City Council Meeting Page 1 of 34 September 26, 2023
7 City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall September 26, 2023 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 5:30 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
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 34 September 26, 2023
Mayor Anduri called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Anduri; Vice Mayor Dawson; Councilmembers Candell, Kwok, and Gerringer
Absent: None
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Greg Wolff, Planning Director; Sonia Urzua, Assistant Planning Director; Renata Robles, Senior Planner; Anna Tolle, Planning Technician; Alexandra Cully, Planning Technician; Madison Leonard, Planning Technician; Michael Taylor, Planning Department Assistant; Kira Tannlund, Assistant Recreation Coordinator; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney
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 (Gerringer/Candell) to adopt the agenda. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Candell, Dawson, Gerringer, Kwok, and Anduri; Noes: None).
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Anduri led the Pledge of Allegiance.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (For closed session items) – None.
7. CLOSED SESSOIN
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d)(1).) Robert McClain v. City of Lafayette, et al.
Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. N23-1644
B. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov. Code Section 54957) Title: Niroop K. Srivatsa, City Manager
C. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code Section 54957.6) City designated representative: Mayor Anduri
Unrepresented employee: Niroop K. Srivatsa, City Manger D. Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov. Code Section 54957) Title: Mala Subramanian, City Attorney
OPEN SESSION
Mayor Anduri announced there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (For items not on the agenda)
City Council Meeting Page 3 of 34 September 26, 2023
BUCKLEY HUGHES thanked Patrick Golier for his quick response to St. Mary’s Road traffic calming request or rejection notice. This currently has over 17 signatures. When Mr. Golier expressed the notice of rejection and disinterest of calming traffic of this busy street, it made him question why someone organized the speed signage on St. Mary’s Road for the last 3 weeks and is currently still there, although not operating. He asked why traffic calming does not make sense on St. Mary’s Road. When passing vehicles approached 25 mph signs as noted, they hit their breaks and slowed down somewhat. He understands that a potential drop-off and pickup area in the back of Stanley Middle School might require a traffic analysis of speeds, number of vehicles, time of day traffic numbers are highest, and pedestrian/bike traffic associated with that specific area would lend to some level of traffic calming and its considerations. He understands that an RFP went out for bid and was returned mid-August to staff.
He asked what traffic analysis was used to request a bid for this RFP of design or potential costs associated with a pickup and drop-off zone on St. Mary’s Road sent out for bidding purposes in June or July 2023. As a neighbor to St. Mary’s Road and to schools, that proposed drop-off and pickup zone makes perfect sense.
Additionally, a proper drop-off and pickup zone hopefully is being priced as well and/or exists in the current $3.1 million DeSaulnier grant for School Street. These 2 areas are drastically needed. He well remembers the horrible accident last year on May 15th at 3:15 p.m. on St. Mary’s Road immediately south of St. Mary’s ballfields. Local neighbors understand better than most what impact this arterial has around their homes, schools, and said they live this every day. For the rejection notice to misrepresent what they experience daily because St. Mary’s Road is an arterial street with higher speeds is not a reason to reject the request in its entirety. Emergency response teams must be contacted for their input, but that effort should include the many neighbors and considerations of Stanley School and LES traffic. They do not need more speed humps, just engineered traffic control and a speed counter will not fix this.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed Mr. Hughes will leave a copy of his letter for the Council.
DAVID CLARK said he lives in Sunset Village across Mt. Diablo Boulevard from the Veterans Building and he received a home insurance notice of non-renewal and he read the Council the reasons, as follows: We are unable to renew home coverage due to wildfire or brush fire exposure, including one or more of the following conditions at or near your property: 1) close proximity to flammable vegetation; 2) steep slopes that may increase the speed and intensity of wildfire; and 3) limited access and/or dead end roads that may impede firefighting equipment. He was not sure if these letters are being sent out to most residents in town, but he wanted the Council to know this disconcerting news.
Councilmember Kwok asked and confirmed that the insurance carrier is Farmers Insurance.
Mr. Clark added that he read on-line that both State Farm and Allstate are no longer writing new policies in California, and they also notice the mortgage company.
9. PRESENTATIONS – 7:00 p.m.
A. Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director
Introduction of New Employees: Alexandria Cully, Planning Technician; Madison Leonard, Planning Technician; Michael Taylor, Planning Department Assistant; Lisa Hurt, Accountant; Kira Tannlund, Recreation Coordinator
Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 34 September 26, 2023
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson introduced new employees Alexandria Cully, Planning Technician; Madison Leonard, Planning Technician; Michael Taylor, Planning Department Assistant; Kira Tannlund, Recreation Coordinator. She provided a background of each new employee’s background, education, and experience. Lisa Hunt, Accountant, could not be present and Ms. Robinson stated she will be introduced at the next meeting.
Mayor Anduri and Councilmembers welcomed new employees.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Anduri asked if there were removal of any items, and there were none and no public comments.
Councilmember Gerringer commented noted near the end of the meeting, the Council appointed someone to the Senior Services Commission, and it reads Gerringer/Kwok, and it should be Gerringer/Anduri making the motion.
A. Minutes – September 11, 2023
Recommendation: Approve.
Councilmember Gerringer stated on item 14E appointing a member to the Senior Services Commission it states Councilmembers Gerringer and Kwok, and it should be changed to Mayor Anduri and Councilmember Gerringer.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Gerringer/Dawson) to adopt Consent Calendar Item A, as amended. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
11. OLD BUSINESS – None.
12. STAFF REPORTS – None.
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Richard Smeaton, Contract Planner
Appeal of Planning Commission’s approval for: HDP05-23 REDDY (OWNER), R-20 ZONING; Request for approval of: (1) Phase I Hillside Development siting & massing; (2) Exception for Development within a Class II Ridgeline Setback; (3) Design Review for height exceeding 17’; (4) Grading to exceed 200 cu. yards; and (5) Tree removal of seven trees, to construct a new 2,850 sq. ft., 35’ tall single-family residence on an undeveloped lot within the Hillside Overlay District and Class II Ridgeline Setback; at 3933 Quail Ridge Rd, APN 248-130- 012. CEQA Determination: An Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on September 30, 2020 (SCH# 2019071038) has been prepared.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2023-31 certifying the Addendum to the EIR and approving the Project, subject to conditions, including mitigation measures.
Recusal: Councilmember Candell recused herself from participating in this hearing, as she has a professional relationship with Mr. Cropp on 2 different projects right now, and she left the dais.
Councilmember Kwok said he will not be voting on the matter today, given he was not present at the last hearing.
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 34 September 26, 2023
Mayor Anduri introduced the item, stating the applicant received a Phase 1 approval for this project in 2020. The approval was appealed to the City Council in 2020. The Council heard the appeal de novo and approved the project and certified the FEIR for the project. The Council’s approval of a Phase 1 hillside development permit expired on September 30, 2021.
Earlier this year, the applicant applied to receive re-approval of the entitlements. In April, the Planning Commission approved the project. The approval has again been appealed to the City Council. Since the appeal was filed, the City has had prepared an Addendum to the FEIR. Tonight, the Council will hear the appeal de novo.
Mayor Anduri said second, he wanted to confirm that the resolution before the Council now, including conditions of approval, is the same as the resolution approved by the Council in 2020 with the sole exception that the Council is now being asked to certify the Addendum to the EIR. Mr. Smeaton confirmed.
Mayor Anduri provided with the appeal protocols, said this is a de novo hearing, the applicant has the burden to demonstrate consistency with required findings, but the applicant should be aware that the Council has reviewed all materials so there is no need to repeat what is in the materials. The appellant will then have up to 10 minutes. The appellant should use its time to demonstrate to the Council first what is different from 2020 when the Council heard the same matter and approved it, and second, what the Council got wrong in 2020. Then, he will open up for public comments, return for an appellant rebuttal, and then the applicant will have a rebuttal period, and it will then return to the Council.
Contract Planner Richard Smeaton stated there have been no changes to the project since the previous meeting. Staff has the environmental and geotechnical consultant available for technical questions.
Nash Reddy, applicant, said he is not here to make any presentation but here to have the geotechnical engineer answer any questions to have the project approved.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed there were no questions of the Council. He then called upon the appellant.
Joseph Garofolo, appellant, 3954 Quail Ridge Road, said he and his wife Silvia are present. He emphasized this is a de novo hearing and as the appellant, they should not have to demonstrate any new errors in the approval. If there was an old error in approving Phase 1 or a new error, the City should not approve Phase 1 of the project. Initially, they would like to renew all of their written objections, but in their presentation he would like to focus on 2 issues. They do not understand the City’s reasoning or the PC’s reasoning. In layman terms, on page 3 and 4 of their April 17, 2023, appeal, they highlight key issues that arise from representations of the applicant’s own geotechnical engineer, Mr. Alan Cropp and the PC itself. From their perspective, the relevant facts that are all undisputed include the following:
1. Mr. Cropp indicates, and all parties acknowledge that the landslide in the area continues to move. It is an active landslide.
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 34 September 26, 2023
2. The PC indicates that the proposed residence is “anticipated to affect the landslide area through construction activity on the site, including grading and the movement of heavy equipment on or adjacent to the active landslide, the additional weight from the proposed residence and runoff from impervious surfaces into the unstable landslide soils.” The PC continues, “These actions could potentially contribute to reactivation and/or increasing the speed of landslide creep of the unrepaired Quail Ridge Landslide.” This is directly from Resolution 2020-16.
In going back to Mr. Cropp’s representations, he states, “It (project) will be designed with the expectation that the slide will keep moving, although moving kind of parallel to where the house is.” This is laterally, but there could be some edges paving off towards where the big wall goes in. It keeps the edges in place as the slide moves along the side of the property. When reading the Addendum from the Ryan Geological response which purports to respond to their new objections, it actually concedes 2 additional important points:
1. In response to 1b, it concedes that “the heavy rains this season; however, are expected to increase groundwater levels which would tend to lower slope stability of large pre-existing landslides such as the Quail Ridge Landslide. All geologic and geotechnical documents for the site indicate an expectation that the Quail Ridge Landslide will continue to move typically following large storm events; and
2. In response to 1c, the Ryan Geological response concedes that the movement of the slide is also expected to continue and “The opinions presented by Mr. Cropp regarding the potential for the Quail Ridge Landslide to remain active are consistent with the EIR and the City’s understanding of the site condition.”
There is one more fact that is knowable and likely would be subject to judicial notice if this were a court proceeding and can certainly be recognized by the City in connection with this appeal and that is, they expect to have an El Nino winter storm with particularly heavy rains this winter. This is based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, commonly known as NOAA, and its forecast.
When putting this altogether, there is an existing landslide where the applicant is redirecting the slide to ensure it is parallel to the applicant’s property but directing it toward the common private road and his property located at 3954 Quail Ridge Road. This in and of itself is not maintaining the status quo.
Moreover, the status quo is being impacted by the construction itself as the PC has acknowledged.
He quoted it again for emphasis: “The addition of the proposed residence to the project site is anticipated to effect the landslide area through construction activity on the site, including grading and movement of heavy equipment on or adjacent to the active landslide; that additional weight from the proposed residence and runoff from impervious surfaces into the unstable landslide soils. These actions could potentially contribute to reactivation and/or increasing the speed of landslide creep of the unrepaired Quail Ridge Landslide.”
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 34 September 26, 2023
Finally, coming back to the relevant weather event or El Nino heavy rain forecast, Ryan Geological in Appendix A also effectively acknowledges that this would make the slide worse. So, when putting all of this together, it is not reasonable to suggest that the applicant’s project does not have any material effect on the status quo even if the status quo is an active landslide. Therefore, for these reasons and all of the reasons they articulated in their original appeal and the new appeal, they do not believe it is reasonable for the City to approve Phase 1.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed there were no Council questions of the appellant. He opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Rebuttal – Appellant
Mr. Garofolo said if there is something the City feels they are not understanding he would very much appreciate being informed of this. As with many people in Lafayette, their house is their asset, and they are directly situated across from the retaining wall. Based upon their review of materials, it appears the slide would be directed onto the road and closer to their home. This is why this is so important to them.
Mayor Anduri called upon the applicant to rebut regarding Mr. Garofolo’s concerns.
Nash Redding, applicant, stated Mr. Reddy bought his house a few years back and he did not realize these things when he bought it. Once they build a project there they will obviously make the area more secure and improved. Mr. Cropp is the authority on that.
Alan Cropp, Geotechnical Consultant on behalf of the applicant, said there is not going to be a redirection of the landslide. It will keep moving the same direction it has been moving. It is not being redirected toward the road by the project, but the project is secure from movement of the slide, but it is not redirecting the slide.
Mayor Anduri asked if any of the properties uphill from the landslide will be affected. Mr. Cropp said no, they will not be affected by the construction. The landslide will continue to move. There is repair of the road that has been there for some time. That repair stands on its own and that will not be impacted by the proposed project.
Mayor Anduri said as he understands it, the Garofolo house is on the other side of the road from this project. Mr. Cropp said that is his understanding and there should not be an increased risk of damage to their property as a result of the construction. They have the same level of risk they have without the construction.
Mayor Anduri said the concern reading the paragraph Mr. Garofolo read into the record from his original letter quotes the PC about how the addition of the residence and construction activity would affect the landslide area. He asked Mr. Cropp if he sees that as something that would impact their property on the other side of the road.
Mr. Cropp said no, the restraint of that road is designed to accommodate that on-going movement of the landslide so if there is some additional movement of it, the road has already been designed to accommodate that movement.
City Council Meeting Page 8 of 34 September 26, 2023
Mayor Anduri asked if Councilmembers had any questions for the consultant or staff. There were none, and Mayor Anduri asked Mr. Smeaton to comment on the Garofolo’s issue and then the response Mr.
Cropp gave.
Mr. Smeaton deferred this over the technical analysis to their geotechnical consultant.
Kevin Ryan, Geotechnical consultant, said in summary everything Mr. Cropp has said is fundamentally 100% correct. They have always had the expectation that the landslide would continue moving and it was active. The statements he conceded this as a new topic is incorrect. Their 2019 report states that this is an active landslide. The EIR has made the applicant separate their development from the landslide because it continues to move. So, nothing that has come out is new information.
He thinks everything has been vetted from a geologic hazard standpoint. Mr. Cropp is correct that the slide will continue moving in its current pattern and nothing on the project if built in accordance with the EIR restrictions and conditions of approval are going to change that.
Mayor Anduri said to confirm, if the landslide continues to move, it will not have an impact on a house that is on the other side of the road from this project. Mr. Ryan said he would agree with that. The landslide repair that was done originally to re-stabilize the road included the deep wall, large keyway excavation, a lot of deep piers, and he has looked at the wall, the road, and the landslide, and clearly the landslide has moved since the wall and road were constructed but the wall and the road are still there and in a fairly decent condition. They call it a cut-off structure, so the wall cuts off the landslide from everything up slope and it is designed to allow the landslide to continue moving. The conditions of approval have asked the applicant to do a similar type of cut-off structure to prevent anything they have done from impacting the slide and also to prevent the slide from migrating upslope into their property.
Mayor Anduri said the staff recommendation is that the Council adopts Resolution 2023-31 that certifies the Addendum to the EIR and approves the project, subject to conditions including mitigation measures which involves making the findings set out in the resolution. He asked if Councilmembers had any issues with the Addendum to the EIR. There were none.
Mayor Anduri said with respect to the conditions of approval, he asked for any comments or concerns or changes. There were none.
Mayor Anduri said he will assume all Councilmembers have read the materials. There are a number of findings set out in the resolution which is detailed and that provides reasons for making the findings and he asked if all Councilmembers agree with what appears there or have any concerns with being able to make any of the findings.
Mayor Anduri referred to page 3 of the resolution it refers to the staff report of September 11th, but everything was repeated on September 26th, so he asked this to be changed. Staff agreed.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Dawson/Gerringer) to adopt Resolution 2023-31 certifying the Addendum to the EIR, approving the project, subject to conditions of approval and including all mitigation measures. Vote:
3-0-1-1 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, and Gerringer, ; Noes: None; Absent: Candell; Abstain: Kwok).
Noted as Present:
Councilmember Candell returned to the dais to participate in the remainder of the meeting.
City Council Meeting Page 9 of 34 September 26, 2023
B. Greg Wolff, Planning & Building Director; Renata Robles, Senior Planner; Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant
GP01-23 Housing Element & EIR – The City of Lafayette 6th Cycle Housing Element and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing impacts of growth stemming from the housing plan and housing opportunity sites identified to accommodate the mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 2,114 assigned to Lafayette, plus a buffer, which total approximately 3,000 new housing units between 2023-2031. The Housing Element is also required by State law to contain programs to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. The draft Housing Element Update can be found at www.planlafayette.org; the draft and final EIR can be found at www.lovelafayette.org/CEQA.
Recommendation: 1) Provide direction to staff on the opportunity sites inventory and direct staff to begin additional environmental review on the sites inventory as needed. 2) Direct staff to share Appendices A, E, and F with HCD reviewer for an informal review. 3) Continue this item to the October 10th Council meeting to allow staff to update the Housing Element and Appendices.
Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant, stated staff and the City Council will discuss the Housing Sites Inventory tonight, some of the challenges and opportunities, request feedback from the Council, provide an update on the Housing Element status and timeline, and then discuss the opportunity sites inventory. Their particular request this evening is for the Council to provide direction to staff on the opportunity sites inventory and direct staff to begin additional environmental review, as needed. The two primary questions facing the Council this evening are: a) Should the City include faith-based land in the inventory; or b) increase densities downtown further than what the City Council had approved in January? The second item is staff is looking for direction to share Appendices A, E, and F with the HCD reviewer for an informal review. They have said they would be willing to review them. Appendix A is the information on the housing needs. Appendices E and F are engagement and review of the prior element. Lastly, staff would ask the Council to continue this item to October 10th for the next meeting.
Mayor Anduri asked if staff also would like input on the AFFH suite of programs. Ms. Elrod said not today.
The main focus is that the City has an inventory issue they need to discuss.
Ms. Elrod said in terms of Housing Element statuses around the Bay Area, just under 40% of ABAG Housing Elements have been certified by HCD. In Contra Costa, only El Cerrito, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, and San Ramon are certified, and 14 others are not certified. Many jurisdictions are reporting three or four comment letters from HCD before being certified and each one of those comes with a statutorily required 60-day review period for HCD to make comments. Staff’s proposed timeline is to resubmit the complete revised Housing Element to HCD by the end of October which gives them a 60-day review.
They would hope to have certification by the end of 2023 and just as a reference, One Bay Area grant (OBAG III grant) of $750,000 for multi-modal transit improvements requires a certified element by the end of the year. Staff wants to submit the other appendices to HCD for an informal review to get them going on it and staff has initiated environmental review on AFFH programs to meet the October deadline.
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 34 September 26, 2023
Ms. Elrod then presented the opportunity sites. At the 8/28/23 meeting, the Council and staff discussed pipeline projects and ADUs having been moved from the buffer calculations, which gives the City a greater flexibility in the buffer. They had talked about that meeting ADU projections being reduced from 30 per year to 25 per year. They discussed having to change the development capacity from 90% or 95% to 88% based upon track record, discussed site eligibility criteria and the evaluation of the sites against those objective criteria, and provided the Council with information with what the yield would be with the modified opportunity sites at 88%.
The direction received from the Council was to determine ADU permitting for the past 3 years on a rolling basis and not the calendar basis, to analyze properties owned by faith-based organizations for housing development potential, to review the guidance on realistic capacity, meet with the Lafayette Plaza Shopping Center owner and revise opportunity site eligibility to include low density residential uses in the downtown.
From that information, staff increased ADUs to 27 unit/year over the 8 years for 216 total as opposed to 200 units which they originally had, developed scenarios including faith-based organizations which will be called FBO’s in the sites inventory, retain the 88% capacity, keeping Lafayette Plaza Shopping Center at
1.2 acres, and added back in the Desco sites of 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard--which are the City offices--and two doors down, 3687 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, which is currently vacant and for sale.
Also, referencing FBO’s, SB 4 has passed the legislature and is on the Governor’s desk. He has until the middle of October to sign it or veto it. It allows development on faith-based and higher educational institution lands, requiring the project to be affordable. Thirty du/acre is the minimum density for Lafayette. It requires project labor agreements, meaning prevailing wages must be paid, and developments are not subject to CEQA review. Regardless of the approach the City wants to take, the City will need to ensure that there are objective development standards in place by January 1st when the law becomes effective.
Staff has collected information about each one of the FBO’s in the City and two sites were presumed not to have development potential: Lafayette Christian and Lafayette Orinda Presbyterian Church. For Lafayette Christian, it is because the parcel is an awkward, narrow lot with little room for additional development; and for Lafayette Orinda Presbyterian, it is because it is in a very high fire hazard severity zone. They took the gross acreage and then plotted out using GIS to figure out what was a reasonable size of site, and she displayed a graphic, stating based upon the realistic capacity at 88% they come to approximately 200 units.
Regarding the Desco Plaza sites, right in the middle are the City offices which is surrounded by a sea of parking as well as a large parking lot of one-half acre up to Mt. Diablo Boulevard. This was also analyzed for possible development.
As a recap of what is provided in terms of workbooks, recapped Option A included the approved densities from January, 88% capacity, change in sites, and Desco included does not meet RHNA. Option B, which a number of people have discussed in their written comments had CC approved densities, Desco included, and FBO’s with SB 4 income distributions at 30 du/acre which meets RHNA. Option C is CC approved densities, Desco included, and FBO’s with SB 4 incomes distribution at 35 du/acre meets RHNA. Option 4 is what they would have to do to upzone the downtown to meet RHNA if they included Desco and FBO’s were not included. This one also meets RHNA.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 34 September 26, 2023
Mayor Anduri asked on the RHNA remainder, he asked if this is after taking out ADUs at 27 units per year, and Ms. Elrod stated yes.
Ms. Elrod then described workbooks, their buffer, income levels, du/acre, original densities and what the City would have to do to meet RHNA without FBO’s.
The crux of the discussion before the Council is that even with the letter of interest from the owner, the long-term leases for 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard which are the City offices and other occupants is probably a constraint towards using the entire site for housing development. She thinks the City Attorney could explain better in detail. But, consistent with prior direction from HCD they can look at just the parking areas in front of the City office, i.e., about one-half acre in the front of the offices, but this limits the potential number of units to be calculated in the yield.
Thirdly, the discussions with the owners of the Lafayette Plaza indicate the City needs to keep the opportunity site as currently proposed; that there is not an interest in moving forward beyond that.
Fourth, if FBO’s are included in the inventory, which is feasible considering they are thinking as to how it would be structured like SB 4, the program will still need greater incentives to attract developers because they do not have to comply with CEQA under SB 4 and they would have to comply with CEQA if the City were to upzone those sites. There must be something they would get in exchange. For example, this could include a different mix of lower income units, not require labor agreements and allow greater density more than 30 du/acre which is the reason staff showed 35 du/acre in one Workbook. If the City decides not to include FBOs at this time, the only alternative they can see is to further increase the densities in downtown.
In going back to the City’s site, staff went back and recalculated the inventory if they did not use the full site because they would not be able to include the existing office building site in it. If they get one-half acre out of it, they can count it towards lower income. However, this does not really help, generating a negative buffer of – 7, for very low income so this does not meet RHNA.
The Workbook B does not meet RHNA either. This includes the City parking lot in front of 3675 but again the site is much smaller than it used to be. It was almost three acres, and they are only down to half. The option with FBOs does include the Desco parking lot in front. It barely meets the RHNA at 7 units of very low-income buffer and 117 units of low income with an overall percentage of 18%. She also mentioned that following a discussion with the City Attorney, there are four units behind the Park Theater that would be removed, and the City will need to factor that into this calculation. So, they would lose four more units from this number.
Lastly, the revised Workbook D does not meet the RHNA. It is again a negative number. They would have to rezone more to make up numbers. The revised Workbook D is what would be the number and it would go to 65, 65, 65, and 65. There are 40’s in there to even come close to that number. She then displayed the way the zoning could meet RHNA which would give a buffer of 13% for low and very low, but it would be a substantial increase for a number of areas in the downtown.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 34 September 26, 2023
To summarize staff’s request, the questions are whether to include FBO lands in the inventory, should they increase densities downtown further if they do not use FBOs, can they share the Appendices A, E, and F with HCD, and the last request is to continue the item to October 10th. Next steps will be to incorporate any revisions to the inventory following the Council’s discussion, and as directed, they will engage an environmental consultant for additional environmental review for the inventory which may include new sites that have not been previously looked at, and staff will return to Council in October.
Councilmember Candell referred to Option D, it was at 13% which meets RHNA which surprises her because Option B was at 14% and it did not meet RHNA. Ms. Elrod said it is a total of 14% but they cannot have a negative number in the category.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the FBOs. Ms. Elrod presented a list of the ones on the chart. He said when they do an FBO plan he asked what is the definition of an FBO. He asked if it was just the ones listed or he asked if they were all of the ones in the City, or he asked if they can pick and choose.
Ms. Elrod said these are all of the FBOs staff knows of that have significant sites with land around them.
She said it includes Temple Isaiah. They looked at a number of so-called religious organizations, but they were in a house with no land. They were specifically looking for large sites with more than one acre. So, he confirmed with Ms. Elrod they would do it by site as opposed to by definition of an FBO.
Ms. Elrod confirmed staff did not include the one site in a very high fire hazard severity zone and the other one which is a narrow site which might even have a creek setback in it so there was not usable space.
Councilmember Kwok said the last time the Council had looked at the list they had approached some FBOs to ask for interest level. He asked if any others have come forward to express interest. Ms. Elrod said they only had the one who came multiple times to the City asking for what they could do on the site unsolicited.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the comment about overlay districts or underlying zoning, and that there has been concerns raised by members of the community that if the City upzones the FBO and then the church sold the property to a developer then the underlying zoning would transfer to the new buyer, and it would not just be restricted to FBOs. Ms. Elrod said she believes that is correct, but she deferred to the City Attorney on that.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said yes, if the City will do a rezone unlike SB 4, the zoning runs with the land.
Councilmember Kwok said there was a recommendation in the document as to which approach. Ms. Elrod said they would have to rezone the underlying zoning for the sites to include them in the inventory based upon the conclusions of the Clovis case where you cannot use an overlay if the underlying zoning is not consistent with the overlay.
Councilmember Kwok said if the Council goes forward with an FBO plan today, the approach would be to do underlying zoning changes. Ms. Elrod said yes, but she clarified there are two ways they could include FBOs in the Housing Element. If they want to include them as opportunity sites they must rezone the underlying zoning. If they do not and want to include them but rather simply include them as a means of addressing AFFH concerns then they could do an overlay. If the City is relying on them to provide units in the inventory, they must rezone the underlying land.
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 34 September 26, 2023
Councilmember Kwok said they may know the answer as to whether SB 4 passes or not, so potentially when the Council meets on October 10th they may know this answer. If SB 4 passes, he asked if it is necessary for the City to adopt an FBO plan in order to get credits and include the units in the Housing Element. Ms. Elrod said only as potential AFFH actions, they cannot include them without rezoning them in the inventory. If they want to count them against their RHNA, they could get credit for AFFH, but they cannot get credit for the inventory in meeting RHNA unless they rezone the underlying land.
Councilmember Kwok said then it sort of becomes a buffer for the City in that if they did nothing and SB 4 came into effect and if those churches used it, the City would get credit, but it would not be part of the accounting in the plan which they have to get certified.
Vice Mayor Dawson said these would be her questions and no matter what, they would want to have an overlay for the FBOs and objective standards in place, and Ms. Elrod agreed.
Mayor Anduri said if the Governor signs it and the Council decides it wants to be able to use it as an opportunity site and rezone it, he asked if this means a developer working with an FBO would have 2 paths to take—they could choose either the SB 4 path or the City’s zoning path. Ms. Elrod confirmed and said the idea is to make the City’s program more attractive to a developer by giving them some incentives to use and pick the City’s program.
Mayor Anduri asked what is the purpose of doing that in terms of getting the element certified. Ms. Elrod said in the program development if they want a developer to use that so it would go through CEQA review.
If they use SB 4, they do not have to do CEQA.
Councilmember Candell said in the Housing Element they have what they think is the usable acreage, and she asked if they cannot force it to be an FBO, if a developer comes and buys the whole site she asked if there is a way to limit development to what is in the Housing Element or if it becomes a free-for-all and it could be the entire 10 acres with many projects. She asked if there is any way the City can tie it to the FBOs such that it has to exist and continue to run or other things.
Ms. Subramanian said zoning does not work that way. Going back to what Ms. Elrod said, that might be a better option if they were using it just for AFFH as opposed to their opportunity sites. When you choose it for an opportunity site, you have the rezoning requirement, there are certain sites that do not make sense, so these were taken out, and there are more things involved and it becomes more of a challenge because rezoning does run with the land. This is the concern, and then you cannot split the site if the site is just one legal lot. They cannot rezone part of it and not the other part.
Councilmember Candell asked about an SB 9 lot split. Ms. Subramanian said they could in theory but that would be under SB 9 and not the City’s regulations. The City cannot zone part of a property that is not two lots for instance with one lot a higher zone and another lot another. So, if you wanted more flexibility the Council would make it part of its AFFH program and not an opportunity site.
Mayor Anduri asked if the zoning can have any requirement for affordability. Ms. Subramanian said yes, she thinks this is exactly what the City would put in there, for affordability.
Mayor Anduri said he thinks that is part of the answer. Whoever buys it must deliver a certain level of affordability.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 34 September 26, 2023
Vice Mayor Dawson said SB 4 has terms of 45 or 50 years to keep that affordability level. She asked and confirmed with Ms. Subramanian that the City could require this.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the Clovis case and asked if the reference to the overlay specifically related to FBOs or just overlays, in general. Ms. Subramanian replied it was overlays, in general.
Councilmember Kwok said in talking about doing an overlay with the BART parking lots a year ago, he asked if the courts have ruled on that type of overlay not being permitted for the purposes of the Housing Element.
Ms. Subramanian said overlays for opportunity sites they would need to have the higher zoning and not an option for a lower density zoning. As Ms. Elrod pointed out, the City would need to upzone the site if it is for an opportunity site as opposed to AFFH or anything else.
Councilmember Kwok said the last time the Council talked about an overlay district for the BART parking lot. Ms. Subramanian clarified this case came out after that, so it has put a new twist on overlays as it relates to the Housing Element. She noted unfortunately that is the case. There was some effort to try and see if the California Supreme Court would take it, but they did not take it. Absent a new case coming in, this is the requirement.
Councilmember Kwok said he got some questions about what happened to the DeSilva South site, and asked if this is not part of the request to consider tonight. Ms. Elrod said the direction was to exclude DeSilva South. Staff actually removed it from the Housing Element EIR, so it was not part of the potential upzoning scenarios that were ultimately reviewed.
Mayor Anduri said for the items changed in the August 28th meeting, the ADUs were adjusted. Since that time, he has not seen any public comment with respect to the means of calculating the ADUs. He asked staff if they have received any comments. Ms. Elrod said she did not think there were any comments about the ADUs. Again, staff will pitch this to the State. As a point of reference, they have come back to many jurisdictions and asked how their ADUs line up with how they report in the Annual Performance Reports. So, she was not sure if the City will get pushback on that or not, but they will go forward with the plan for the rolling three years they reviewed.
Mayor Anduri said the other element that causes the rollback of units was the 90% and 95% and now they are recommending 88%. There was a lot of comments about that, and he asked if Ms. Elrod reviewed the comments and, if so, he asked to provide a conclusion as to what the City should do.
Ms. Elrod said that in speaking with colleagues around the state, 88% is actually on the high end. They provided in the staff report as an attachment both the actuals for Orinda versus what they projected and the same for San Ramon, and both of them are certified. They both had development at approximately 88% but both are projecting only 60% realistic capacity. So, 88% is an outlier. Her understanding from her colleagues is there have been none that are anything above 90%.
Mayor Anduri referred to the revised Workbook C chart which shows on the very low income a buffer of 7, so 1% and then 55% a healthy margin on the lower income. He asked if Ms. Elrod thinks that will be acceptable. Ms. Elrod said she would argue that it is acceptable because this is a calculation question, and overall, HCD is looking at the low and very low income as buffered together. She would press for this being reasonable, as this is within the range of what they are looking for in terms of percentage.
City Council Meeting Page 15 of 34 September 26, 2023
Councilmember Gerringer referred to the ADUs and the part where the City is running the risk of going in with the 27 and HCD denying that because of their desire to match the data in the APR. She asked what is causing the City to do this for something that might be rejected. Ms. Elrod said staff was asked to provide this and they did. It was clear that the Council’s direction was that they should use a rolling number from August to August and it would include through August of this year.
Mayor Anduri said if that drops to 25 then this does not work and there would be a negative number, and Ms. Elrod agreed.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
ANDI BROWN said she wrote a letter and carefully analyzed what was in the packet before and she is somewhat shocked to now come back with a completely new set of scenarios to review. She is confused and asked if they are saying the previous A, B, C and D scenarios no longer work or might work, or are they saying B and C might work but if Desco is not included they do not. So, it is very unclear to her what is going on. The goal post seems to shift all the time and it is incredibly frustrating. They have had many residents paying attention for 3 years and it seemed like they were finally getting somewhere and now we are not. She supports the revised Scenario C, but she asked if 4 units behind the theater now make C not work.
BILL BUCHER, Lafayette Homeowners Council, said they have been looking through the staff report and reading through comments from the public. He is glad to hear they are going with a revised quantity on the ADU calculations. They think this is a positive step and support that. He is now disappointed to hear about the 88% being the high end because they felt and agree with public comment that the 90% or 95% update was realistic. But, if that does not seem to pass then it will cause additional consideration. They also appreciates the Council’s understanding about the preservation of neighborhoods.
In hearing the discussion, he does some residential development and this whole thing about FBOs, particularly with the State getting involved in this is he is looking at a 2-acre site in Happy Valley and he is filing for the church of bill tomorrow,so he questioned the requirements of an FBO. He thinks it is minimal to form a church or religious organization, so he thinks this is going to be a quandary the State will get into, particularly the zoning that goes with the land regardless of what happens to the organization that stays on it. So, if they mimic that, he thinks the City opens itself to land use opportunities deep into neighborhoods which might not be consistent with the neighborhoods.
Mayor Anduri asked if Mr. Bucher’s concern is that someone might have a parcel of land, form a church, and then automatically be restricted to that zoning. He said the City is zoning particular parcels and have excluded a parcel in the very high fire hazard severity zone, so it would not be an automatic rezone.
DAVID CLARK referred to the numbers and staff report. On page 6 of 15 of the staff report, there is a table 2 and the paragraph before that indicates 145 units have realistic capacity but the chart, when adding numbers up on a realistic capacity, it is actually 151. He is confused about which Desco properties they have finally wound up considering. He thought he heard the only thing that is going to be in is the parking lot, but the paragraph above Table 2 seems to be a slam dunk that 3687 Mt. Diablo Boulevard is going to be included. It is vacant and for sale, but he thought he heard the Council would only look at the parking lot and neither of the 2 buildings. So, he is confused that based upon the description on page 6 of 15, 3687 Mt. Diablo Boulevard appears not to be in the total.
City Council Meeting Page 16 of 34 September 26, 2023
The other thing is he understands that part of the 3675 Mt. Diablo building is leased, and the leases can be an impediment for inclusion as site opportunities. But he thinks they need to look at the leases. The verbiage on page 5 of 15 says half of the suites in that building are vacant. He thinks it would help to quantify the length of the remaining term on those leases. If it is 30 years it is one thing, but if it is 4 or 5 years, that is something else. Those lease terms are probably discountable and at some point, the City could probably buy their way out of them if that were a realistic option and the City wanted to spend some money to buy out the remaining lease terms. It might free up those properties to actually count them. So, he does not think having leases on half the suites in the building is necessarily a deal-killer.
DAWN EAMES said she thinks further review and consideration should be made for Rob Lavoie and Libby Henry’s emails they sent in as public comment and for additional public outreach be made to the directly affected proposed upzoned areas in the Carol Lane area, the single-family home area, and the south Mt.
Diablo Boulevard business areas if possible prior to the City making any decisions tonight. The pressure to get approvals tonight to make an arbitrary end of year deadline just to get a $750,000 grant is not prudent since this will affect the City for years and decades to come. Her understanding is that upzoning cannot be down zoned in the future and asked if this is correct.
ROB LAVOIE said he agrees this is a moving target after studying this and seeing everything change. He still thinks they need to bring DeSilva South back on the table. It is consistent with the Chamber of Commerce, merchants and GPAC, and it really is the only thing left if we are allowing HCD to dictate this arbitrarily low yield. Although, if anyone else is higher than 88% he thinks they should push for that because as he explained in his emails, they have ample evidence of recent actual comps that are much higher than 100% so there is no reason for taking anything less than that.
In his last email he sent in an option with adding DeSilva and this way they are able to leave most of the other areas mostly minimally impacted in the downtown. So, he asked to relook at that. He would continue to push for higher ADU numbers. He asked for information on the monthly numbers for 8 months for this year versus last year to see if there was an increase and he has not been able to obtain that information. If the City is seeing a strong increase this year, year to date, then he thinks they should push for additional ADUs there. He would encourage including the FBOs because he thinks they are truly the most opportune spot for building low-income housing. The cost basis on the church properties is typically very, very low and he hopes they can figure out this overlay versus the baseline density issue because people are concerned about a developer buying it and then converting it into some monster right in the middle of a single-family neighborhood with limited street access.
MAX HENNEGER, Boardmember, Inclusive Lafayette, said of the proposals before the Council tonight, Workbook D comes the closest to the previous recommendations that Inclusive Lafayette has made. They look forward to getting another letter out to the City ideally within the next week or so. Regarding the Council’s AFFH policies, they think the proposal that would currently allow up to a duplex in the expanded zone around downtown should be higher. They think 3 or 4 units is more appropriate. They also think the Council could make a dent in its very low- and low-income numbers if it allowed developers to do an extra unit, such as going from 3 to 4 or 4 to 5 if that unit was deed-restricted as affordable for however many years the Council would want to require. He works in affordable housing, and it is hard to line up tax credits, hard to line up HCD money, and these projects can sometimes take years and years to make the biggest impact in the affordable housing crisis. They need the types of programs that a builder might do single family to go out and do Lafayette duplexes and triplexes.
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 34 September 26, 2023
Lastly, they want to specify it is really important the Council specify the proposals should apply to new construction and not just rehabilitation of existing buildings. In graduate school they looked a bit at missing middle programs in Portland, Oregon and found many developers barely were able to make the projects work and would not do them again and try to do them as conversions. It is a lot easier to be able to do it from the ground up. You can still restrict the building envelope using FAR, setbacks, and all the things the City would apply to single family but just allow 2 mailboxes on the door instead of 1. The same comment applies to the JADUs. The extra JADU the City is allowing if it is deed-restricted is affordable.
This is a great policy. They think for it to be very effective the Council should specify it would apply to new construction as well so they will have builders go out and specifically build these new deed-restricted affordable ADU projects and not just be limited to buying an existing one. He thanked the Council for its work on the Housing Element and they look forward to seeing it continue to progress.
Mayor Anduri said Mr. Henneger favors Workbook D, and he asked if this means he does not want to include the FBO sites.
Mr. Henneger said given the likely passage of SB 4, it will limit the impact unless they are allowing more density or removing the prevailing wage requirements or removing the affordability requirements. So, unless these are policies that the Council would want to apply, in those cases he thinks it does not really make a lot of sense. Although, Inclusive Lafayette would be the first ones to support a FBO if they would like to build affordable housing in Lafayette. They are just thinking about it in the context of the overall plan.
CHRISTINE RASSMUSEN said she sent in a letter earlier and wanted to clarify her comments about the FBOs. She does support that idea, but she would only want that to be in the bigger churches that are in the downtown area, Risa Road and Carol Lane. There are apartments over there already and then Risa Road has many options for walkability. Now that she has learned in this meeting they can pick and choose what actual properties the city could keep for FBOs she would encourage the Council to look into the ones closest to the downtown. The single-family zoned ones in her Burton Valley neighborhood have issues with evacuation and too many vehicles for someone living out in that area. This is a consideration she would discourage the Council from choosing. But she thinks those along Mt. Diablo Boulevard are perfect for the City’s RHNA. She also thinks the fact Inclusive Lafayette would be interested in such a project should be carefully considered when the Council is making choices regarding including or excluding FBOs.
STELLA WOTHERSPOON said she is hoping they are coming to a close soon, and in thinking about numbers, tweaking densities, and yields she asked to look at the people behind the numbers and think about how to best accommodate their cost-of-living constraints. Inflation has just literally gone through the roof in the past 4 years. $100 in 2019 is now $120 to get the same goods. She believes the concept of affordable living must be given great weight when thinking about where to site housing. Transportation costs are a huge portion of income, especially for a very low- or low-income person or household. She does not think the City should burden these new residents with mandated automobile ownership and operation. The costs are just too high. She thinks housing outside downtown will generate more VMT, more GHG emissions, and it is just only practical, kind, logical, and ecological to have opportunity sites that are in the downtown or proximate to the downtown.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 34 September 26, 2023
She would ask the Council to consider adding the DeSilva South parcel back in. She is not aware of why it was dropped. GPAC did recommend it and she knows it is in a very high fire hazard severity zone; however, it is a very large parcel. It is right next to a freeway on/off ramp, on Mt. Diablo, is potentially walkable and bikeable to downtown shopping, and she thinks mitigations could be crafted through that site. She worries about what will happen to that site in the next 8 years. It is actually currently zoned for housing, and it might be LR5 or LR10 which is one house on a large parcel, so this is not the type of housing best suited for the downtown. She asked the Council not to look at FBOs underlying zoning changes. This sounds very risky. Zoning runs with the land and organizations can change and decide to close, sell to someone else, and she thinks the Council should look at the downtown proximate concept and say those few FBOs that have locations in downtown of which 2 were mentioned as Temple Isaiah on Risa Road and the Lutheran Church on Carol Lane, these might be good opportunity sites. Staff also mentioned the City only received interest from one unsolicited church so if none of them are expressing interest in this, she asked how they could be included as opportunity sites. Hopefully, there will be one or two that will, and it will make sense to include them as opportunity sites, but those are only the 2 sites. She hopes the Council gets to resolution of this soon as this has been a long process for everyone. She said she shares the frustration of trying to also keep track of this constantly moving goalpost and spreadsheet changes.
She included in her letter a mockup of including DeSilva, including the Desco’s and now it seems that it is not a great baseline.
ALISON HILL said she will be brief because she is speaking as a Boardmember of Inclusive Lafayette and is in support of previous comments from Max Henneger. She emphasized that those proposals would deal with what they term as “missing middle” which not necessarily are the very low income but moderateincome people who have been priced out of Lafayette. Having more duplexes or ADUs would make it possible for teachers and other workers in Lafayette to live and be more a part of the community. One speaker suggested they should not be hastening this because of the $750,000 grant. She thinks with the City’s budget, that is significant, and it is also significant to try and complete this process that has been going on for 3 years and consuming a lot of time and energy. If they can bring it to a successful and acceptable conclusion, she would like to say some members of the public they may think the community has made its decision, but it is not just the community’s decision. They are bound by the rules and laws of the State, and they are the ones who approve this. It is essential they have the element approved.
CHERYL MACDONALD echoed comments of the first speaker regarding frustration at the twists and turns and trying to keep up with this even right before meetings, which is very hard. She supports Robert Lavoie and Stella Wotherspoon’s comments regarding putting DeSilva back in which she thinks is necessary. The Chamber supported. She lives in the downtown area, and she thinks it would be a good solution to help offset some of the constraints of the building that would take place in the downtown on Mt. Diablo Boulevard. They live one story below the Boulevard, and she asked to keep this in mind. She also questioned why the Methodist Church was not included. It is a downtown site, has a huge parking lot, and it goes from Moraga Boulevard to La Fiesta Square area. To touch on AFFH, she asked if SB 9 is already in play with multiple housing spots where you can split a lot and put 4 houses on one lot including an ADU.
She asked why this is not an idea as well. The FBOs are something that is not a hard topic to consider.
She guesses they must consider it with the overlay district which is why they have to consider DeSilva and putting that back in.
City Council Meeting Page 19 of 34 September 26, 2023
SHARON FARLEY said she would like to support adding DeSilva South back as an opportunity site. This was decided upon a long time ago by GPAC and also the Chamber of Commerce. She believes the FBOs should be included as opportunity sites because of SB 4 as well as thinking about which of the churches will close and sell out to a developer. Her third point is that she thinks Rob Lavoie’s downtown map makes so much more sense than the downtown map as drawn currently, and she strongly urged the Council to adopt that downtown map. Lastly, Area 6 South she believes might be upzoned to 60 units, which is insane. This area has narrow streets, no sidewalks, no fire hydrant, and this would be insanity.
Mayor Anduri noted that this appeared on Option D and not on the other options.
CHRIS said he would also like to express his support for the DeSilva South site. It is in a location that has ideal access to freeway on and off ramps, access to downtown for shopping, for transportation, and the alternative which is scattering housing into assorted single-family communities through the FBOs is problematic for a number of reasons. First, as a speaker brought up in the last meeting, there is a Constitutionality question regarding whether or not this may be considered aid to a religious organization especially if you just upzone it with no type of deed restriction or restriction of the land being maintained by a religious organization, though he cannot imagine any religious organization that owns the land once that restriction is in place where they can never sell their lot in the future to anyone but another church.
To the previous speaker who said what church will sell out to a developer, money talks. If a developer offers $6 million for the 5 acres that is zoned at 40 du/acre, they may well take the cash and set up shop somewhere else. He thinks it is fool hardy for the City of this size to try to figure out this FBO issue and SB
4. It has clearly had lots of thought put into it and various details. One issue he sees with FBOs is how will they get money to build the affordable units From the HUD side itself it states, “organizations that receive direct HUD funds may not engage in religious activities such as workshop, religious instruction, or proselytizing.” So, if these sites are supposed to somehow build 100% or a large portion of affordable housing, cannot obtain any State funding, he asked what options they have other than to sell their lot to a developer who can take on building the housing. He thinks it is a can of worms the City is trying to undo and one the State will take care of anyway. The sites are sub-optimally placed for high density given traffic through very congested intersections for several of the potential church sites.
BRAD ROSENTHAL said they have heard a number of speakers and public comments about confusion as to what is going on and why things are changing from meeting to meeting despite the City Council’s guidance sometimes from previous meetings. So, he asked who is actually running this process and how can people get more transparency from those running the process because there are a lot of educated people in this community and frankly there are many people confused. So, he asked to understand how they all can work together to make sure the public is being properly informed of what is going on.
Mayor Anduri said Ms. Brown had asked the impact of 4 units behind the Park Theater if those were to be changed and what that would mean for the charts, particularly Chart C. Ms. Elrod said it would reduce the buffer by 4 units. The City does not know the income categories of those living there, but likely low and moderate income and likely not above moderate. So, it would reduce the buffer by a small amount, but the City is on a thin thread at this moment.
Councilmember Candell said she raised another issue; that she is confused. She does not think the Council explained the change to Desco as well, which came in late.
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 34 September 26, 2023
Mayor Anduri said as a general matter, he empathizes with the confusion. It is not because of what staff has done. It is not because of what HCD has done. This is inherently a difficult process with a number of elements that are changing. What is seen between in the last meeting and just in the last few days, there has been an analysis made of one of the Desco sites that indicates that may not be useable as an opportunity site, so they are dealing with this. No one hid anything from anyone or went against a Council direction. Everybody is doing their best to get to a conclusion on this, and it is frustrating they have things that change.
There have been several comments during the process that GPAC had looked at this and now everything has changed and that this is an afront to the GPAC. But he thinks GPAC members would realize that since they gave their recommendation to the PC, there are many things that have changed. They have learned a lot about what has happened with other applications that cities have made, particularly in southern California, and have seen how they have been treated. They have seen what happened with other cities in Northern California, so they have learned a lot about what is and what is not acceptable. All of this information is being input into the process. Much of that came along after GPAC. The conclusion that they reluctantly made to not include in the BART parking lots came after they realized there was very little chance that would pass muster with HCD. So, there have been changes and while frustrating, it is part of the process. He appreciates what the City Attorney and what staff have done to react to the new circumstances and to provide the Council with what he considers as good advice to move forward. He recognizes there is public concern, and, in his view, it is not because they are not being transparent. They are trying to put all of the information out there as soon as they get it.
Councilmember Gerringer said to Councilmember Candell’s point about being clear here in this meeting about what happened on the Desco properties and to have Ms. Subramanian respond to that. This will provide some clarification.
Mayor Anduri said this comes in responding to the next question. From Mr. Clark’s question on page 6 of 15, he asked about Table 2 and why is that chart changed. This is the new development from this week.
Ms. Subramanian said 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, which is the building the City offices are located in.
They have a lease for those offices and the City has been in that building for decades. The existing lease the City has does not allow the landlord to terminate the lease. They have extended the lease numerous times and they also have an option to extend the lease on certain terms. So, if the City were to presume the other leases in the building also do not allow the landlord to terminate the lease, they will have to look at that under the Housing Element law the lease they do have for consideration and determine whether they actually think this is a use that could be residentially developed within the 8-year period.
Given what they know, she has concerns about that potential. So, in that regard, in coordination with City staff they are just looking at the parking lot on 3675 as a potential for redevelopment as opposed to the actual structure.
As they have talked about the other Desco site, it is vacant and up for sale, so they are still considering that as an opportunity site. It is just 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard where they are looking at only using the parking lot as opposed to the existing building.
Mayor Anduri said what that means for the chart is the middle line, 3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard offices and parking, he asked if it becomes .5 acres. Ms. Elrod said it is technically .48 but staff believes they are able to get more from in front of the building. It would require a lot line adjustment, but they are confident if they get .5 acres out of the site they can count it towards lower income.
City Council Meeting Page 21 of 34 September 26, 2023
Mayor Anduri said there is .48 now for parking and 1.95 for offices and parking. He asked if the 1.95 acres going away. Ms. Elrod said she will have to confirm.
Mayor Anduri said Ms. Eames asked if the property once upzoned can be downzoned. Ms. Subramanian said they have talked about SB 330 which is in place. Under SB 330, if the City were to rezone a parcel to a higher density they could not downzone that parcel without simultaneously upzoning a parcel so there is no net loss in residential capacity. So, it is not impossible, but it is very difficult, so it is something to consider.
Ms. Elrod said in answer to the question regarding 1.95 acres, the City site is 1.95 acres and the acreage for the parking is a separate site is roughly .48 acres.
Mayor Anduri said therefore, the .48 would stay and the next line changes to parking .50, and Ms. Elrod confirmed.
Mayor Anduri said Mr. Lavoie mentioned he wanted to push for the higher ADUs if they were seeing higher numbers this year. He asked staff if they were seeing higher numbers. Ms. Robles said yes, slightly higher but nothing major.
Mayor Anduri said Ms. MacDonald asked why the Methodist Church was not included. Ms. Elrod said it is included and already a site on the inventory. The Methodist Church did express interest in development.
Mayor Anduri said Ms. MacDonald also asked why isn’t SB 9 an idea for AFFH. Ms. Elrod said the State does not recognize SB 9 as an AFFH item because it is typically speaking used to develop new above moderate-income housing units. What staff proposed in terms of being able to take a unit and redevelop it within the existing framework could possibly give them a better chance of that. New development is frequently much more expensive anyway.
Mayor Anduri asked if there were any additional Council questions of staff before going into discussion.
Councilmember Gerringer said regarding the comment/question that Mr. Henneger made, it was specifically related to AFFH and the duplexes and conversions. She thinks they are not talking about that suite tonight, but she thinks the way it is written, their intention is it is converting existing properties and she would like to understand the idea that you might be able to get more affordable units out of including new construction and potentially even having incentives for one unit being affordable and deedrestricted. She disclosed she did speak with Mr. Wolff a little bit about it and the example Mr. Henneger was giving was based on experiences in Oregon. So, she wondered if this is something they could even consider as it relates to AFFH, but also if there were units that could be defined in there and having them count towards the RHNA allocation.
Ms. Elrod said it is just a policy. Jurisdictions have wanted to use SB 9 developments towards their RHNA allocations and have been told you have to identify the specific site where it will occur, which the City cannot do. It is relatively new, and the City does not have a track record they could point to that would be useful.
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 34 September 26, 2023
Councilmember Candell referred to the OBAG III grant and asked if that program is a hard stop or is the fact that the City is substantially in compliance count. Ms. Robles said she has reached out to MTC staff regarding this deadline. They did express that other jurisdictions who are not certified have reached out.
So, they attended a meeting mid-September where they acknowledged this concern and said they would review this policy or grant requirement and would get back to staff. This meeting is monthly where they discuss the grant program, so she asked Mr. Golier to keep abreast of that. Staff actually emailed MTC staff reiterating their intention to be certified by the end of the year, but that they would like to be kept updated about any changes to that requirement.
Ms. Elrod said she would like to tag on to the idea about substantial compliance. In order for the City to be in substantial compliance they would have to have its rezonings complete by January 31, 2024. In order to meet RHNA accommodation, the law says if you do not get certified within the window which passed by the end of May, then you only have one year from the statutory deadline to rezone. So, it will be an important inflection point going forward in terms of whether builder’s remedy projects would become much more possible January 31, 2024.
Mayor Anduri asked staff to display the list of items for the Council to give staff direction on tonight. He asked if anyone has an objection to number 2; directing staff to share the appendices, and there were no objections.
He said there were the 3 things that reduced the number of sites—the ADUs. He wants to make sure everyone is comfortable moving forward with the ADUs as it is incorporated now at 27 units, and Councilmembers confirmed. The second item that decreased numbers was moving the realistic capacity to 88%, and he confirmed Councilmembers were comfortable with 88%. Regarding the sites, on the Desco site, this is the item changed in the last few days. He asked if all Councilmembers accept the staff recommendation that it be included as an opportunity site and taking out the office building but including .5 acre of parking and also leaving in 3687 Mt. Diablo Boulevard. All Councilmembers voiced support of this.
Mayor Anduri said they now come to the alternatives, and he asked that the Council discuss Workbook C as proposed which includes the opportunity sites they had before, the revised Desco, it does not include DeSilva, and it includes the FBOs that are indicated in the chart in the materials. There are at least 2 issues there—how does the Council feel about including the FBO sites at 35 du/acre and secondly, they should address DeSilva.
Vice Mayor Dawson commented that the reason she thinks the FBO sites made sense in their last meeting was because of the focus on the BLI and LI specifically because this is where there is the most challenge.
If these religious institutions and school organizations want to develop, it makes sense. She is also a little weary of that too because it seems like they would not want this as an opportunity if it is not focused specifically on very low- and low-income homes.
Mayor Anduri asked staff how detailed they want the Council’s direction to be regarding FBOs. Ms. Elrod said her initial reaction would be units per acre and direction on affordability being important. Staff still needs to create the program. In terms of if they had a program in place that would allow for FBOs and develop them later, they could include it in the inventory now with an understanding of what the du/acre would be.
City Council Meeting Page 23 of 34 September 26, 2023
Mayor Anduri proposed discussing 35 du/acre and to require a substantial portion of affordable housing included.
Vice Mayor Dawson asked what is the percentage for very low and low income. Ms. Elrod said SB 4 is 75% very low and low income, 20% moderate, and 5% above moderate income. This is what staff was using.
Councilmember Candell said to be clear, on the 35 du/acre, she confirmed with Ms. Elrod that they would continue to keep the 75% very low and low income together because that is what the law says, 20% moderate, and 5% above moderate income. They could put this in the zoning, or they could do some other modification that would still give them enough units.
Vice Mayor Dawson said she would be comfortable with that if they kept along those lines the majority of units being low income based.
Councilmember Kwok said he is supportive of FBOs as part of the strategy. His concern would be that since overlays will not be valid, they would upzone. But, if they upzone with the requirement to have the low and very low income then he thinks that narrows the attractiveness as a pureplay development project. So, the risk is narrowed there for a flip so to speak. One thing he has always thought of for the churches that are different from a development project, churches are composed of a congregation of Lafayette’s community members, and he thinks if a church wants to be part of the solution to the housing crisis, they would have their congregations deliberate and think about what they want. It is more of a community-based decision of what they would put there, and he would hope conversations would lead to the right solution for the community and be sensitive to neighbors. He has less concerns about it being abused, having bad taste, or something that would provide friction in the community and thinks it should have a good outcome.
Councilmember Candell said she agrees and said she knows this is controversial, but with the deep affordability requirements on this, she agrees with Councilmember Kwok that the chances of a developer going in and building something on a full site of an acre like this is realistically very low. So, she agrees that not only is the congregation is the community, they want to be good neighbors. This is in their nature, and they are not going to go out and build something that their next-door neighbors will hate. She has not seen a history of that in other communities, so she thinks they will be good actors. And they are not going to develop the entire site because they want their FBO still there. As much as this is a scary proposition to upzone an entire parcel, as long as the Council thinks it can get away with very high affordability, it makes it a far better situation for her.
At first she was thinking whether they should do the FBOs or DeSilva, but they cannot put these deep affordable requirements on DeSilva, and you do not have this community involvement when they redevelop DeSilva. This will be a free for all. So, with the constraints around the FBOs she also supports them.
Councilmember Gerringer echoed Councilmember comments and voiced support.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed Ms. Elrod has the direction she needs on that topic. He referred to DeSilva and said the GPAC did recommend including DeSilva on an 8-7 vote. It came to the PC, and it was the PC which decided not to move DeSilva along as an opportunity site. It was never included by the City Council to be sure. He agrees with comments made about the choice made about where to rezone. He recommended moving forward and asked for a motion to continue to October 10th.
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 34 September 26, 2023
Councilmember Gerringer noted also that one of the other discussion items the Council had to do with following the Attorney General’s guidance that caused the Council to, besides BART not being built, was the high fire severity zone, so there were a couple of reasons why they moved away from DeSilva.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Gerringer/Dawson) to continue the item to the October 10, 2023, City Council meeting. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Anduri called for a 5-minute break and, thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
C. Anna Tolle, Planning Technician
Ordinance No. 688: Prohibiting the Use of Gasoline Powered Leaf Blowers: City-initiated Municipal Code Revision adding Chapter 8-23 entitled "Gasoline Powered Leaf Blowers" to Title 8 Public Welfare, Morals, and Safety of the Lafayette Municipal Code. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15061(b)(3).
Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance 688, waive the first reading, take public comment and continue the matter to October 10, 2023, for second reading and adoption.
Planning Technician Anna Tolle said she is joined by members of the Environmental Task Force (ETF), Maria Gastelumendi and Chair Nancy Hu and possibly other members on Zoom to introduce Ordinance 688, adding chapter 8-23 entitled Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers, to the LMC. If adopted, the ordinance would prohibit the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers within the City limits beginning July 1, 2024. The 3 main hazards of gasoline-powered leaf blowers are noise, dust, and exhaust emissions. They pose health risks to operators and bystanders and disrupt daily life for residents. Eliminating these within City limits will reduce noise levels and GHG emissions in the community.
Currently, gas-powered left blowers and similar equipment are subject to the noise ordinance of the City, Chapter 5-2 of the LMC which prohibits the use of power tools and lawn equipment between 10:00 p. m. and 7:00 a.m. However, City staff and the City Council have received many comments over time from residents requesting that the City take action to further regulate or prohibit gas leaf blowers entirely.
In 2021, several community members came before the Council requesting such action and the Council soon after directed the Environmental Task Force to research and develop a solution. The ETF reviewed similar ordinances in other cities, conducted a field visit to Piedmont for a demonstration of their electric leaf blowers and worked with staff in different City departments during the past 2 years to recommend the proposal before the Council. More than 40 cities in California have adopted regulations prohibiting gas-powered leaf blowers, one as early as 1975 and many others much more recently.
At the State level, AB 1346 will ban the sale of new gas-powered small off-road engines including leaf blowers beginning January 1, 2024. The goal of AB 1346 is to achieve a transition to 100% zero emission small engine equipment used across the state by 2035. By adopting Ordinance 688 the City will not only ensure compliance with AB 1346 but will accelerate the overall transition towards zero emissions equipment. An effective date of July 1, 2024, is proposed. This allows for a period of outreach to households within the city as well as to commercial landscape businesses that may operate within the City informing them of the new regulation and providing connections to resources such as rebate programs to purchase new equipment.
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 34 September 26, 2023
The ETF will continue working with staff to create and publish these educational materials and resources prior to the ordinance’s implementation. Enforcement of Ordinance 688 will follow the standard operating procedure of the Lafayette Code Enforcement Department, which is primarily complaint-based, remembers that the public can report a suspected code violation on-line. The Code Enforcement Officer performs a site visit in an attempt to verify the violation before issuing a notice of warning to the property owner.
Based on the desire expressed by many community members to eliminate gas leaf blowers, staff expects code enforcement complaints and violations will rise once the ordinance takes effect. It is not yet clear the overall effect this will have on staff time and City resources, but staff expects enforcement to pose challenges. Because operators often use leaf blowers for limited periods of time, before moving on or putting away the equipment, it will be difficult for the code enforcement officer to arrive in time to witness the violation and open an investigation.
proposed ordinance. The section that requires clarification is Section 8-2303. Staff has worked with the City Attorney to propose the updated language. Section 8-2303 shall read, “Effective July 1, 2024, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate, allow, hire, employ, or engage the services of a person or business that operates any gasoline-powered leaf blower on property that the person owns.” This updated language eliminates the need to distinguish between landscape businesses, City staff, and residents though it still applies to anyone operating a leaf blower within City limits. The use of a gas leaf blower by anyone within the City would be prohibited. This update also eliminates the need to define landscape maintenance business under Section 8-2302; Definitions.
What the updated language does is clarify the City’s authority to assign liability to a property owner for using a gas leaf blower or directing or allowing the operation of a gas leaf blower on their property. The ETF and City staff recognize that prohibiting gas-powered leaf blowers will have a financial impact on some landscape maintenance businesses who may need to invest in new zero emissions equipment before their gas-powered equipment has reached its end of useful life. For this reason, the above clarification has been added to assign liability to a property owner that allows a commercial landscaper to use a gas-powered leaf blower on their property rather than going after a small business owner. There is a current incentive program through the Air Resources Board for landscape professionals to purchase new equipment at up to 50% off MSRP. Additional funding opportunities will likely become available in the future.
The ETF and staff recommends the adoption of Ordinance 688 and will continue working together to assist with implementation, and she is available for questions.
Mayor Anduri asked if ETF members had any comments.
Maria Gastelumendi, ETF member, said she thinks Ms. Tolle provided a thorough presentation of what the ordinance is requesting from the community. However, they also understand that if tonight the ordinance is approved, the task for the ETF will be to communicate and educate the community that this is happening. Sometimes the community is not aware regardless of the numerous ways the City communicates. Therefore, they have created a subcommittee of the ETF to work on public outreach.
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 34 September 26, 2023
She said the ETF will need help from the Council in terms of material, printing, and distribution to the community and they will try to focus on how to target the community. She hopes the Council will adopt the ordinance and they can move forward to create a green Lafayette as an example to the other communities that surround them.
Councilmember Gerringer said she knows it is not required so she asked why they did not run this by the PC first. Ms. Tolle stated the PC reviews zoning text amendments, specifically Chapter 6 of the LMC. This is Chapter 8.
Councilmember Candell asked to share Ms. Tolle’s experience with some of the equipment to help people understand what they will face.
Ms. Tolle said she can speak to the question regarding the type of equipment that is currently in the PTR inventory as well as the Public Works inventory. Also, Chair Hu has tested the equipment herself and may choose to speak on that further, but the PTR Department currently has 3-battery powered leaf blowers in their inventory they use for all leaf-blowing needs. They have 2 commercial-grade backpack leaf blowers and one hand-held. They are identical to the models currently available for residents to check out. There is a free lending program started by the ETF run through the Community Center where residents can check out a hand-held leaf blower and also a commercial grade backpack blower for up to 2 weeks to test the equipment themselves.
Also, the Public Works Department still has 6 gas-powered leaf blowers but informed her they are phasing out that equipment as it nears its end of life, and they use primarily electric leaf-blowers. They have 2 backpack commercial grade blowers and one hand-held leaf blower that they primarily use battery powered equipment for their needs.
Nancy Hu, ETF Chair, stated in order to set up the lending program they coordinated with PTR and they developed waivers and a web page with information about the benefits of using electric leaf blowers and before choosing the equipment she reached out and looked at all of the different types of leaf blowers, and they were debating upon using corded or battery, so she got to try it at home and they are very powerful. The commercial backpack one was recommended by Mr. Katayanagi. It was fairly heavy at about 30 or so pounds with the batteries on the backpack, but it was extremely powerful which was something important in the sense of comparing gas versus electric. What was nice about using electric, even though it was 30 pounds, it was not vibrating at all, and it was completely silent when using it. You do not feel it once it is on you, and it is just getting it on your back is a bit of a challenge. With the gas blowers, they vibrate heavily, and it is hard on a person. So, that in addition to noise, this is what you do not experience with the electric blowers.
Councilmember Candell asked as to battery lifetime on the commercial backpack units. Ms. Hu said she does not remember the numbers off-hand, but they are on the website at Lovelafayette.org/leaf-blowerlending. She also indicated the specifics of how long it takes to charge each battery.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 34 September 26, 2023
BILL BUCHER said the Council received a number of notes from people pro and con on adopting this ordinance. He would ask the Council not to adopt the ordinance. This is not a knock on the ETF’s work, but since the State is already implementing this and you will not be able to buy another one in California after January 1st, he would let it ride out. This equipment will all get changed as it wears out and as a homeowner, he has a hand-held blower and there are lawnmowers people cannot even buy anymore.
They must be electric. Chain saws will come into effect as well, but the minimal amount of time he uses it, he just suggests letting it ride out its useful life and after January 1st, the manufacturers will look to California and hopefully the prices will come down and it will be better quality. He has neighbors that already have electric hand-held ones and they are no quieter than the gas ones to get the same power level gas does.
He also said beyond just the inconvenience of having to get new equipment and not let it phase out is that now we are asking staff to monitor this and adding more things to code enforcement. It is not just a commercial person but residents, and he would ask to consider the time of staff and the ability to monitor this and just let the State’s program ride out. If the City does initiate this in Lafayette, he asked to postpone it a couple of years and let people get more time in this, so they have more opportunity to buy the equipment.
JENNIFER AND FINN RENTON said her children were on the front of the Lamorinda Weekly. They are big proponents of the ban. The electric leaf blowers are much quieter than the gas-powered leaf blowers and do not have the noxious fumes. They see the effects of global warming, and the sooner they can try to mitigate against it, the better. So, she is not sure waiting will do anyone any good. With children, they understand they will be inheriting the world, so she asked to do something good for them.
ROB LAVOIE said he personally uses gas weed eaters for 4–6-hour shifts and he appreciates the ability of those machines versus electric ones. They say the batteries will last 5 years and they do not. People who are doing the gardening is their livelihood and they will not be here to speak against this. He thinks considering how people are always concerned about costs rising faster than wages, he asked to consider this type of unnecessary regulation as a big part of the reason for the high cost of living in California.
Residents complain about the noise, but it is honestly about 15 minutes a week and people can close their windows if they are bothered. People who do not use these tools for a living should not be arbitrarily mandating things about the people who do use them for a living and requiring things to be more expensive or less productive.
The State of California said virtually all professional gardeners use gas-powered blowers. Lafayette is supposed to be a low fee city with minimal staff. Creating more work for City staff to harass homeowners is not something that is essential, and it is not a good reason to consider a micro-regulation like this proposal. If passed, he questioned how much the new regulation would cost the City in staff time and maintenance time for educating homeowners and enforcement. This should be known before proceeding any further.
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 34 September 26, 2023
He thinks Mr. Bucher’s point about delaying is also good. He quoted Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus who is a climate economist from an article in the American Economic Journal of August 2018: “Two degrees Celsius is not catastrophic, but passing policies to prevent it would cause far more harm than good.” In quoting the Keeling Curve, Chapter 1 from the Scripts Institute from Oceanography, “Climaterelated disaster deaths have plummeted 98% over the last century yet CO2 has risen from 280 parts per million to 420 parts per million, and temps have risen 1 degree centigrade. For every million people on the Earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes extreme temp, drought, floods, storms, wildfires declined from 247 per year in the 1920’s to 2.5 per year in the 2010’s.” So, he thinks this is a blown-up issue that is not that big a problem. Also, power for batteries, charging is not always from zero emission sources either, so he asked the Council to vote “no.”
GREG MERONICK, former member of the ETF, referred to emissions and said when he was working on this topic one of the things to keep in mind is most of these blowers are 2-stroke engines which means oil must be mixed with gas which means there is an entire list of combustible products and emissions produced. The problem is hydrocarbons in addition to CO2 that are emitted, unburned oil and gas, which in turn clog catalytic converters. The second thing is he spoke with several cities and people in the PTR, Public Works Maintenance departments, and he was surprised at how happy they were because they had some reservations about the power of the electric blowers. The power is steadily increasing. One concern is the ability of electric blowers to be able to blow wet, matted leaves off public sidewalks. They found the newer ones did not have much of a problem with that. Finally, one of the things he did do research on in terms of useful life of gas blowers is that if they are maintained they are good for about 10 years.
CHERYL MACDONALD said she was not sure what the City’s law is doing since state law was effective in January and why this is needed. It will involve more City staff time in order to maintain the program. She thinks a lot of money will go into letting everyone know about this. She is concerned about the small businesses that will have to comply with this in such a short period of time. It is a lot of money to buy new equipment and she worries about them being able to come to Lafayette in order to conduct their small business and having less money for their families. They are not here to defend themselves or talk about their businesses tonight.
LAUREN HERPICH said many great points have been made tonight, and he would agree with Bill Bucher who said the State has already made its regulations. The City is a limited-service city so she would not think this would be a good use of City resources in regulating this. She also questioned whether the City wants to create a system where neighbors are reporting on each other. She would actually support more a clear hours of operation. She lives in downtown Lafayette so for her, it is a long time with so many neighbors having their landscaping being taken care of.
Therefore, she asked for a compromise, especially from the noise pollution as this would affect others and not just operators of this equipment. She suggested saying clearly just operate during the week and a late start on a Saturday, so no operation during Sundays. Her family has invested in an electric blower, but they need time during the weekends to be able to work on their home, as well. So, this might be a way to compromise. But, the State has already made the regulation and she did not see the necessity of the City putting together an ordinance banning them.
City Council Meeting Page 29 of 34 September 26, 2023
BEN DOUGLAS said he is here to speak in favor of this ordinance. To rebut some of the points made, as to this being a limited resource City he cannot think of a better use of City resources than protecting our health because this is a health issue. These are very dangerous fumes going into the air. The concerns about battery life, it will get better and better, and people can use extension cords if this is such an issue.
The reliance on the State mandate conveniently ignores the fact that this just will ban the sale of these.
This would mean there is another 10 years of breathing in these noxious fumes. Given most people in the City do not want to breathe these fumes anymore, the State mandate is not going to cut it. He questioned the idea to postpone past July 1st and questioned why. This gives 9 months for people to acquire the equipment and implement it, which is plenty of time.
The concern for the workers and small businesses that do the yard work he finds a bit disingenuous because if we were really concerned about those people they would not want them to be breathing in fumes that will shave years off of their lives. If it takes them more time to do the work, he doubts that and even it if did, people can pay them a little bit more. If they do not want to pay them more, what they are really saying is that they care more about saving a few bucks than the health of the workers and neighbors.
Finally, as to the communication, he suggested staff put together a bilingual flyer on the City’s website that can be downloaded and then people can pass it out to neighbors, workers, and others. This would be very efficient. Given a majority of City residents are enthusiastic about this change, there will be plenty of people being able to distribute these flyers.
Councilmember Kwok referred to the rebates available. He asked if BAAQMD or California Air Resources Board (CARB). Ms. Tolle said the rebate is currently available from the CARB. The BAAQMD previously offered 2 different rebate programs; one for residential customers looking to purchase new equipment and a separate program for commercial businesses. Those programs were very popular, and funding was exhausted, but similar programs are expected to come up in the future. Staff always keeps an eye out for these opportunities and will continue to share them as part of the outreach as they become available.
Councilmember Kwok asked how much it costs for one of the more expensive backpack type of blowers, as well as the rebate offered. Ms. Tolle stated costs can vary. The handheld blowers are less expensive than the backpack blowers which can cost anywhere from $600 to $1200 for a unit. Sometimes replacement batteries can cost $200 to $500, and this is balanced over time with battery costs being comparable to the cost of gas and maintenance. The current rebates are up to 50% off manufacturer’s price through the CARB program. The Public Works Department shared with her that they were purchased with grant funding and cost around $800 each. However, she is not sure how much funding was provided towards the purchase of that equipment.
Councilmember Kwok said based on City staff going through the transition of gas versus electric, he understood there was concern or resistance in the beginning, and Ms. Tolle confirmed. This is part of the reason the ETF organized the field outing to another city that uses electric leaf blower equipment to help demonstrate the use of the equipment. The transition in the Public Works Department is more recent than the transition of the PTR Department. Once they got to try the equipment, they were more accepting of the change and open to using the equipment, as they found it equivalent to the gas-powered equipment they were using.
Mayor Anduri said in the deliberations of the ETF he asked if there was consideration given to allowing the gas-powered equipment to reach the end of its life and not ban it at a certain point and just let it phase out. Boardmember Gastelumendi said they extensively discussed the expiration time for the gas leaf blowers and moved the date as far as they could to the date chosen for the proposal of this ordinance.
City Council Meeting Page 30 of 34 September 26, 2023
Mayor Anduri said in terms of enforcement and staff time, he asked what discussion occurred about that.
Ms. Tolle said discussions are on-going as they determine the impacts and staff time. If code enforcement is receiving multiple complaints on a violation that occurs weekly, this may result in code enforcement needing to be at the address to witness the violation. This is not how they currently address it but rather reaction to complaints. Butstaff expects there to be a bit more regularity based upon the fact people hire companies to come out weekly or monthly to do landscaping work.
Councilmember Gerringer asked if any cost analysis was done on staff time. Ms. Tolle said they have not done this. City Manager Srivatsa added they have not because they do not know how many calls will come in. Their current policy is to respond to complaints. If they continue to use that, they may need to take it one step further. They will start documenting staff time once the ordinance goes into effect and may be able to report back to the Council 3 months after it has been in effect.
Vice Mayor Dawson referred to neighbors calling in about neighbors and asked if there is any consideration like an on-line link on the website where someone could submit a picture or address to follow-up on to remove some of the conflict that could be involved. Ms. Tolle said her understanding is there are multiple ways a code enforcement complaint could be filed by the City. This could be a phone call or email to the Code Enforcement Department. There is also an on-line system for submitting the complaints in which a complainant may remain anonymous. They are taken on an as-received basis. She thinks it would be worth exploring other processes if they get 3 months into the ordinance and realize they need additional ways to receive complaints or process them.
Boardmember Gastelumendi said the way to prevent conflict among neighbors is through the ETF’s creation of this lending program so they anticipate the community will be able to use these machines before they are forced to change out their equipment. They need to have an intense campaign to share the lending program with the community, so they have a chance to try out equipment.
Chair Nancy Hu added that there is concern about neighbors telling on each other. Their hope is with this ordinance there will be more of a discussion between homeowners and their landscapers. Right now, there is a big disconnect where landscapers assume they want a property completely dustless, spotless, with no leaf in site which is a little ridiculous because leaves fall. She has spent more time than she should watching people use leaf blowers and landscapers will tend to use 40 minutes blowing dust in circles or onto the street. Within 10 minutes, once they are gone the homeowners’ lawns are full of leaves again.
So, there can be a discussion regarding expectations in terms of how clean their property should be after being serviced. With electric, there is not that idling you do with gas when not using the equipment. If you need to put it on turbo mode to its maximum power, but mostly landscapers can address the leaves with blowing here and there. There are also many other manual means of removing leaf debris such as a leaf sweeper which almost looks like a stroller. You push it and it rakes up leaves and costs about $100 to $200. They do not run on electricity or gas, and these are very effective for picking up debris.
Councilmember Kwok thanked the ETF for the number of years for working on best practices, for creating a lending program to try it, and knows this is not a simple topic. One of the things in the report he finds most compelling is using a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour is the equivalent amount of pollution to drive a car for 1,100 miles which is astonishing. He thinks the path is correct to reduce pollution, reduce noise, this is clearly something they heard a lot about by community members to do something about, and he thinks staff and the ETF have taken a thoughtful approach to lead with education on the benefits, rebates, the lending program, voiced support of the revised verbiage, and voiced support.
City Council Meeting Page 31 of 34 September 26, 2023
Vice Mayor Dawson agreed with Councilmember Kwok’s comments, thinks this aligns with environmental sustainability, agrees with the educational approach, thinks 9 months is a reasonable time to get this going, and she voiced support as well as the change.
Councilmember Gerringer said she also voiced support of the revised ordinance with language provided by staff, the education and outreach with a positive focus in multiple languages, voiced support of the lending program and its outreach, and voiced support of the ordinance.
Councilmember Candell said she also supports the ordinance but is open to giving people more time if this is something they need.
Mayor Anduri voiced support, appreciates movement of the effective date back from January 1st to July 31st. They are not the first city to do this and commented that Yountville has a lawn sign out advertising their 3-year-old program. He knows on a subsequent visit he ran into 2 people with their electric blowers which were much quieter. He understands the concerns, agrees with publicizing the availability of funds, and asks if the ETF could help people access funds. He thinks this is something that dates back to 2020 where people have been waiting. He thanked the ETF and staff for their work, and he suggested a motion.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Gerringer) to introduce Ordinance 688, as amended, waive the first reading, and continue the matter to October 10, 2023, for second reading and adoption. . Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, Dawson, Candell, Gerringer, and Kwok; Noes: None).
14. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT – None.
15. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Councilmember Gerringer reported that she and Vice Mayor Dawson, the City Manager and City Engineer attended a City/School Subcommittee meeting today and had updates on the Street Smarts Diablo Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, school start times, and transportation updates. The School District will do another survey in the fall with parents, staff, and community members at-large about changing bell times to potentially have more capacity for buses to address congestion. The Superintendent said the initial surveys were that people do not like change, but they will conduct another outreach about that.
They will hold a Gun Safety Town Hall on October 3rd in partnership with Moms Demand Action at the Acalanes Performing Arts Center. They heard public comments for the studies around St. Mary’s Road and around Stanley Middle School. That timeline can be found on the City’s website. There will be opportunities for public engagement which will be called “Connecting Lafayette” with a longer title around Stanley Middle School and traffic and congestion management there. They also heard feedback from residents on Topper Lane about having the opportunity to have that public engagement.
City Council Meeting Page 32 of 34 September 26, 2023
There is a Fentanyl Town Hall “Song for Charlie” at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday which is also at Acalanes High School. Chief Alldritt will be part of this as well. Enrollment is flat at the 2 districts. She also mentioned that she knows all Councilmembers participated at the Art & Wine Festival, and she thanked Suzanne Iarla and all staff for getting everything set up and participating. She particularly thanked Chief Alldritt and his entire team for security resources and cited the work that goes into making sure everyone is safe. Lastly, she thanked the Chamber of Commerce and its volunteers.
Vice Mayor Dawson said she thinks the Gun Safety Town Hall will have a mental health component which is important to feature.
Councilmember Kwok reported on the status of the Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee which is staffed by the Mayor and himself. They have held a couple of meetings in the past few months. Staff has given a 5- year budget projection for them which has reasonable news in the first couple of news but the forecast for out years sees them not having a balance between costs and revenues. The impact is the 60% reserve is threatened in those out years. Costs are rising around the country. There is inflation, and this city is subject to the same pressures that the rest of the country suffers.
The subcommittee has discussed with staff how they could decrease costs and expenses, how to increase revenue, and how they do a bit of both. In terms of reducing costs and expenses, they have asked staff where they have already gone through an exercise department by department to explore what type of budget cuts they could do to the tune of about 10% effective January 1, 2025. From an increasing revenue point of view, the first time the City had a revenue measure, it was 1995. They have not done anything to raise a special revenue for the City, and the next opportunity is to bring it before voters at the November 2024 election. One method of increasing revenue could be a sales tax increase. Moraga and Orinda have a 1% sales tax addition in their cities that Lafayette does not have, so this increase would translate to covering forecasted costs and more. Therefore, they would like to agendize this for the October 10th meeting, and they will have more details to share.
Councilmember Candell reported on the Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Agency meeting and, along with the City/Schools involvement, AB 181 was passed and was amended by AB 185 which is a home to school transportation reimbursement. What it would mean for the school bus and Transportation Authority is the City gets about $1.5 million in Measure J and at a 60% reimbursement, they would get an extra $900,000. This is great, but the problem is that it must go through the schools and not the City or their transportation agency. So, they are trying to convince the school districts that this is a really good thing for everybody. This is very exciting, and she hoped to agendize this for the next meeting to give a little encouragement to do this.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed there is not a timing element to this, so Councilmember Candell said they could do this as quickly as they can.
Councilmember Candell reported on the League of California Cities conference last week with the City Manager. She thought attendance was down from Long Beach, but still a great conference. She went to 2 of the housing law sessions and the first one had HCD Megan who was the boss of many people doing Housing Elements.
City Council Meeting Page 33 of 34 September 26, 2023
There was a very good city planner, the Mayor of Arcata, and the guy from the Turner Institute. They were trying to help everybody work through all the state laws, and by the end, each one of them said these laws are not really working or achieve their goals. The answer to that was that more laws are needed instead of possibly rethinking their approach. It was disappointing and fresh ideas are not coming out that will help cities solve anything. She wished the League would have sessions on RHNA reform or new ways to approach housing instead.
Mayor Anduri asked if wildfire risk played into that at all. Councilmember Candell said no, not much. She wishes the League could take better action on these things.
Additionally, Councilmember Candell said she received a letter from the woman who just moved here from Oakland Hills, and she confirmed the entire Council received it. She noticed things they had in Oakland that Lafayette did not have. One was a loud siren warning for wildfire. In Oakland, they test them every Wednesday, which was a great idea. Their waste management in the City allows unlimited yard waste pick up in paper bags especially in the high fire zones and during fire season, and she wondered what the City could do about this and suggested strategizing on this in the future.
Vice Mayor Dawson said they will have a Recycle Smart meeting on Thursday and she could bring that up.
Councilmember Gerringer thanked the Finance Committee and said if they have questions or things they would like to have come back, she asked if they should share these with staff. Ms. Srivatsa stated Councilmembers could contact her.
Mayor Anduri said in following up on the Art & Wine Festival, everyone was impressed with what the Chief and his team have done in terms of security. There was so much cooperation with multiple agencies which was amazing. Congressman DeSaulnier came to the City booth both days. On the first day, Chief Alldritt took him to the command center, and he was very impressed with the cooperation Chief Alldritt was able to obtain with all of the different agencies. He also came back the next day.
He stopped by the Rain Garden, and he thanked the Public Works Department for maintaining it. They are doing a great job and it is amazing how the garden has filled in and how well maintained it is after only 5 months of being open.
He spoke at Rotary a couple of weeks ago and he is on the agenda for the Senior Symposium on Saturday and for the Gun Forum on October 3rd.
B. City Manager’s Update
Department Updates
Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Manager Srivatsa thanked the Council for their participation in the Art & Wine Festival. It was perfect weather, great attendance, and she added a shout out to the Public Works crew because they helped with the setup and take down and they go back and do sidewalk repairs or streetlights or landscaping repairs.
This has been a busy week for them. They have started winter prep and it is never too early to clean out the storm drains and ensure everything is in order.
City Council Meeting Page 34 of 34 September 26, 2023
The PW Department is going through annual inspections by the Sanitary District of the Corporation Yard, and this will occur soon. A couple of projects in Engineering are nearing completion: 1) The Pathway Project on Reliez Valley/Pleasant Hill/Quandt, and the Overlay and Pathway Reconstruction on Olympic Boulevard and Glenside Drive. Preliminary design for the 2024 overlay and surface seal projects have begun and are underway.
She recognized a huge lift by all departments in that they need to submit an annual clean water report. It takes forever and there is a lot of data collection, but it takes every department to pitch in and complete that. It was submitted today and with the help of 2 interns, they have been able to digitize their street and easement files. The interns have also gone around town and placed new drains into the Bay and stickers on a number of inlets, so she truly recognized the City’s interns.
Senior Services will have a table at the Community Foundation Senior Symposium, which is Saturday, 8:30 to noon. They will have information about Lamorinda Village, their partnerships, and the AARP Home Fit Guide which suggests ways to make a home more comfortable and safe.
Finally, it is with great sadness that she reports that the City’s former Police Chief, Mike Weymouth has passed away unexpectedly over the weekend. He spent 10 years with the City and may have set a record.
16. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None.
17. ADJOURNMENT - 10:40 p.m. in memory of Mike Weymouth, Former Lafayette Police Chief.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Carl Anduri, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk