiced support of 2 as is with the 10-year time limit. He thinks things do change relating to the 10 years versus 5 years, but if you were to bring in an income restricted unit that person would want some surety that they would be able to live in there for some time and not have to worry quite so soon after moving in. He thinks 10 years is still in the range of reasonable.
Vice Mayor Dawson echoed her support of 2 as is with the 10 years.
Mayor Anduri said he does as well, noting there are details that need to be flushed out. He then asked for comments regarding number 3; the average unit size.
Councilmember Candell said she supports that and would like to get more information on how it is playing out. She asked if it is getting the City’s intended goal of getting smaller units that they would think are more affordable in those other cities. Otherwise, she agrees this is a good idea.
Councilmember Kwok said he has similar concerns to Councilmember Candell. He thinks the intent is good and he wonders if it really works. He questioned if the market responds to this in a way that achieves their City Council Meeting Page 23 of 35 July 10, 2023
goal. He would look to staff’s recommendations and their experience here and they would not put it on here if it was not something that was a mechanism that other cities are using. Having it in your pocket to go into discussions with HCD sounds like a good thing which is better than not having it, so he is supportive.
Vice Mayor Dawson said in theory she supports this. She looked at Petaluma and what they were doing is potentially establishing a minimum density which was interesting. If there is a mix of that such as an average to target, she wondered if they could consider that at all.
Ms. Robles said that was something discussed at GPAC--establishing minimum densities, but the feeling was that most projects are not trying to go beneath densities, so it was eliminated as a program for that reason so it is not an issue people are under developing.
Vice Mayor Dawson said she was thinking more of that affordable piece like if you establish a minimum and did an average as a mix, maybe there could be some happy compromise in there.
Mayor Anduri said he would support number 3. He thinks this is the one that could have unintended consequences. The one thing he would ask is someone check with Burlingame to see how the program is working there and if there are any unintended consequences, but otherwise he is okay.
Councilmember Kwok said at the top of unintended consequences for this item 3, he asked if it is not working the City does not have to do it forever. On 1A and 1B it is a different story, but on this one he did not think it had to be forever.
Mayor Anduri said that applies to a number of these. If the City sees they are not working, he would hope in the next housing cycle the City could change it.
Ms. Elrod said she would think so. She thinks the way they structure the program when they get to that point of putting in a program in the Housing Element, they would give themselves an option to have a midcycle review to determine its effectiveness. If it is not affected, they do not do it anymore. She thinks HCD would be okay with that. She thinks it is more that if you say you are going to upzone to meet RHNA and then you do not do it, that is different. This is not the same kind of thing.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said the only caveat she would add with this item and any other items that have SB 330 implications on the City’s ability to reduce to a less intensive use is they would have to be careful at checking that they do not do that if they were to change one option like lot widths and other items to a less restrictive use, it could be problematic.
Mayor Anduri referred to Number 4; prohibiting non-hosted short-term rentals.
Councilmember Candell said she completely supports that outright for non-hosted, take it farther, and she would also look into having the 30-day minimum. She said Napa County it must be at least 30 days long which eliminates many short-term rentals.
Vice Mayor Dawson said this sounds like a good program and thinks a year ago the Council considered short-term rental policies. She thought about TOT and other rental monies that could go into an affordable housing fund the City could augment with that, such as those that are hosted perhaps. It is another way of getting optional funding. She could support prohibiting non-hosted short-term rentals.
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 35 July 10, 2023
Councilmember Kwok said he is mixed on this one. He sees the value of having them, but also the value of making more housing available by prohibiting non-hosted and needing to go into some changes they may need to do if this is an effective mechanism. He would have liked to know how many the City is talking about here. In general, he was in favor of the Airbnb or the type of short-term rentals, but he is willing to look at situations where it would be prohibited, but for the sake of today’s discussion, he was in support of Number 4.
Mayor Anduri said he thinks it is fair to say staff has looked at Airbnb and VRBO and there are literally hundreds of Lafayette homes that are for rent in their entirety which indicates they would be non-hosted.
Ms. Robles confirmed.
Mayor Anduri also commented that this is one he would not want to make a final decision on tonight. If there are hundreds of homeowners who bought homes in reliance, they need to give them a chance to come in and comment. Therefore, he puts Number 4 on the category of no final decision tonight. He is in favor of this though.
Mayor Anduri asked for comments regarding Number 5; allow churches and religious institutions to go up to 20 du/acre on their sites. He confirmed there is one church in the high fire severity zone.
Vice Mayor Dawson voiced support, and whether development happens in this cycle or not, she agrees with the earlier comment that it makes sense to get started on it.
Councilmember Candell agreed and she would also go to 30 du/acre because then the City could put them in their Housing Element if they wanted to. Ms. Robles said yes, if they got comments from the churches.
Mayor Anduri said as he understands it, if you put an opportunity site in the Housing Element it is then looked at differently if it is not built on, and it is then looked at in the next Housing Element.
Ms. Elrod said for the sites the City is reusing from a prior Housing Element such as the Bruzzone site, they must make sure that site can be built as of right if they provide “x” percentage of affordability.
Mayor Anduri said if they zone it at 20 du/acre it is not eligible in any event. If they rezone it at 30 du/acre, he asked if it is presumed to be an opportunity site but not unless they identify it so they do not run into any problem that way by making it 30 and it being deemed as an opportunity site.
Mr. Wolff stated it is not automatic, but it is a requirement in order to count towards lower income the minimum density would have to if they identified any site as an opportunity site.
Ms. Elrod said as an example, they do not have to include the church sites in the inventory. If they can meet the inventory in another way, then that is fine. They can still zone them and potentially get affordable units on those sites. She thinks the one concern and she would pose this for the City Attorney is that if they include it in the inventory, would that trigger a re-review or a need to modify CEQA analysis. Instead of looking at projects on a site by site basis or when they do the rezonings or whatever they do for those sites, would they have to re-open for this round.
Mayor Anduri asked if anyone wants to go down that road.
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 35 July 10, 2023
City Attorney Subramanian said she thinks they would want to look at that issue for all items being recommended that were not previously considered so it is not just this item.
Councilmember Kwok stated he is in support of Number 5 and is happy with something north of 20 du/acre such as 25 or 30 if it makes it pencil out more easily. Just setting a number and not knowing what the church can make pencil out, he would like to know more and be sure they set a number that is buildable and not just a number. He does not know whether that is 20 but if it was 30 it would be better for him.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed Councilmember Kwok was saying if they make it 30 they are giving more options to the church but also the neighborhood might have more concerns with a denser development.
Councilmember Candell said churches are so uniquely suitable for affordable housing and there are so many examples where great projects have been built.
Mayor Anduri confirmed all Councilmembers were in favor and the question is whether they go with 20 or 30, and he was in favor of going with 30.
Councilmember Kwok asked for staff’s view of 20, 25 or 30 du/acre.
Ms. Robles said she thinks there is the argument to be made that with a higher density there is a flexibility for the churches to have the options and that is the minimum density for opportunity sites because that is the standard set for an area like ours for an affordable project to pencil. So, these are definitely considerations. She thinks they have heard a lot about neighborhood context and one other consideration is the feasibility of implementation. The Turner Center actually prepared a report on the barriers to this kind of development on religious institutions and one of them was technical capacity, so as a property owner there is not necessarily the people on hand to facilitate a larger scale development at that kind of density but something like ADUs is easier but could still fit within that 20 to 30. 30 is good because it provides choice, but she does not think staff has any specific number in mind.
Vice Mayor Dawson asked how the City would enable that and asked if it would be an overall on church sites, and Ms. Robles said yes, and they would put standards on that as an overlay.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed the Council was supportive of Number 5 at 30 du/acre.
Councilmember Candell asked if they wanted to address school sites for this. Mayor Anduri said he thinks this is a great idea and asked if there were any unintended consequences of doing that. He asked if those are properties they should hold in reserve for population increases.
Councilmember Candell said the Maher School has to be completely retrofitted and have a significant amount of remodeling in order to run as a public school again, but it is a huge piece of land.
Ms. Robles said she thinks staff would want to confer with the School District before moving forward.
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 35 July 10, 2023
Mayor Anduri stated therefore, this is another open question. He then turned to number 6; allow conversion of single-family dwellings within one-quarter mile of the downtown, and he would propose eliminating all sites in the very high severity zones.
Vice Mayor Dawson voiced support. Councilmember Candell said she was opposed to number 6, as it has way too many questions for her. She does not know what it looks like, what it is, and a lot of people are going to be affected by this and they do not know about it. Maybe it is telling that only one city did it, and she just does not understand this one.
Mayor Anduri said he did not think staff said this is the only city but asked for other comments.
Councilmember Kwok said they want to try to adhere to the spirit of what they are trying to do here to create more housing opportunities and he looks at them as whether they can really happen or not. To him what is restrictive about this is that the builder must do it within the existing development envelope and often times the older building was smaller in scale, and if they are going to do 2, 3 or 4 and must stay exactly in there then you basically did not help it out at all or create the opportunity here. If that was a barrier that could be addressed by saying “within 130% of the existing building envelope” but to keep it developed within the exact same envelope seems like not feasible as far as how many numbers they would achieve from it.
Mayor Anduri asked if other communities have done this and what their experience has been.
Ms. Elrod said this is all fairly new. She did not know if anyone has implemented it yet, but she can find out.
Mayor Anduri said therefore, they will add number 6 as something to look into before the next meeting.
Vice Mayor Dawson supported looking at lot size at 130% and whether it would still comply with whatever zoning is there in terms of setbacks, etc.
Councilmember Candell agreed and said this is where all of her questions were around.
Mayor Anduri said he thinks the beauty of this is that it is within the existing footprint, so a homeowner can decide if they want to develop their home into 2 units. It could be for family members or that they will rent it out, but the beauty of it is that the house has minimal change to the outside, so it does not affect the neighborhood character. When he first read this, his concern which comes back to the cars is when you have more families in these units you get more cars on the street. He supports this and does not see a reason not to do this one.
Councilmember Kwok said he could see things that way too. To him it was more restrictive, and the benefits were not that great, but no harm done if a homeowner is just putting a wall down the middle of the unit and let 2 households live in the home.
Mayor Anduri suggested just seeing how it works out. He does not see harm in doing this, so they can speculate about how many might do it, but he suggested doing it and see.
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 35 July 10, 2023
Vice Mayor Dawson said she did not see a downside, but the devil is in the details. Her first thought was that this will be up to each individual homeowner to see what they could creatively do.
Mayor Anduri said he has been putting “okay” for those moving forward, but he will not put an “okay” by this but will note that 3 Councilmembers are in favor of it, but they will wait until staff comes back at the next meeting to let them know what the experience has been in other communities.
Mayor Anduri then referred to number 7 and asked for comments.
Councilmember Candell voiced support and said she would go even bigger. It is such a small area and 17 to 20 does not seem big enough. If they are doing this, she would go to 30 du/acre.
Mayor Anduri said he could not support this without knowing with more precision what these areas are, but he could agree with it as stated here.
Vice Mayor Dawson voiced support for 17 to 20 du/acre as incremental and manageable. 30 could be very impactful to surrounding neighbors.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed all Councilmembers were in favor of going at least to 20 du/acre. He asked and confirmed Councilmember Candell was one who would go to 30 and to explore it.
Councilmember Kwok agreed.
Mayor Anduri said the Council suggested each Councilmember look at the map and think about the 30 du/acre versus 17 to 20 du/acre, and this can be discussed at the next meeting.
Mayor Anduri summarized the following:
• The Council has agreed with 2 as okay but they will make a final decision later; • Number 3 is subject to checking with the City of Burlingame; • Number 4 is all supported but they will not make a final decision tonight to give property owners a chance to comment;
• For Number 5, all Councilmembers were in favor at 30 du/acre and they want to check on schools before the next meeting to see if they want to include schools; • Number 6 needs work as to what other communities have done and 3 Councilmembers were ready to move forward with more homework; and
• For Number 7, all Councilmembers were supportive of including at 20 du/acre, but they will look at whether they can go to 30 du/acre.
Mayor Anduri then turned to 1A and 1B and asked for comments.
Councilmember Kwok asked staff whether the decision was enough to go to this meeting or are they not making enough decisions to hold the meeting this week with HCD.
Mayor Anduri said they are basically in favor of 6 items that were presented. If staff went to the meeting and said this is what they are thinking of as the 6 items, he asked if those by themselves would be a robust package that might be comfortable with HCD. Ms. Elrod confirmed.
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 35 July 10, 2023
Councilmember Candell commented that they have a new HCD representative and their supervisor who the City has worked with before. This is also good news.
Councilmember Kwok said he is wondering on Number 4; they are in favor, but they do not make a final decision. He asked if they could still take that number to the meeting and say the Council is exactly in favor but has not yet decided.
Mayor Anduri said he thinks staff would present it as the Council being in favor, but they want to give homeowners a chance to come in at the next meeting to talk about it, and none of these are really decided.
Ms. Elrod said they did not have the expectation that the Council would make final decisions on everything but are the things they could go and pitch to HCD to say, if they did this what would be their opinion. The City does not want to include a program where they say that will not do anything. So, this is why they are doing this exercise. They are definitely not saying they are going to do these 7 things. The idea is to say, here are ideas that we are looking at. This is what has support and staff does not want to take them to the meeting unless the Council feels comfortable they are something they could live with. The final decisions can be made at another time.
Mayor Anduri asked if staff could discuss 2 through 7 at that meeting and not discuss 1A and 1B, and Ms.
Elrod confirmed.
Mayor Anduri asked for discussion regarding 1A and 1B.
Councilmember Candell said she thinks 1A is very drastic. She has gone over this argument with many people that in Lafayette, unless you force part of it to be affordable, just a simple upzoning of it without options for a density bonus, etc., they are not going to get affordable units there unless the City subsidizes it somehow. The land here is expensive. They will expect to at least make double. In order to pay for anything, they build, and it will have to come back and make a lot of money for developers which means market rate housing. So, she thinks it is a big deal and it will not get them any closer without all these other subsidies to getting affordable housing.
Mayor Anduri said he thinks they have gone through this long process and they have looked at this. They have said no, the Council does not want to do this. So, this is out of the character of the process they have gone through, so he did not think they want to go down that road during this housing cycle.
Councilmember Kwok said he is not ready to vote on 1A or 1B today. He is open to both of them but is not against or for them at the moment. These are very big issues and he thinks these have taken a lot of process and the Council has spent a lot of time on these things. He did not feel coming into today’s meeting they have done them justice to just say ‘yeah’ or ‘nay’ on them.
Mayor Anduri asked to focus on 1B which might be the direction they would go on either of these. He asked if the Council wants to talk substantively about 1B and also what information the Council would need in order to make a decision at the next meeting.
Vice Mayor Dawson commented that she thinks 1B is also drastic because it is across Lafayette and not just downtown. R10 zones are most affected which essentially become R6 in terms of the minimum lot area, etc. She did not think it was something they could pivot from 1A to 1B as easily. It also goes back to public City Council Meeting Page 29 of 35 July 10, 2023
participation. It has been 3 years. They talked about single-family zoning but again the City does not have control over affordability of these homes. If anything, it is not about hitting more homes for the RHNA or making more money for developers but about trying to get more people of lower income that mobility into these homes. She did not think this addresses that either across Lafayette without a focus to it.
Councilmember Candell concurred. She does not think it will result in what the Council wants it to do. She gets frustrated that a lot of people think this will end up getting what they want. The Urban Institute and the Turner Center both said this is not going to work. It does not lead to affordability. Increased density in these areas does not lead to affordability. So, she would rather focus on these other good ideas they have which might end up with some nice affordable housing. She would much rather do the other items in front of them and not these two.
Councilmember Kwok said he has no comment for or against 1B at the moment. He still would have to think about the pros and cons of it.
Mayor Anduri said with 1A he does not want to go down that road because it is too big an increase for neighborhoods that they have dealt with in this process and are feeling that they have spoken and the Council has listened and they do not expect them to come back. He takes Vice Mayor Dawson’s point that 1B is also drastic in terms of the number of households, and this is why he said at the outset they should not be making a decision tonight because it affects so many people. So, he thinks the Council should think about it and come back at the next meeting. But, he does have the general comment that the whole discussion of AFFH in a town that even HCD recognizes that every neighborhood is a highly resourced area, he is not sure he sees the benefit at this point during this housing cycle of making this change, although he will think about it over the next 2 weeks. But, he is very encouraged that Items 2 to 7 might make an impact.
Councilmember Kwok asked if the Council must bring this back at the next meeting.
Mr. Wolff said staff was planning to bring back in August other components of the Housing Element staff has been working on to address. This is one component in the multi-page letter. He is concerned about the timeframe of having to return at the next meeting given what they have been asked to follow up on with tonight’s topics.
Vice Mayor Dawson also noted it is the summertime and she asked if September is too late to let people know for commenting. Mr. Wolff said September gives him pause. However, the Council is being cognizant of summer, people’s travel plans, and providing them a longer timeframe it is unlikely a large segment of the community would be traveling the entire time, but it is possible they might be traveling a week or two during a traditional 14-day notice. So, if they noticed now for the August meeting, that would be ample time for community members to be aware of tonight’s discussion and they are coming back. So, given that concern, staff would notice sooner than later, not come back at the second meeting in July, but bring this and other items to the August meeting.
Mayor Anduri said the Council moved the meeting in August to the 4th Monday so that people would be back, and school is in session on the 15th. He asked if all Councilmembers were comfortable with August 28th.
City Council Meeting Page 30 of 35 July 10, 2023
Councilmember Kwok asked why items 1A and 1B would be back on the agenda if they are not being taken to the HCD meeting.
Ms. Elrod said it does not preclude the Council from considering 1A or 1B further just because they have a list of 5 things that HCD likes. Staff would have to come back for some of these items because the Council has asked for more details on who has implemented things, more information on impacts of certain things would work, going to Burlingame, etc. so staff would have to come back.
Mayor Anduri said 2 through 7 definitely need to come back. With 1A and 1B the Council could say if HCD says this is a great package and this is it, there is still an argument that there is still a segment of the community who voiced support tonight for 1B, so he thinks they need to at least complete that discussion.
This means discussing it when they return with the other items on August 28th.
Councilmember Candell agreed. She referred to outreach to the short-term renter homeowners, and she asked how staff is bringing 1B back and outreach to people affected by these.
Mr. Wolff said staff would propose putting an ad in the paper speaking to the topics that would be discussed. Ms. Robles said staff could also include the staff report in the Weekly Roundup as well.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed staff has direction.
11. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner
TR9539 , DR23-19, & TP50-19 Samuel Bing & Linda Lai Lee (Owners) C-1 Zoning: Request for ReApproval of the project with no modifications proposed at this time. Request for Re-Approval of a Major Subdivision and Design Review for the construction of 12 new townhomes that will require a grading permit for 3,000 CY of earth movement (2,000 cut/1,000 fill) and a Tree Permit for the removal of 14 protected trees, including a CA State Density Bonus request with concessions and waivers on two vacant unaddressed parcels on Stuart Street, APN(S) 233- 021011 & 233-021-012. The project was found exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on July 26, 2021.
Recommendation: Review the materials, conduct the public hearing and adopt Resolution 202342 finding the project exempt from CEQA and re-approving the project, subject to conditions.
Senior Planner Arly Cassidy gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation of the request for reapproval of a major subdivision and design review project for the construction of 12 new townhomes (Samantha Townhomes) that will require a grading permit for 3,000 CY of earth movement (2,000 cut/1,000 fill) and a Tree Permit for the removal of 14 protected trees, including a CA State Density Bonus request with concessions and waivers on two vacant unaddressed parcels on Stuart Street, APN(S) 233021-011 & 233- 021-012. The project was found exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on July 26, 2021 by the Council and the Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval on July 26, 2021. Since then, a one-year extension has been granted which will expire July 26, 2023. The applicant has applied for a re-approval which is before the Council.
City Council Meeting Page 31 of 35 July 10, 2023
Ms. Cassidy noted an error in her staff report, stating she listed the conditions of approval that went to the Council but were not what came out of the Council in their approval. She relayed the following 5 changes which are not in the staff report but are part of staff’s recommendation to continue and reapprove with the project:
• COA#35: The property owner shall submit revised floor plans identifying each garage to include 1 EV-ready hookup as defined by LMC Chapter 6.6; Off-Street Parking. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by Planning and Building Department staff; • COA#36: The property owner shall investigate the feasibility of requiring the 12 residential units to operate with electric appliances versus gas. The applicant shall share findings and outcomes with the Planning and Building Department staff;
• COA#37: The property owner shall submit revised plans identifying the installation of MERV filters for review and approval by Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department staff. The purpose of this condition is to ensure the dwelling units include filters to mitigate potential air quality impacts from Hwy 24;
• COA#38: The property owner shall meet with the City Engineer and property owners at 1049 Stuart Street to discuss potential improvements regarding traffic safety at the end of Stuart Street.
Final authority shall rest with the City Engineer; and
• COA#39: The property owner shall submit CC&Rs for the project to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. The CC&Rs shall establish a homeowners association or equivalent body for the 12 residential units and common areas. Documents shall discuss responsibility for the maintenance of on-site landscaping, lighting, street furniture, paving, trash pickup, and MERV filters.
Ms. Cassidy stated there are 3 additional changes to 2 existing conditions, as follows:
• COA#28: There was an additional sentence added requiring the BMR units be provided as a onebedroom and a two-bedroom, which states, “The applicant shall ensure the 2 BMR units consist of a one-bedroom and two-bedroom unit.”
• COA#34: The phrase “for review and approval” was added to the first sentence. “The property owner shall submit for review and approval revised plans….” • COA#43: This relates to construction hours which were modified to begin at 9:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m. and to remove the last 2 sentences of the condition which state, “Construction shall not be permitted on Saturdays except as occasionally might be required and only upon advanced approval from the City. The applicant must inform and receive approval from the City and, if approved, inform the neighbors at least 48 hours in advance of the work.” Staff recommends the City Council review the proposed re-approval , conduct the public hearing, and adopt Resolution 2023-42 finding the project exempt from CEQA and reapprove the project, subject to conditions. She stated the applicant is present and is interested in making a statement.
Kathy Lee-Fung stated her father, Samuel Bing passed away last year, and her mother, Linda Lai Lee, is present. She said this was a legacy project of his and he was an East Bay business owner, Lamorinda resident for over 45 years, bought these 2 parcels 20 years ago with the hopes of developing them and building something in his legacy. The project is named the Samantha Townhome project after his City Council Meeting Page 32 of 35 July 10, 2023
granddaughter who is named after her grandfather, Sam. This is a project they want to see come to fruition, but unfortunately he passed away at the Hong Kong Airport on his way back home and it created a number of obstacles for them to move forward with the joint developers to continue the project. Since then, they have “gotten their house in order” and have consulted a land use attorney to ensure all entitlements are in place. They are in a good position to move forward with everything, so the extension would be very important to them to move forward.
Mayor Anduri said the Council is sorry for the loss of Ms. Lee-Fung’s father.
Ms. Cassidy added that the applicant has also requested the approvals entail the project for 3 years as opposed to the typical 1 year. This would allow 3 years before the owners need to apply for an extension or before expiration takes place.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
JEFFREY WHITEHEAD said he is one of the owners of the Child Day Schools in Lafayette which is the property at 1049 Stuart Street. He appreciates that their concerns about safety were included in the statements presented which is a big concern for them. They want to be sure they will be able to confer with the City Engineer and owners of the property that are being proposed as townhomes so they can work on safety and traffic issues. Their concern they still have are the vehicles that would be coming out of the garages facing the school. People who have seen that area know it is a very narrow road between the road, the proposed townhomes, and their parking area where staff and parents with young children will be walking. Their hours have been limited because of the pandemic but they will be increasing their hours and will likely have more children as early as 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. as well as up to maybe between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m. They also want to understand the timeline which is vague in order to inform staff and parents when the construction begins on the project.
CHERYL MACDONALD asked if there were fees collected by the City on this project for the crosswalk at Hampton. Also, since the street is so narrow, she did not recall whether they will have a dumpster or recycle/green cans on the street. She thinks it would be better to have the dumpster, but knows it is late in the process.
Rebuttal – Applicant
Ms. Lee-Fung had no rebuttal.
Mayor Anduri noted the first question was about fees for a crosswalk at Hampton.
Ms. Cassidy said she does not know the answer off-hand and was reviewing minutes and the staff report from 2 years ago.
Ms. Srivatsa stated she just pulled up all of the conditions and read, “The property owner shall contribute $10,000 to the protected crosswalk at Mt. Diablo and Hampton.” Mayor Anduri asked about garbage pickup service and the dumpster but cannot remember what the outcome was. Ms. Cassidy said her understanding is there will be individual trash cans for each unit which they will bring out to the street or to the service alleys that will service the 2 higher buildings.
City Council Meeting Page 33 of 35 July 10, 2023
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Dawson) to adopt Resolution 2023-42 finding the project exempt from CEQA and re-approving the project, subject to attached conditions, as amended. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Gerringer).
12. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
A. Minutes – June 26, 2023 Recommendation: Approve.
Councilmember Kwok said he removed this item because on page 39 of 43 of the minutes regarding the budget allocations when the Council talked about creating $35,000 over a 3-year period for the Park Fund.
This was added as requested by Grace Dixon. The minutes state it is $35,000 over a 3-year period and he recalled they did $35,000 each year over 3 years, as opposed to $35,000 spread over 3 years.
Mayor Anduri stated this was his understanding. Councilmember Kwok stated he would therefore like to amend the 2 mentions of this where the Mayor stated $35,000 per year over a 3-year period for the Park Fund, which is contingent upon raising the matching funds for the 2nd and 3rd years, and lower on the page, “Mayor Anduri said they will be changing the $250,000 to $215,000 in Exhibit A and add $35,000 per year over 3 years.”
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Candell) to approve the Minutes of June 26, 2023., as amended, to add the word “per year” after $35,000 in the 2 instances. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Gerringer).
13. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Councilmember Candell said she filled in for Councilmember Gerringer on the LFFA OPMC and SWAT today.
For the LFFA meeting, they voted to have a single contract with all 3 cities through LFFA to pay the matching funds for all Street-Smart signals where they received the OBAG grant for rather than each city paying each part of the matching funds.
Mayor Anduri said he has 2 potential resolutions for the Council to consider for a future agenda. The first is that Jackie Mann came to an earlier meeting and proposed a “no drilling resolution in recognition of the fundamental incompatibility of fossil fuel extraction with effected climate change in the spirit of regional collaboration by both the City and County, the City of Lafayette strongly urges the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County to enact immediate measures to phase out existing oil and gas operations on County lands and prohibit any new oil and gas drilling.” At the end of that meeting, no Councilmember raised adding it to a future agenda. She sent an email asking when it will be agendized, and he told her he would ask the Council for consideration of this.
Councilmembers Kwok and Candell both voiced support for a future agenda item.
City Council Meeting Page 34 of 35 July 10, 2023
Mayor Anduri said the other resolution came up at the Mayors’ Conference last week. There was a report from the Contra Costa County Bar Association supporting the exoneration of the Port Chicago 50. This is a bill Congressman DeSaulnier carries each year as George Miller carried before him. He would like this considered at a future meeting. Councilmembers concurred.
B. City Manager’s Update
Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Manager Srivatsa reported many CIP projects are underway. The Olympic/Glenside/St. Mary’s construction project and the pathways construction progress are in full swing. Good progress is being made on the safety improvements near schools. Staff has added a rectangular rapid flashing beacon in front of Happy Valley School. The Engineering Department has sent a request for proposals for planning environmental and design services for the School Street/Topper/St. Mary’s Road project. She thanked the Town of Moraga for their $20,000 per year for 2 years contribution to the Lamorinda Spirit Van program.
Finally, she congratulated Team Lafayette who won 3rd place in the 2023 East Bay CitiPac Bocce Tournament on June 29th. Vice Mayor Dawson, Councilmember Gerringer, Jonathan Katayanagi, and Greg Travers were on the team. They were the only city in Contra Costa to place. The other 2 cities were from Alameda County.
C. Councilmembers Gerringer and Candell
Resolution 2023-43 Appointing members to the Transportation and Circulation Commission Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2023-43.
Councilmember Candell reported that she and Councilmember Gerringer interviewed and recommended re-appointing Commissioners Carl DiGiorgio, Greg Brown, and Vianney Serriere.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Councilmember Kwok commented there is still one vacancy and one leave of absence, and he encouraged interested volunteers to apply.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Dawson) to adopt Resolution 2023-43 appointing Carl DiGiorgio, Greg Brown and Vianney Serriere to the Transportation and Circulation Commission. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Gerringer).
D. Councilmember Kwok and Mayor Anduri
Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the California Division of Safety of Dams regarding the Lafayette Reservoir Tower
Recommendation: Review letter and authorize the Mayor to sign and send a letter to the California Division of Safety of Dams.
Mayor Anduri stat ed the Council received a draft letter for review. There have been some developments since the letter was drafted. They have learned from a conversation the City Manager had with the General Manager of EBMUD that EBMUD will ask the Division of Safety of Dams for additional time to work with Lafayette. Therefore, he and Councilmember Kwok ask that the Council not consider this letter and that the Council authorize the City Manager, he and Councilmember Kwok to revise the letter to reflect the new City Council Meeting Page 35 of 35 July 10, 2023
circumstances to DSOD supporting EBMUD’s request for additional time. They believe the DSOD should hear directly from Lafayette. He thanked the City Manager for her good work.
Councilmember Kwok noted EBMUD is planning to hold a July 26th meeting to receive community feedback at Stanley Middle School at 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Kwok) to authorize the City Manager, Mayor Anduri and Councilmember Kwok to revise the letter and send the letter to the California Division of Safety of Dams. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes:
Anduri, Dawson, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Gerringer).
14. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Resignations from Design Review Commissioners Eugene Sim and Kristen Sidell; Environmental Task Force member Colleen McCormick; Public Art Committee member Carolyn Considine; and Creeks Committee member Phillip Bradley
Recommendation: Accept resignations and thank Design Review Commissioner Eugene Sim for 5 years of volunteer service; Design Review Commissioner Kristen Sidell for 2 ½ years of volunteer service; Environmental Task Force member Colleen McCormick for 1 year of volunteer service; Public Art Committee member Carolyn Considine for 2 years of volunteer service; and Creeks Committee member Phillip Bradley for 8 years of volunteer service.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers thanked all members for their service.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Candell) to accept resignations and thank Design Review Commissioner Eugene Sim for 5 years of volunteer service; Design Review Commissioner Kristen Sidell for 2 ½ years of volunteer service; Environmental Task Force member Colleen McCormick for 1 year of volunteer service; Public Art Committee member Carolyn Considine for 2 years of volunteer service; and Creeks Committee member Phillip Bradley for 8 years of volunteer service. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, and Kwok; Noes: None; Absent: Gerringer).
15. ADJOURNMENT – 11:02 p.m.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Carl Anduri, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk