City Council Meeting Page 1 of 33 March 25, 2024
7 City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall March 25, 2024 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 7:00 p.m.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, City Council/Board meetings will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing (Zoom) option. To participate virtually in the City of Lafayette’s public meetings and provide public comment, please follow these steps:
1. Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube.
2. Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public can provide public comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] for City Council meetings no later than noon the day of the meeting. Those e-mails will be distributed to City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3. Live Remote Public Comments: Technology permitting, members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing by using the link below. You must download the Zoom app or software. Zoom meetings can be accessed by telephone, computer, or smart device. When the Mayor invites public comment for the item on which you would like to comment, please use the "raise hand" feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) to alert staff you have a public comment to provide. Each speaker is allowed three (3) minutes to speak.
4. At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89008805648?pwd=ODQxRGxzaGNHSWVITUVFalFuUHBIZz09 Passcode: 426199 Or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128
Webinar ID: 890 0880 5648 Passcode: 426199
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 33 March 25, 2024
Mayor Dawson called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Dawson, Vice Mayor Kwok; Councilmembers Anduri, Candell, and McCormick
Absent: None
Staff Present: Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant; Matt Luttropp, Engineering Manager; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Councilmember Candell disclosed she spoke to the Mayor before the meeting and asked to see if the Council could postpone Item 10.A.; Housing Element because she did not believe the Council was presented with enough information to make any decisions tonight. The Mayor wished to proceed and suggested talking about whether this night be reserved to ask questions and obtain more information for the next meeting.
Mayor Dawson referred to Items 10.B and C which are surface seal projects. She asked for those wishing to participate in those items to gauge reordering; however, she did not get a show of hands.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Anduri) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – David Clark led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Items not on the agenda)
MATT SMITH, American Red Cross, said March is American Red Cross Recognition Month and they want to remind the public and society that they are a very active institution and providing a variety of services.
He provided an historical background on the American Red Cross’s beginnings with providing humanitarian assistance and other services regardless of who is asking for help. Their five lines of service include giving blood, conduct disaster services, provide emotional and spiritual care and care for pets, conduct PEDRO training which talks with kids about go bags and fire safety, install smoke alarms, and provide services to the armed services at Travis AFB. He thanked Vice Mayor Kwok for giving him a lead to pursue the intersection of climate change because Red Cross is being significantly impacted by climate change and disaster response.
7. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson, on behalf of City Manager Niroop Srivatsa, gave the following update on activities on department activities:
City Council Meeting Page 3 of 33 March 25, 2024
• Planning Department: Planning continues to process routine planning applications and zoning review of applications for building permits. Last Monday night, the Planning Commission considered the application to establish a Circle K convenience store two doors east of Diamond K Supply. The PC considered the matter and continued it to May 6th for further discussion.
The Environmental Task Force has purchased lawn signs to inform the public of the new gas leaf blower law which will go into effect July 1. There is an on-line form to sign up if members of the public would like to place a sign on their private property to help spread the word and that form can be found on the City’s website on the ETF webpage. Staff will also be sending out the information in the Weekly Round Up which will come out on Friday. Those interested can visit Lovelafayette.org/leaf blowers for more information.
• Parks, Trails, and Recreation: Registration for summer camps and programs opens today and participants of all ages can browse classes and register on the City’s website. Save the date of April 25th at 10:00 a.m. to participate in the Senior Services Commission Age-Friendly Community Meeting to discuss goals and action items for their draft of each friendly action plan. The meeting will be in the Don Tatzin Community Hall.
• Engineering Division: The Division is advertising two pavement management projects this week, and Public Works is working on weed abatement and irrigation repairs.
8. PRESENTATIONS
A. Rob Tygett, Senior Community Library Manager
National Library Week
Rob Tygett, Senior Community Library Manager, said National Library Week will be coming up in two weeks, and he is here in advance to speak about the week and report on many of the efforts at the Library, both at Contra Costa County as well as the Lafayette Library. He then gave a brief PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Candell referred to the on-line high school and she asked and confirmed with Mr. Tygett that he did not know the number of enrollees, the number of scholarships are limited, and the Library wants to be sure resources will pay off or result in a person receiving a G.E.D.
Vice Mayor Kwok thanked Mr. Tygett for his update and called out the increase in attendance for inperson as well as virtual attendance. Mr. Tygett said they are seeing virtual attendance with their services so they track coming onto a program and website to use resources, which he described. He also said he brought copies of their Annual Report.
Mayor Dawson presented Mr. Tygett with a proclamation recognizing National Library Week and said they value library services in the county and in Lafayette.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
B. Introduction of Carol Varney, Executive Director
Lafayette Library and Learning Center Foundation
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 33 March 25, 2024
Carol Varney, Executive Director of the Lafayette Library and Learning Center Foundation, introduced herself to the Council and thanked residents for being so welcoming of her in her position. She described fundraising efforts of the Foundation which provides over $1 million to the City for operations, including staff, building, and programming. She was very impressed with the civility with which the Lafayette City Council handles its meetings.
During her interview process, she visited the Library several times and spent time to see who comes to the Library, and it was always filled with a diversity of people doing many things. She was very impressed with the library’s beauty in the heart of downtown which told her how much the library means to the community. She is honored to be here and looks forward working with the Council in her role.
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers welcomed Ms. Varney and wished her well in her new role.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Dawson asked if there were any public comments or items Councilmembers or the public wish to remove from the Consent Calendar, and there were none.
A. Minutes – March 11, 2024
Recommendation: Approve.
B. 2023 Annual Progress Report on Housing Applications, Permits, and Programs (Anna Tolle) Recommendation: Approve the 2023 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) and direct staff to submit the report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Office of Planning and Research (OPF).
C. Lafayette Community Center Playground Project No. 012-9181, Final Acceptance of Construction Contract with Kerex Engineering Inc.
Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council acceptance of the Community Center playground construction contract with Kerex Engineering Inc. as complete, authorizing staff to file a Notice of Completion.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A, B, and C. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
10. OLD BUSINESS
A. Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Sonia Urzua, Assistant Planning and Building Director; Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant
California Department of Housing and Community Development Review of Lafayette’s 6th Cycle Housing Element
Recommendation: Receive update and direct staff.
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 33 March 25, 2024
Councilmember Candell voiced concerns about the Council making any absolute decisions tonight because they were not given the spreadsheets and background information to explain how the numbers were playing out, nor had the public. This is very complicated and the biggest concern for her was 949 Moraga Road where the City is going from a buffer of 56% to 54% without explanation. She recommended hearing the presentation and then start making decisions at the next meeting.
Planning and Building Director Greg Wolff said they are seeking a certified Housing Element from the State and staff previously submitted in December, received their review in February, and since that review was received on February 12th, staff has been to every Council meeting since chipping away at the issues HCD had in it. They continue on that quest this evening. Staff has had opportunities to meet with their reviewer and the Senior Program Manager at HCD three times now and they have been very productive meetings.
Clearly, they have not solved everything to date, but it is an on-going process and they look forward to continuing until everything is ironed out. With that, staff will provide more information at the next meeting and staff will ask for Council direction.
Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant, said since November 13th, they have compiled information and the changes made and to add to the list is March 28th when they will have another meeting with HCD.
Tonight’s recommendation is to receive the presentation, direct staff, and continue the matter to April 22nd.
Ms. Elrod said she will go through what is contained in the staff report which is a summary of what staff has talked to the State about since they last met and required changes according to feedback from HCD.
She will touch on each item, and much more is contained in the staff report.
A. If the City wants to use faith-based organizations for mobility actions, it must identify additional units above the number that are identified in the inventory and include it as a separate program.
B. SB 9 and ADUs would also need separate actions. What HCD is saying is the City’s numbers must exceed existing law. For example, SB 9 would be to add another unit, allow two ADUs, and it must be above what the existing law allows.
C. In return for removing the FBO goal, HCD said to add the projected inclusionary units to replace that goal and then increase the number of units for other mobility goals. The total goal is now 160 units of mobility actions. Both the staff report and Appendix G which is the Implementation Plan show the proposed changes.
D. Other changes to the Implementation Plan according to what HCD gave them include: 1) to allow alternative parking standards including tandem and hydraulic lifts; 2) add the graduated density program for lot consolidation which was discussed at the last meeting; 3) add specific timelines and milestones to redevelop 949 Moraga which will be discussed more in detail tonight; 4) add specific language referencing ELI (extremely low income) households in supporting affordable housing development and adding a monitoring action; 5) updating emergency shelter regulations to allow them by right and consistent with State law; 6) explicitly state that the City commits to revising heights and setbacks to facilitate achieving maximum densities and explicitly state the City commits to creating development standards on rezoned sites that would maximize development potential.
City Council Meeting Page 6 of 33 March 25, 2024
E. With respect to opportunity sites themselves, staff created tear sheets which had been in the original Housing Element but had been reformatted or repackaged to meet HCD’s expectations.
They have added information on environmental and other potential constraints the State requested. They have added additional information about development potential, i.e., these sites could be put together in such a way as to create a more regular-shaped site and it could be a statement development on the corner of this street.
F. The next items include changes to the opportunity sites workbook. 1) Lafayette Lane’s (Miramar’s project) entitlements have lapsed and as a result, it is no longer a pipeline project by the definition of the State and now is a regular opportunity site; 2) They are adding in Walgreens at 3614 Mt.
Diablo because it is closing and it is for sale. It also is added as a regular opportunity site; and 3) in this iteration, Madison Park’s improvements have been demolished but the site is for sale and now considered a regular opportunity site.
G. Beyond what was included in the staff report, the State’s inventory guidebook provides guidance on how to calculate the percentage of lower income RHNA allocation on non-vacant sites. The specific guidance was included in the staff report. Based on this guidance, with some caveats the City could likely meet the threshold. The percentage of lower income units on nonvacant sites must be less than 50% in order to avoid having to provide substantial evidence in the record demonstrating uses on those sites will be discontinued within the eight-year planning cycle but it would require a different distribution of units by income rather than using the RHNA allocation which is what they have used before. They discussed distributing units by income in a different formula than other sites with the State and the state said clearly the statute allows flexibility to use a distribution model that the City wishes to use.
If they were to use the RHNA allocation to distribute units on vacant sites, which is what they have had in the inventory thus far, the Council will recall a lower income buffer of about 34% which is very low and low together. When they do the math, the units on non-vacant sites are 57% and not less than 50% so it does not meet the threshold. This is why they need to look at a way to redistribute the units by income to get the threshold lower.
Ms. Elrod said she wants to make clear that the process of developing the inventory and deciding on what the income allocation should be is a capacity analysis. It is not saying that these sites are going to the exact distribution of units by income as they have shown on the inventory. It is merely to show that they have the capacity to meet the requirements. Some developer could come in and decide to build something all above moderate income on a site that they have distributed units for other income levels. The State understands this is a capacity analysis.
The existing RHNA allocation is about 28% for very low and 16% for low. If they used an income distribution of, for example, 30% very low and 30% low and then 20% and 20% for moderate and above, this results in a 44% lower income buffer as opposed to 34% above, and the units on nonvacant sites is 49%. It meets the threshold. So, if they change the distribution for vacant sites to 30%, 30%, 20%, 20% they meet the standard of 49% on non-vacant sites.
They have reorganized the summary sheet from the workbook so the Council can really understand where they are coming from. Again, this is with the existing RHNA allocation distribution.
Mr. Wolff interjected that the top half of the slide the Council is familiar with from all of the workbooks that have been public and shared to date. It is the bottom half of the slide which is new as of this meeting, and the first line in blue are the income distributions that are the inputs for the vacant sites.
City Council Meeting Page 7 of 33 March 25, 2024
Then, the lowest portion is that same methodology that the State set forth on page 26 of their guidance and then the bottom line is the percent that went beyond non-vacant sites. The first slide shows the income distribution of RHNA. The next slide will be the 30/30/20/20 and then they include a 40/40/10/10.
Ms. Elrod said if they just kept it like everything else in the inventory using the RHNA allocation of 28%/16%/15%/40% for the income distribution, they do not meet the standard. They want it to be less than 50%.
Where it states assumptions for low-income analysis below, if they change the distribution to 30/30/20/20, they meet the standard at 49% which is lower income units on non-vacant sites. Because they distributed more units to very low and low on the vacant sites, the lower income buffer goes up to 44% so the previous was 34% and now it is 44%.
Ms. Elrod then presented a slide, stating this is where they got the explanation in the staff report which she did not clarify in the report. If they change the income distribution on vacant land to be 40/40/10/10, the buffer goes up to 56% for lower income and the percentage on non-vacant site goes even further lower to 39%. If 949 Moraga is removed from the inventory, the overall buffer is reduced to 54%.
Given that, she can explain more about the City-owned Moraga Road in the inventory. It is a 35,000 square foot, City-owned site and they are projecting 23 below market rate units on it. Keeping it in the inventory would require a significant lift in terms of what the staff work would be, timing, and milestones as outlined by HCD. They included those in the staff report, but HCD would be monitoring the City’s timeline on these things. Leaving it out would give the City more flexibility to implement other programs in the Housing Element of which there are 60 at this point. The City could still decide it wants to redevelop it for below market rate housing. It is just they would not be tied to the State’s expectation of when it gets done.
Without the site, the lower income buffer was reduced from 56% to 54% based on the 40/40/10/10 income distribution.
Regarding the last question they discussed with HCD about Campagna, if the City commits to affordable housing, they could include it in the inventory but, again, they would have the same requirements to follow as they would for 949 Moraga Road, and in discussions, staff recommends reserving that as a midcycle option in case they bump against the no net loss provisions and to leave it out for the time being.
Ms. Elrod referred to next steps and said HCD made it very clear that they cannot and will not certify the Housing Element without the rezonings to be complete because the deadline for the City to rezone was January 31, 2024. HCD recommended that the City adopt the Element and the rezonings and objective standards together at the same time. What most likely will happen is, at the point at which they get a thumbs up from the State, they will issue a letter saying they can certify the City when the City adopts its Element with the rezonings and objective standards.
The last bullet states they will meet with HCD on Thursday to review the tear sheets, the pipeline projects which are from an earlier version of the Housing Element, and Implementation Plan changes. There are the two projects that have fallen out of the pipeline and the table must be redone.
City Council Meeting Page 8 of 33 March 25, 2024
Staff’s request is to receive the presentation and continue it to April 22nd, provide staff feedback and direction on mobility actions, changes to the Implementation Plan that HCD has indicated it wants to see, the inclusion of the three opportunity sites, and the bulk of discussion would be around the percent of lower income on non-vacant sites and whether or not to keep 949 Moraga Road in the inventory.
Councilmember Anduri said he will start with what is the obvious question. He asked what does Ms. Elrod think as the importance of getting that percentage below 50%.
Ms. Elrod said the statute says if they get that number to be below 50%, they do not have to demonstrate substantial evidence in the record that these sites would be discontinued during the eight-year period.
That means not making detailed findings in the resolution, which staff would recommend doing anyway.
But, it is good to have as backup to demonstrate they have done their work to demonstrate these are real sites.
Councilmember Anduri referred to whether or not to make the findings. As he understands it, there were a couple of things they discussed over the weeks and they had a discussion where it looked as if it would be very difficult to get below the 50% that HCD had told them it had not really mattered from their standpoint because they are going to apply the same standards to deciding whether they are going to say the City’s opportunity sites are fine or not and whether they can include them or not. So, he asked if HCD changed their position at all. Ms. Elrod said, no.
Councilmember Anduri said the consequence was if they got below 49% they did not have to make that showing, so technically they do not have to make the findings. So, he asked why they would have to make the findings.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said her suggestion is if they get below the 49%, and she and Mr. Wolff have talked about it, they will still have the evidence in the record in the tear sheets and other places to show that why they think these sites can be developed, but they will not need to make findings with substantial evidence is the use will be discontinued during the planning period. That is a higher bar, so getting below the 50% is important and she thinks why staff is recommending that. At this time, if the Council can get to that, they would not make the substantial evidence findings but they would continue to have information in the record to demonstrate.
Councilmember Anduri asked if they would make findings of a certain degree. Ms. Subramanian said, no.
It is they would have the information in the tear sheets, and Councilmember Anduri agreed that is very important.
Councilmember Candell asked if there is an outside risk of legal actions that the City should protect itself against.
Ms. Subramanian agreed and said if they do not need to make those findings then they are not required by law to make those findings, and it is one less thing to potentially be challenged on.
Councilmember Anduri agreed and said they could still put all the information in the record, and Ms.
Subramanian said this is the intent; that they would continue to do that and HCD would like to see certain information, but they do not need to make the findings by law if they can get to the right percentage.
City Council Meeting Page 9 of 33 March 25, 2024
Councilmember Anduri said then the recommendation is that they not proceed to make findings if they can get to below 50% on the non-vacant sites.
Councilmember Anduri referred to getting below 50% and said most of the sites they originally had were at the RHNA percentages and he understands that they have said the City can do something else, but there was a big concern about whether they would have to rezone mid-way or they might fall out of compliance right away for a site that is heavily lower income were a site developed with above moderate income. He asked what is the City Attorney’s thinking about that now. In terms of 30/30, 20/20, or 40/40/10/10, he asked what Ms. Subramanian sees as considerations there and as follow-up he asked if that is being applied across the board.
Mr. Wolff asked if the question was whether this ratio was being applied across the board to all sites, and he said no, it is only the four vacant sites. The question regarding the factors in deciding whether to do 40/40/10/10 or 30/30/20/20 are that HCD said, provided the City falls below the 50% threshold, they will accept that. So, there is no margin of error or buffer the City would need to necessarily build into that.
Councilmember Anduri said as he understands it, it is sort of irrelevant for HCD purposes. He is more worried about the City having to come back and redo things. Ms. Elrod said this gets back at why when GPAC originally met, they discussed the distribution of units according to RHNA which was to distribute the risk of hitting no net loss by having every site assume some of the risk. One question is if the City were to do a 40/40/10/10 distribution on vacant sites, how would that change the calculus on AFFH analysis about putting more units on those vacant sites than elsewhere. This is one consideration.
The bigger consideration is really one of if you identify a lot of units in very low and low income on one site, this was the argument before of not to load it up on low and very low to the extent they could be of some above-moderate income project, they lose all those lower income units and they must find either new sites or ensure there is still buffer left to accommodate the lost units.. That is why they have a big enough buffer so they do not have to worry that for some period of time because it will eat through the buffer at some point. The idea has always been to forestall that moment at which no net loss provisions would come further and further into play into the inventory. By that time, they might already have new projects on other sites that were never envisioned.
Councilmember Anduri asked if staff is making a recommendation as to which one to do or waiting to see how things develop before making a recommendation as to 40/40/10/10 or 30/30/20/20.
Ms. Elrod said they have not discussed this, but her personal idea is not to go too far. She does not know what that means, but they will be up against three different risks—one is no net loss issues, getting not enough units on vacant land in the lower income category, and not meeting AFFH requirements. She thinks there is a fine line that is going to have to be floated.
The 30/30/20/20 is just a little bit more than what the current RHNA allocation is and it gets you to a number that is 49%, and HCD did not care whether you are at 50, 49, 35 or whatever. They are not interested in that calculus per se. But to be clear, there is not a staff recommendation and it is just her personal opinion.
Councilmember McCormick referred to 949 Moraga Road and said he understands it is nice to have it for a buffer, but they are worried about enough staff time required to hit it and also he hears that is the same scenario with Campagna. He asked if those two things are linked together.
City Council Meeting Page 10 of 33 March 25, 2024
Mr. Wolff said they are similar circumstances in that they are City-owned properties and the obligations on the City if they were to include them in the Housing Element as an opportunity site would be identical.
It is wholly a function of looking at all the other programs that the Housing Element already has and the implementation program and HCD’s desire to see as many as those implemented early in the cycle. So, it is a function of staff resources and costs associated with developing a City-owned site. He thinks everybody can agree it is an opportunity site. HCD does not define it as vacant because it has parking on it, but it is absolutely an opportunity and they have pursued it with developers in the past and explored doing a lower income housing project. It has not worked out to date, but they would certainly pursue that moving forward as opportunity presents.
Councilmember McCormick said if the City is perceived as not being forthcoming or interested in lower income housing having public sites they are developing, it seems the City is invested taking that one out.
He was not sure how to weigh running 60 programs versus having an actual site the City is helping to develop.
Ms. Elrod said she thinks the recommendation is to keep it as a program but not in the inventory because the bar for having a site that the City owns in the inventory is a lot higher than the bar if it is not in the inventory.
Councilmember Candell asked for an explanation on that. Ms. Elrod said the bar is HCD would basically want the City to make sure construction begins within a certain amount of time that it will be completed within the eight years and maybe that is a timeline that works and maybe it is not a timeline that works for the City. Many other factors could be involved. If taken out of the inventory, they still have to comply with certain aspects of the Surplus Land Act requirements, but you do not have HCD telling you that you have to have this done by a certain date. The City must commit two dates when it will be done. She thinks that is the main concern. You could start it later in the cycle, include it as a program because they want to do housing, but just do not include it in the inventory itself.
Councilmember Candell asked if public sites different than all the other sites they have as opportunity sites. Ms. Elrod said yes, it is different and she deferred that to the City Attorney.
Ms. Subramanian said she guessed the rationale is because the City controls the site, own it, and they can develop it and turn it into affordable housing within the eight-year cycle.
Councilmember Candell said this really does not answer the question. She asked what are the laws that surround it if they include it as an opportunity site and it is public land. She asked why that is any different than any of the other requirements the City has for all the other opportunity sites. She asked what are the suite of laws that govern that.
Ms. Subramanian said she cannot point to a statute that would say it has to be completed within the cycle.
Ms. Elrod said it is HCD that says it needs to be completed within the cycle, and Ms. Subramanian said it is the expectation from HCD that the City can control the site.
City Council Meeting Page 11 of 33 March 25, 2024
Councilmember Candell said the City cannot control that for any of the other sites. She asked if they were making that up and she asked why they are doing that. Also, she asked if they can do that. Ms. Elrod said yes, they can. It is because the City controls the site and like many other things the City has to commit to it to get done within the eight-year period. HCD would say this has to be done within the eight-year period.
Councilmember McCormick said if the City took out 949 Moraga Road and Campagna has never been in it to begin with, they have additional properties that come in—the Walgreen’s property, Lafayette Lane can be re-characterized because of the higher density. He asked if staff has done an assessment as to how that is affecting the totals or is it there is just a buffer higher, or that the City has the confidence to take out other sites.
Mr. Wolff said the three summaries that were on screen in the presentation with using the RHNA allocation of 30/30/20/20 and 40/40/10/10 were based on these changes that have been covered in the staff report and in tonight’s presentation with respect to those opportunity sites of Lafayette Lane, Madison Park, Walgreen’s, etc. This is why staff would be comfortable with removing 949 Moraga Road from the inventory.
Councilmember McCormick said it seems like Madison Park did not change anything because it dropped below the line but the numbers were still the same.
Councilmember Candell said the numbers are not the same when you add it back in as either a vacant site because the City takes advantage of much higher numbers.
Councilmember McCormick said staff mentioned FBOs and they talked about that for mobility. He asked if this changes the idea of including or not including FBOs in the opportunity sites. He asked what the impact is of the FBOs.
Ms. Elrod said they have to leave the FBOs in the inventory at this point. It is only taking it out as a mobility action. It is still in the mobility section of AFFH. They can move it to some other location where they can talk about the inventory, but they still need it in order to meet the RHNA allocation according to the way they have it set up.
Councilmember Candell said now they have such a big buffer, she asked why. This is why she would like to see the numbers and said the Council really should not make any decisions tonight because they can do the FBOs and now with the 56% buffer possibly they are way underneath the 50% margin, they can consider taking some of those FBOs out. Everything is on the table with the buffer that big. She reminded everybody of the 5th cycle, over 50% of their growth was outside of their Housing Element. This is why they never hit their no net loss because they do not just develop on these opportunity sites. Development happens wherever development is opportunistic at the moment. So, to be too scared of these numbers is one tact, but she asked to remember the City is not limited to developing on their opportunity sites.
They have the whole rest of the town, and this is what has been happening in the City.
Councilmember McCormick said Councilmember Candell’s points are well taken, and his final question is staff mentioned the number for mobility is now 160. So, he asked if HCD changed the number and asked if there is a target that the City is chasing that they keep changing.
City Council Meeting Page 12 of 33 March 25, 2024
Ms. Elrod said they specifically asked the City to increase each of the mobility actions outside of FBOs and add in inclusionary units, which actually is a benefit to the City because they had not included them as mobility actions.
Mayor Dawson asked if the City will still be in compliance with 949 Moraga if removed because they will still be at play for programs.
Ms. Elrod said yes, it is still an action but they are not on HCD’s timeline but on the City’s own timeline.
Councilmember Candell said on the slide that says “SB 9 and ADUs need their separate actions.” She said they already have the extra JADU if they do that. She asked if that classifies for that separate action.
Ms. Elrod said yes, that is fine for that, but if the City wants to add more ADUs they have to be above and beyond what the ADUs are in the inventory. They do not have any SB 9 units in the inventory but they would have to go above and beyond State law about allowing more units than what SB 9 allows.
Councilmember Candell said though they do not have to. Ms. Elrod said right, they do not have to do either of those things.
Councilmember Candell said when GPAC was talking about this and the City kept the RHNA numbers, she was there. They were never told they could change those numbers. So, she challenges that staff is saying GPAC wanted to spread the risk out, but GPAC did not know they were legally allowed to change those numbers. She thinks it is a little bit unfair to say they can. Therefore, if they can change those numbers, she asked why wouldn’t they change them all around town. They even got a letter about that for all of their sites, and she asked what that would end up being.
Mr. Wolff said as HCD has said, local jurisdictions have flexibility in how the income distribution is allowed to each of the sites. So, he thinks they explained previously the rationale and buy in from the entities.
They can take that aspect and start over and start exploring different income distributions on a site-bysite basis. They would not recommend it given where they are, and they are acknowledging that based on HCD’s clear, in-person response to staff at the last meeting where they said the City has that flexibility and it informs the recommendation on the 50% threshold and getting to that . So, it is an option open to the Council and staff is happy to take direction on it.
Councilmember Candell asked if HCD can really force mid-cycle changes to the Housing Element based on missed AFFH goals. She thought that they could do it based on their RHNA and opportunity sites, but she asked if they could do that based on their AFFH goals. Ms. Elrod confirmed.
Councilmember Candell asked where is their legal justification to do that. They say the City’s Housing Element is good. They adopt their Housing Element, do the rezoning, but the objective standards at the same time was new tonight. She asked for examples of other cities where they have also said to do that and legally they did, or whether Lafayette is the only one.
Mr. Wolff said it is not a requirement of HCD with respect to the Housing Element. It is a function of State law even going back to Phase 1 of the objective standards, which is why they panned out the way they did with respect to complying with State law, not imposing additional objective standards that further reduce the building envelope. The City already has objective standards and if they are upzoning then they have the opportunity to implement new objective standards.
City Council Meeting Page 13 of 33 March 25, 2024
Councilmember Candell asked if they could do them later. Mr. Wolff said not to his understanding and deferred to the City Attorney.
Ms. Subramanian said she thinks the concern is under SB 330 if they introduce constraints to development, they would need to at the same meeting have increased zoning. So, the thought was, if they have development standards that maybe have additional setbacks, step backs, or other issues that could be a constraint to the capacity of the development. If they are upzoning at the same time, then they will be able to comply with SB 330 and that upzoning will occur as part of the rezoning process discussed.
Councilmember Anduri said if the objective standards are ones that say you need to be set back from the public right-of-way eight feet you have to have the third-floor step back eight feet, this is a restraint they would have to do at the same time as you compensate by zoning. Ms. Subramanian confirmed.
Councilmember Anduri said if their objective standards show different types of buildings and different types of materials on buildings, because there is a school of thought that it is all in the quality of the materials on the building that makes the difference. So, if you require a certain type of material so if more than two stories it must be shingles and a certain quality of shingles, that kind of objective standard they can do later. Ms. Subramanian confirmed.
Councilmember Candell said there was a suggestion to add a Safety Element to environmental constraints, and she asked if they could do that. This is the new document that describes all geographical things. She asked if it would be sufficient to add that into here as environmental constraints on a lot of these sites because that is what the Safety Element did.
Mr. Wolff asked and confirmed Councilmember Candell would like to reference the Safety Element in the Housing Element with respect to environmental constraints, and he said they could do that. If there are specific locations where she thinks that would be appropriate to mention, staff can reference it, particularly those safety risks as an environmental constraint.
Councilmember Candell said there was another person the City paid as a consultant which was David J.
Powers and Associates regarding the Housing Element. She asked who this was. Mr. Wolff said he was not familiar with that consultant.
Councilmember McCormick referred to timing and said staff indicated they were coming back in four weeks. He asked if there was a reason staff was skipping a week. There is a sense of urgency to move this along, so he asked why the four-week gap.
Mr. Wolff explained it is so staff could get many of the tasks done but moreover, the primary reason is availability of staff. He is traveling that week, and the Assistant Director is out the one day.
Councilmember Candell said there was an idea coming up about opt-in upzoning in all of Lafayette for the single-family zone areas. She asked if this is something staff is familiar with and possibly could consider.
It would help fulfill some of their mobility AFFH. It would allow for separation of four parcels for sites that are from one to three acres in size to get the increased density. It is not a rezoning but opt-in program.
She said Portola Valley did that and asked if staff heard about it or could consider it.
City Council Meeting Page 14 of 33 March 25, 2024
Mr. Wolff said he is not familiar with any prior example or utility of an opt-in. The Plaza Way Overlay District is an opt-in. The district standards are set up and the process by which, but then it is up to individual property owners to utilize that program or not, thus opting in. He is not familiar with that on a city-wide single-family residential basis, so staff and the Council could explore that more as a tool.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
DAVID CLARK congratulated the City on getting the 50% computation to work, but he thinks the staff report needs to be clarified because it still says on page 5 that you intend to make the findings and there has been a different discussion tonight. Secondly, the chart that staff put up with respect to the RHNA allocations and how they arrived at less than 50%, Mr. Wolff made the comment that the top half of that chart had not changed. He thinks this is something both Councilmembers Candell and McCormick both raised. The pipeline number did not change on any of those charts, and it must be different now because they removed some things from the pipeline.
He asked how that impacts not just the 50% computation but the RHNA number. It must be a benefit because he would think the total RHNA number goes down. Therefore, the density on some of the units considered does not have to be as high as it is now. He asked what would happen if they used 40/40/10/10 for every property on the site inventory and not just the vacant properties. He thinks the City might wind up in a situation where there is no upzoning required in the downtown, which would make things far easier now. If staff runs this, they might get some starving results and they have not seen those yet.
Another risk he sees coming is the mid-cycle option and what the City will need. Some of the projects they have now are going in the wrong direction. Madison Park is out, as well as Lafayette Lane, so if those are not going to get completed in a certain period of time, the mid-cycle option will raise its head and the Council will need to re-look at things. What makes sense to him is not to upzone in anticipation of something that they do not know how it will play out. He does not even know why those projects are not moving forward and wondered if it is more profitable to sell than to try to develop, but he wondered if they should anticipate this rationale will also apply in the future to anyone applying for a building permit.
If it is, he suggested not rushing to upzone everything to the extent the City will need to re-look at it in two years anyway. But, he would be interested in seeing how the 40/40/10/10 played out.
STELLA WOTHERSPOON referred to no net loss, thinks the discussion has been very good and she reiterated that one Councilmember said you can add in developments as they happen when they are not on opportunity sites. They actually go into the spreadsheet and site inventory so they benefit the site inventory. So, you can have benefits coming in as much as you have potential losses if an actual site on the inventory is redeveloped with fewer lower income units than expected. The City can rezone after meeting no net loss. It is what the law says and the way it is done. Orinda faced this and managed to handle it with the help of their housing element consultant.
For FBOs, it sounds like these are not going to be viable as an AFFH program, and she personally thinks most of them should be taken out of the inventory. Two have said they do not want to be upzoned which she would interpret as not wanting to build on the site. HCD itself has said the City has no track record of producing these types of sites at these types of institutions, and so to prepare for rezoning or some other action at a mid-year review. The signs point to these sites as probably not working out as one had hoped and maybe the best path forward is to bite the bullet now and source the 140 lower income units at other downtown opportunity sites.
City Council Meeting Page 15 of 33 March 25, 2024
The exception could be Our Savior Lutheran and Lafayette United Methodist Churches which have both expressed interest and she thinks have a much higher likelihood as such.
Lastly, on the site inventory spreadsheet, she thanked Mr. Wolff and Ms. Elrod for sending that out. It was very helpful in answering that mysterious question about what was in the staff report and where the 61 units on vacant sites came from. One thing she noticed is that Madison Park had a deduction of 12 units and she wanted to find out why. The other is McCulough’s has a deduction of 8 units, and it does not have anyone living there. She thinks it is just all retail and maybe some storage.
JEREMY LEVINE said he wants to reflect on why we are still working on the Housing Element. It is because California faces a terrible housing crisis where people cannot afford to rent in Lafayette, where teachers cannot afford to Lafayette, and we can be part of the solution. We can make it possible to create more housing options for more types of people to enjoy the community. He hopes they can think in the final stages about what we can do to make it easier to make it more likely that the different types of housing their community needs will actually be built here. He is hoping that in the discussion they can think about what the City can do to pursue deeply affordable housing on the publicly owned site at 949 Moraga Road and to think about how to maximize the opportunity on that site. He also asked to think about how we can get more mixed income housing throughout the downtown and ensure the rezoning proposal that they have been working so hard to finalize is going to deliver the kinds of goals we are trying to achieve.
ROBERT LAVOIE said he agrees with David Clark and was going to suggest the same thing to reallocate the low-income units more generously to the existing projects and then consider seriously the option of no upzoning the existing downtown. This solves the problem of trying to upzone in a big rush, and there is also plenty of capacity there with the 35 du/acre density they already have. They can get up to 50% with current density bonus laws and now the State is talking about adding another 5% or 10% on top of that, so that gets up to 58 du/acre on the current zoning. The City can get 50-foot-tall buildings already and even higher with the existing zoning, so he asked the Council to consider that.
To explain a bit about Portola Valley, he reviewed the plan and they are a very similar town to Lafayette and have a lot of geographic limitations. They seem to have two programs for getting density out in the single-family neighborhoods. They virtually have no downtown except for a couple of office buildings, a park, and a church. So, their program is the ADUs for the AFFH and the opt-in upzoning. He explained that in his letter today. They have a few conditions and it sounds like a similar plan for Lafayette would be effective. He thinks this would be a description for the idea of gentle upzoning. One- to three-acre sites with some restrictions, two ways in and out, under 30% slope outside the very high fire zone, and stable soil.
Back to the 2.5 AFFH on missing middle bubble map, he said this is really a misnomer. One of the goals of the missing middle is to have walkability and yet, in looking at the proposed map with the one-quarter mile from the edge of the existing downtown, you are talking about way more than one-half mile away from BART from grocery stores, from pharmacies, and he suggested making that half mile or quarter mile from the actual benefits and features and not just the edge of the current downtown because that pushes into narrow streets and causes parking and other problems.
Mayor Dawson summarized comments, stating the Council is seeking clarification on page 5 and her understanding is staff will still make findings as done before but these are substantial findings like leases ending which they would not have to pursue if they went with the lower numbers.
City Council Meeting Page 16 of 33 March 25, 2024
Mr. Wolff clarified that the findings required under the statute are relative to 50% or more on non-vacant sites they would not make in the resolution.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks the existing numbers of the charts showed are not changing. The comment made was that they may have because the pipeline numbers have changed.
Mr. Wolff said he believes the pipeline numbers did not change from slide to slide because as mentioned, those three changes relative to Madison Park, Miramar, Lafayette Lane, and Walgreens were made. Then, using the pipeline projects, the affordability income distribution changes and yields the outcome. But, the pipeline projects would not change slide to slide.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks one of the issues may be that the Council is used to seeing the opportunity sites spreadsheets and fiddling with those and also seeing what the data looks like. This might be something they would want to look at, especially as they talk about further on and looking at redistributing the allocation in a different way.
Councilmember McCormick said he thinks Ms. Wotherspoon was asking about FBOs and that she would take a few out, especially those that have affirmatively said they are not interested. Mayor Dawson said she thinks this is something the Council may wish to discuss.
Councilmember Anduri said McCulough’s had 8 units subtracted and Ms. Wotherspoon was wondering why that happened.
Ms. Elrod said that was probably an error that was in the Assessor’s information and staff will correct that.
They went through every site and had staff deduct units from the potential for a given site based on existing units on the site. The same was true for Madison Park. There was a presumed number of units that were demolished that must be netted out of the totals on that site.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked if Miramar or Madison Park provide an explanation why they terminated their projects.
Mr. Wolff said he will not say either have done so explicitly, but what their conversations which are ongoing with not just those two developers but all developers staff engages with, there is a dialogue around the feasibility of building projects. Construction costs remain high albeit they are not increasing at the rate that they were during the pandemic. Labor costs are similar as well as land costs, but the big one that has been impactful is the availability of capital to fund the construction of the projects and high interest rates.
Councilmember Candell asked if staff would be willing to take a swag at how many other projects might fall into that category. She thought another small one failed too, and Councilmember Anduri said it was Samantha.
Mr. Wolff said he thinks they were listing that as a property for sale with entitlements.
Councilmember Anduri said also there are Mt. Diablo and Second Street at the northwest corner which are the townhouses.
City Council Meeting Page 17 of 33 March 25, 2024
Mr. Wolff said staff can look at those because he does not know if they can project out for any entitled project as to whether it will or will not go. They can look at the status of previously entitled projects and whether those are still valid. Some developers may choose to build their own project and others may choose to list them as an opportunity to sell for someone else to build.
Mayor Dawson suggested going down to what staff has asked the Council and asked to display the slide of what staff is looking for.
Ms. Elrod said the Council could take the mobility actions but not talk about FBOs and whether they should be included or not in opportunity sites. They will make available the spreadsheet and will post it. The only question about mobility actions is thatstaff has the FBOs which is that they are not including because they are only including them in the opportunity sites. Everything else in there, including the language HCD has requested on the number of units and if there is anything in those mobility actions the Council had specific direction about.
Then, the Council can discuss any changes to the implementation plan in general. So, opportunity sites, percent of lower income on non-vacant sites, and 949 Moraga Road are all inter-related in the sense you pull the string on one of them and other things happen with the others.
Mayor Dawson suggested starting with mobility actions less FBOs.
Mobility Actions without FBOs:
Councilmember Candell said she would like to look into the opt-in rezoning because this is a mobility one.
Ms. Elrod mentioned that HCD was satisfied with the actions the City does have so if a Councilmember has a recommendation where they want to see a program that opt-in as a replacement for some of them.
Councilmember Candell suggested replacement of the half mile bubble, and Ms. Elrod said that is a possibility. They definitely would bring it up with HCD when meeting with them on Thursday.
Mayor Dawson said based on the information Rob Lavoie provided for Portola Valley, they were sites that were one to three acres, so that is definitely not downtown. Councilmember Candell said this is why it fits the mobility so well. Mayor Dawson agreed, but she was not sure if it will provide for affordable homes, and Councilmember Candell said neither does the missing middle.
Councilmember Anduri said his reading of the tea leaves in talking with HCD is that would not satisfy them, having possibly four big homes on three acres outside of the downtown.
Councilmember Candell said if the City is willing to make them deed restricted affordable that would make sense. She asked if Councilmember Anduri is thinking the other one would come up with more.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks that is a very intriguing idea when he saw that in Rob Lavoie’s email today. This was very interesting and he is thinking about that for either the next cycle or mid-cycle because he does not think the City can do that now. There will be nothing north of the freeway. It will only be one to three acres south and there are not that many parcels that will be eligible, and those that are will be a long way from the downtown. He is not sure they would get a lot of mileage. They are close with HCD so he cannot see raising this at this point.
City Council Meeting Page 18 of 33 March 25, 2024
Councilmember Candell said counter-acting that is that the missing middle program was only going to get eight units with that huge amount of upzoning, so she does not think their stretch is far.
Councilmember McCormick asked if HCD asked the City three different times to increase that buffer from one-quarter to a half mile. Councilmember Anduri said he thinks this is the sore point, and undoing that would be concerning.
Councilmember Candell said she would still like to see what their thoughts are with the opt-in upzoning because they did it for Portola Valley and HCD approved their Housing Element. Just to see what the parameters are around it would be interesting. Mayor Dawson said SB 9 has its own set of rules, but they could say to deed restrict.
Mayor Dawson said what was proposed as far as making that number up makes sense in these various areas to her, so she did not have specific comments otherwise.
Councilmember Candell returned to the half mile issue. She thinks many people have made the argument that these should be walkable. It should not be a half mile as the crow flies, and this might help people understand the access.
Mr. Wolff agreed and said they committed at the last meeting to try to run that and were not successful in running it in-house so he offered previously to share the boundary with Ms. Wotherspoon and can do that again. They can look also for an outside resource. He also thinks the point is well taken that the DSP boundary is as a larger polygon in and of itself, and to take a half mile from that goes well beyond a half mile foot multi-modal active transportation from the actual goods and services which are essentially centered on facing Mt. Diablo Boulevard and, to some degree, Moraga Road.
So, he will broach that with HCD as to that half mile and the geographic feature it is taken from. Whether it is any of those three options he thinks they previously discussed the issues around using a buffer from a big polygon versus the network path of travel versus the actual linear boulevard and Moraga Road.
Implementation Plan Changes:
Mayor Dawson referred next to changes to the implementation plan and asked for any further direction or clarification.
Ms. Elrod said they have an action in there for 949 Moraga Road referencing all the other changes to tandem parking, emergency shelters, etc.
Councilmember Candell referred to Action 2.7; Develop incentives to obtain more units in a diversity of sizes. Goal: Obtain commitments in five housing developments of 20 or more units to ensure more diversity of units, geographic targets, multi-family residential districts, and high opportunity/high income neighborhoods to allow for greater inclusion. She does not understand what this means here.
Councilmember Anduri said this is one that has not been changed, and Ms. Elrod confirmed.
Councilmember Candell asked what this means. She asked if they were going to get five developments of 20 units or more.
City Council Meeting Page 19 of 33 March 25, 2024
Ms. Elrod said they would like to get projects that have 20 or more units to provide a diversity of ranges instead of all just one product type which encourages smaller units that would be “affordable by design”, etc. This was to get a diversity of unit sizes out of a developer to accommodate moderate income primarily.
Councilmember Candell said they cannot force that, but just ask the developers. Ms. Elrod said the City would encourage the developers to do that. When they discussed with the State about having a maximum average unit size, part of the State’s accountability unit said they thought it was potentially run afoul of HAA. So, they suggested making an encouraging action rather than a required action. So, there will be no punishment if they do not get them.
Opportunity Sites:
Mayor Dawson then referred to the opportunity sites and asked if they should go into the FBOs.
Ms. Elrod suggested taking the first three opportunity sites which were Lafayette Lane, which is now a regular opportunity site, as well as Madison Park, and now also Walgreen’s. Taking those aside, she asked if those are what the Council wants to see.
Councilmember Candell said she did not get to see the spreadsheets and how these affected the City’s allocations at all.
Ms. Elrod said they do not intend to have the Council discuss this in a vacuum, but she does not know whether it is helpful to discuss this in detail now without actually seeing it or whether the Council wants to wait until their next meeting to discuss the spreadsheet further and the issues with percent of low income on non-vacant sites, 949 Moraga Road in the inventory, what should the income distribution be, etc.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks that might be the better way to approach this because they all would appreciate the same level of information to base their decisions upon, especially since these are changes and are very important ones to look at. This might be the right way to go, but the issue is that the next time the Council will be talking about this will be almost one month out. She asked if they could get the spreadsheet.
Mr. Wolff said for tonight’s agenda where the meeting materials were, staff can upload the slide deck and the spreadsheet used internally to draft the report and come up with those images and summaries the Council saw in the presentation today. He can load it onto the website so anyone interested can use it as a workable Excel file and plug in their own assumptions.
Councilmember Anduri asked if the spreadsheet will be 40/40/10/10 or 30/30/20/20, or could they toggle back and forth. Ms. Elrod said they will be able to toggle it. She will produce some instructions on where to find the distribution on the right side which will be editable.
City Council Meeting Page 20 of 33 March 25, 2024
Councilmember Anduri asked what staff is asking the Council to do with respect to the tear sheets. Staff has added the three new ones which look fine to him, have added language to all the others, and Ms.
Elrod said they wanted the Council to see them and if there are comments or questions, they will see the entirety again anyway before they submit officially to HCD again so they can send the City a letter. Right now, the City is in an informal discussion phase with them, so for now, she asked if the Council had questions or comments about it, but this is basically has said this is what they want to see.
Councilmember Anduri said when staff meets with HCD he asked if they will talk to them using numbers that are generated by the 40/40 on the vacant or 30/30, or both.
Mr. Wolff said HCD has voiced it is agnostic with respect to the RHNA allocation of the income distribution on sites. They have said, per the statute, cities have broad discretion as to how to apply those and they discussed with them the 50% threshold and provided they fall below the 50%, HCD is satisfied.
Councilmember Anduri said when they had prior discussions, one factor in deciding to stay with RHNA across the board was that if they were to make a wholesale change that might mean HCD would look at them differently. He asked if this is not the case now.
Mr. Wolff said this is not what staff is saying. They were having a discussion with them on a narrow focus and that was their response on that narrow focus. It may be the case that a wholesale change to the RNA allocation on all of the opportunity sites brings additional scrutiny.
Councilmember McCormick said if staff is going to supply a spreadsheet where they can play with the numbers. If they do not understand that changing numbers has significant consequences, and if HCD is agnostic in changing the numbers to give the City a bigger buffer, then why wouldn’t the City do that. He asked if there is a way to characterize the risk of significantly changing the allocation.
Mr. Wolff said he does not know he can characterize that risk. HCD is responsible for reviewing and said what they will do is look at all of the sites and the analysis and rationale for including that site as an opportunity site. So, it remains to be seen.
Councilmember McCormick said they have heard from speakers as to why we just don’t do that, and if they cannot figure out the pros and cons, it is hard to make that judgment call.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks through these letters, the Council has the perception but it is true that they are under more intense scrutiny, and that is the risk itself. When doing changes, are we doing what they propose they said they were going to do in making it easy to develop affordable homes and do their part.
She thinks they have already upzoned years ago, so they want to look at how to not have to upzone prematurely. She thinks this is why it is important to have this discussion about, if they look at this allocation, what does it do but at the same time, take it all into consideration with the no net loss, etc.
City Council Meeting Page 21 of 33 March 25, 2024
Councilmember Anduri said since this has been raised, for the Council to assign 40/40/10/10 to every opportunity site it would mean assigning 89% or 90% moderate or below which is an absurdity. He cannot see Lafayette turning in a Housing Element that is an absolute absurdity. So, when the Council was told a safe haven was the RHNA allocation which in itself is an absurdity, there is no way the City will get those numbers either, he thought that was a good deal to meet. So, to him it is a compromise or a big change for their vacant sites to either be 40/40 or 30/30, so this is the way he sees it. He thinks the City would lose credibility in many eyes if they were to say they are assigning 80% very low income to every opportunity site in Lafayette.
Councilmember McCormick said then they are more comfortable with dealing with the vacant sites separately because they are their own entity.
Mayor Dawson said to the question of understanding why these developments are not happening, it is obviously not going to pencil out if they say 80%. So, she thinks if this spreadsheet goes out and they all will be able to play with it, she thinks it is important to recognize they want to do something realistic, that will pursue their goals of getting affordable housing developed in the places they might, but also that they get the Housing Element certified which is the bottom line.
Councilmember Candell asked to also be clear that legally they do not have to and this has been defended in court. They could change to those numbers. The Beverly Hills lawsuit showed that was true; that you could use whatever you want. Lafayette is an outlier using the RHNA numbers from what she has seen in many of the Housing Elements. Most of their neighbors use very different numbers than Lafayette, and these are neighbors doing a lot of building, like Walnut Creek.
So, they shouldn’t be too afraid of them because they did not know they could change them, did not know many other cities already have certified Housing Elements and they use numbers that are far more aggressive than what Lafayette is using right now. They can still choose to do all the right things and choose to make this thing go, but she asked to make it work for everybody and remember that these are just the opportunity sites. There is so much of their town that gets developed outside of their opportunity sites that are fully opportunity sites for her that make sense and have had projects on them in the last cycle. So, she understands what Councilmembers are saying, but Lafayette is an outlier.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks they are all saying the same thing. They want to consider everything but bring logical expectations, as well.
Vice Mayor Kwok said this is a great conversation, and very difficult and very technical too. Interestingly, in their earlier part of their agenda under the Consent Calendar, they approved Item 9.B which had an Excel spreadsheet showing the City’s progress in Year 1, which is page 4 of 25. This reports on what was actually built in 2023. If you say all of this building does happen outside of all of the planning, it was not 40/40/10/10. It was almost 0/0/50/50. They had 76 units built in 2023 of which 40 or more than half were above moderate. 34 were moderate, zero were low, and 2 were very low. So, this worries him to see the trend. If they look back at the last Housing Element they would see the same thing their construction is happening at the higher end. So, this worries him.
Councilmember Candell said this is across California because the tools they have been given by the State only lets them get about 10% affordable units. This is the only tool the City has. They are not giving the cities money and this is not the City’s fault. She knows the City would love to have a higher inclusionary percentage and if the State would let them do that, they would try.
City Council Meeting Page 22 of 33 March 25, 2024
Mayor Dawson said these are mandates that are not supported. The other point is that their responsibility is to point out the opportunity sites and do what they can to work with developers. They have created a tool to see if it can help with financing, but this is all they have control over.
Councilmember Anduri asked if there is anything more the City can do on opportunity sites tonight.
Councilmember McCormick asked if they were okay with Lafayette Lane, Madison Park, and Walgreens.
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers said yes.
Mayor Dawson suggested next talking about FBOs and 949 Moraga Road.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks they wanted to hold the FBOs until they had more information; to be able to look at the spreadsheet.
Councilmember McCormick said he did not think anything changed in the spreadsheet.
Mayor Dawson said there is a new law that will basically upzone these areas anyway which is SB 4. So, if that is already going to be the case. Ms. Elrod said they cannot include them in the inventory unless the City upzones them because she believes all of them are other than single-family at this point.
Mayor Dawson asked if other matters will be deferred. Ms. Elrod said she would think everything would be deferred because they are all inter-mixed. The Council has the opportunity to discuss whether or not the Council wants to follow HCD’s timeline for 949 Moraga Road or the City’s own timeline, which is what it boils down to noting that the way it stands now, the 23 units of BMR will not make that much of a difference with the inventory. That said, if people start playing with numbers and decide not to upzone this or that and take out FBOs they may need 949 Moraga Road, but they will not know that until more information has been reviewed within the inventory.
Councilmember Anduri said he is ready to discuss 949 Moraga Road. 949 Moraga Road:
Councilmember Anduri said this is where all his concern from the State comes together because here the City has staff working on 60 programs. If the City did not have all these State mandates they could just work on building housing to the extent they can do it in the current financial environment. But instead, over the next few years, they will have to work on all of these programs that might be helpful but do not directly lead the building of housing. So, staff recommends they take this 100% affordable project off the table because all other projects are taking all the time that would go to that. To him, this is a signal of the failure of this whole process.
They talk about whether they need it for the surplus or bubble but these are units the City can actually build. They only got two built last year, but this is 23 units that when put in the plan and said they are going to do this, they will do their best to get it done in four years and then they would have some affordable units. He understands the burden on staff. He just thinks it is an incredible shame if they have to take that out. He also worries about the signal that might send to others if Lafayette takes a 100% affordable project out of the opportunity sites, but he definitely is understanding of what it takes to run the department and get things done with all of the other items on staff’s plates.
City Council Meeting Page 23 of 33 March 25, 2024
Mayor Dawson said they are also discussing fiscal sustainability and obviously staff resources are very important but to develop a plan for that site does take a lot from the City to incentivize that, and the City does not have that money either. So, this is also a factor.
Councilmember McCormick asked if they will take the recommendation to leave it in for now so they can see the spreadsheet and then look at it again. Mayor Dawson said yes, but she will not be at the May meeting so hopefully the Council will be able to have input.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to Item 4; the percent of lower income on non-vacant sites. Staff talked about a 40/40/10/10, 30/30/20/20, and asked if there is any point where staff will make its recommendation on this or he asked if staff was expecting staff to give direction on this.
Mr. Wolff said staff is happy to bring a recommendation to the next meeting.
Mayor Dawson thanked staff for the on-going work and wished them well with the Thursday meeting with HCD.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to continue the matter to the April 21, 2024 City Council meeting.
Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Dawson called for a break at 9:04 p.m. and thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m.
B. Matt Luttropp, Engineering Services Manager
Reconfiguration of Roundabout at Pleasant Hill Road and Olympic Blvd and Surface Seal Project Recommendation: Direct staff to complete design plans and bid for construction to include new rectangular rapid flashing beacon signs on the east and west legs of Olympic Boulevard at the roundabout and consolidate signage using new roundabout specific signs.
Engineering Services Manager Matt Luttropp gave the staff report and overview of the proposed work relating to reconfiguration of the roundabout at Pleasant Hill Road and Olympic Boulevard and the 2024 surface seal project. He described elements reviewed and recommended by the TransCirc Commission, comments from the Fire District relating to speed humps, signage for the roundabout and rapid flashing beacon signs for the east leg of the roundabout.
Staff recommends installation of the extra rectangular flashing beacon sign, to consolidate the signage at the roundabout with the new brown signs, and to make permanent the changes staff has temporarily provided.
Mr. Luttropp also stated Councilmembers Candell and Anduri, Matt Bertics, and he held a meeting to walk the legs of the roundabout to see how vehicles are behaving. Mr. Bertics mentioned his concerns about how fast vehicles go around both of the free right turns and that if people are driving at a high rate of speed around the free right turns, there is not a lot of time for them to recognize a pedestrian in the crosswalk on the leg they are about to turn onto and also check for vehicles that may be coming out of the roundabout.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
City Council Meeting Page 24 of 33 March 25, 2024
MATT BERTICS said he lives next door to the roundabout and he walks there every day. The City has done much to try to slow down drivers as they approach the traffic circle, but this is only half the problem. He is here to talk about the threats to pedestrian life safety at the exits of the roundabout. He found information on-line from the Federal Highway Administration that provides insights into driver behavior at roundabouts. Research has shown that drivers typically accelerate as they exit a roundabout and they also are less likely to yield to pedestrians and crosswalks at the exits than they are at the entries. The thought is that once drivers have entered a roundabout they may feel they have gained the right of way and are less likely to yield. What makes matters worse is the traffic at a roundabout is uncontrolled as compared to a controlled intersection with stop signs or traffic lights, so instead of stopping and looking both ways before proceeding at a roundabout, the driver looks left to make sure it is clear to enter and then once in the intersection at speed, looks right to where they are exiting.
At the roundabout, the distance from the traffic circle to the exit at the west crosswalk is about 40 feet.
This is a short stopping distance and he has done the math on how long it would take to get a driver to stop at 15 mph. It is 1.5 seconds. It is even worse if the driver is accelerating faster than 15 mph and/or has taken a split second longer to look in the direction they are heading. Flashing beacons, while effective as a warning as the straight approaches to the entries, may not be seen in time at the exits that are effectively semi-blind or blind corners. Combining all these factors together along with other conditions such as excessive speed, limited sight lines from trees at the corners, glare from a setting sun, nighttime conditions, or rainy conditions is a recipe for disaster.
One effective solution would be to slow down drivers with raised crosswalks and increase reaction time throughout the entire intersection with drivers accelerating only after they have safely passed the exit crosswalks. In fact, Kimly Horn in discussions with the City, recommended them in their 2022 report for just this purpose. As an added bonus, southbound Pleasant Hill Road can be restored to two full lanes.
He would hope that the Fire District would prioritize the ever-present need for pedestrian life-safety over operational concerns they may have. There is an opportunity here for Lafayette to lead by example in their promotion of the Slow Down Lafayette campaign. He asked the Council not to wait until someone else gets hurt or dies at this intersection to install raised crosswalks and finally make this entire roundabout safe for all.
Councilmember Candell said if the City puts in any more changes, she asked what this does to the timelines for when staff needs to go out and get bids, etc.
Mr. Luttropp said right now the project is slated to go out to bid this week.
Councilmember Candell said if the City implements the changes now and then in the future they realize more improvements are needed, she asked if these are still possible and maybe even the speed humps but not the raised ones in the crosswalks.
Mr. Luttropp said if in the future the City can convince the Fire District to allow whatever it is we want to do, then nothing we are doing now precludes the City from adding these changes. The only thing they are doing now that would be somewhat costly to undo would be the lane drop. But, having a lane drop and speed humps, if allowed, would not necessarily be a bad thing. They are finding the lane drop did not create traffic congestion or any of the issues people thought it was going to create.
City Council Meeting Page 25 of 33 March 25, 2024
Mayor Dawson said she is glad the pilot slowed down the traffic which was successful. She thinks the City will continue to work on this and asked for other comments.
Councilmember Anduri asked if staff considered moving the crosswalk on the westbound south side down another 20 feet.
Mr. Luttropp said that was not a consideration or something that was brought up. He knows as part of the public comments received one person suggested moving the crosswalk further to the west to roughly where the driveway entrance is to the gravel parking lot for the park. He thinks the concern is the further you move a crosswalk away from an intersection, the more and more it starts looking like a mid-block crosswalk which has its own set of dangers associated with it because then it may not be expected to be there.
By moving the west leg crosswalk 20 feet further away from the intersection might be beneficial. It obviously provides 20 more feet for drivers to realize there is someone in the crosswalk, although arguably it also gives them 20 more feet to go even faster, but it is something that could be considered in the future because it would require quite a bit of reworking of that intersection.
Councilmember McCormick commented that the sign redesign and consolidation is quite good. It reminds him of the ones that work in Europe that work well. Right now, the visual hazard of all the signs out there is just almost too much to take sensory-wise.
Mayor Dawson asked if the size of the signs will not be an obstruction themselves, and Mr. Luttropp said they will be in the center median where other signs currently are. Some are a little bigger than existing signs but they can be accommodated in the medians. He believes Stella Wotherspoon is the person who started that process.
Councilmember Candell said she is in favor of this knowing the City will be watching this diligently and thinking about all the things that they have done, but to see how this rolls out. Maybe with the curbs and RRFBs coming in, hopefully the City provided a better solution with this final design. Therefore, she voiced support for approval.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/McCormick) to direct staff to complete design plans and bid for construction to include new rectangular rapid flashing beacon signs on the east and west legs of Olympic Boulevard at the roundabout and consolidate signage using new roundabout specific signs. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
C. Matt Luttropp, Engineering Services Manager
Mt. Diablo Blvd Surface Seal and Sidewalk Improvements
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the addition of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements shown on the plans between 3675 Mount Diablo Boulevard and Mountain View Drive be included in the project scope of work and that the costs associated with the frontage improvements be included in the project budget.
Engineering Services Manager Matt Luttropp gave the staff report and overview of the Mt. Diablo Boulevard surface seal and sidewalk improvements.
City Council Meeting Page 26 of 33 March 25, 2024
He noted the owner of Diamond K, Bill MacGrath is supportive of this as the City is building the sidewalk in front of their yard using steel reinforced sidewalk and driveway so he can still drive the fully loaded forklifts over it. Staff has been working with him to ensure the grades are such that forklifts will not have a problem getting in and out of that location. Staff proposes to sign the portion of parallel parking as loading and unloading only, so this preserves his ability to have his semi-trucks park there. They tend to do that astonishingly quickly and it is usually very early in the morning.
Staff is also restriping the parking along that frontage so it will be diagonal and with this, it will keep the tail end of the vehicles out of the bike lane in front of Diamond K and what may potentially be a Circle K in front of 3667 Mt. Diablo Boulevard. Two parking spaces may get converted to a van-accessible handicap space if Circle K comes to fruition. The north side of the street fronting the Lennar project has been repaved by them so this portion does not need to be surface sealed.
Staff recommends the Council approve the addition of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements shown on the plans between 3675 Mount Diablo Boulevard and Mountain View Drive be included in the project scope of work and that the costs associated with the frontage improvements be included in the project budget.
Councilmember McCormick said this is definitely needed work. He referred to the new application for a Circle K and parking. Staff mentioned there might be a few things that change based upon Circle K’s application which they might change one space to van-accessible handicapped space versus not changing it.
Mr. Luttropp explained right now, he pointed to the spaces currently in the front of the Circle K property.
They are proposing combining two spaces which provides enough space to make a van-accessible handicapped space, so he believes one or two spaces are lost.
Councilmember McCormick said he knows the application went to the Planning Commission and it will return in May. He asked if there is any concern that if this application takes a while, will it impede staff’s work or he asked if it is just a striping issue.
Mr. Luttropp said he is proceeding with what he proposes to build. If Circle K builds their improvements first, he will work around it, but if they build their improvements afterwards, they can redo the portion in front of their property. To make this a van-accessible space they will need to put a handicap ramp on the sidewalk which is entirely on their property. It is an odd right-of-way and the parking spaces are in the public right-of-way. The sidewalk is on private property and tucked back, so it is odd. So, no matter what happens, staff can work around it either way.
Councilmember Candell asked if the Circle K and Diamond K put signs up to make them only Diamond K and only Circle K.
Mr. Luttropp said “no” because the parking spaces are in the public right-of-way. He knows one suggestion has been to put up signs that say “15-minute parking,” and arguably they could do that. He knows Mr.
MacGrath was not in favor of putting in parking meters since those would have to go on private property, it makes for an odd situation, as well. So, he thinks the “15-minute parking” signs would be easier to implement. He thinks people need to be somewhat realistic about enforcement of those. It takes parking enforcement a good amount of time to go from one end of town to another, so it might be longer than 15- minutes before they cycle back.
City Council Meeting Page 27 of 33 March 25, 2024
Mayor Dawson said at some point they will have to bring up the parking issue, especially given the development across the street is going in which might come up. She referred to Mountain View Drive and asked when that will be on the surface seal project because that goes across the street to the Trader Joe’s corner where the bumps are.
Mr. Luttropp said it is all part of the same project, and that part does not have any controversy at all.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
BILL MACGRATH, co-owner of Diamond K, said in the audience is his sister, Ann MacGrath Coleman and he apologized for not being present at the meeting. The MacGrath family has owned Diamond K for 76 years and Diamond K has been in Lafayette for 88 years. A man named Keisel is the reason it is called Diamond K. When his parents bought it, they were afraid to change the name to a Diamond M thinking they might lose customers. They are not related to Circle K but they hope to make it to their 100th year.
When Mr. Luttropp called him two months ago to tell him they were going to put an 8’ sidewalk in front of Diamond K, he thought it would be the end of Diamond K because an 8’ sidewalk pushes their trucks 8’ further towards the bike lane which scares him. He does not want to have any conflicts with bicycles or any other vehicles in the travel lanes. He explained they usually have big, 40’ long flatbed trucks come in at 6:15 a.m. They can have them unload and on the road in 30 minutes. When Mr. Luttropp called him he was concerned about the loss of their loading area, but Mr. Luttropp spent a lot of time with him. They would exchange ideas and he stayed late on the meeting just to compliment Mr. Luttropp and staff.
They came to an agreement which is a win/win for everybody. In the packet on page 21 of 24, the Council will see his letter which compliments staff and also sets forth the terms of the agreement. They will have a loading zone only next to the curb and this way, they will not have parkers who will prevent trucks from being unloaded. He and his sister are both here to compliment the City staff. It is nice when you can have civil discussions back and forth and come to an agreement that works. So, from Diamond K’s standpoint, they urge the Council to approve this. They may be back talking about Circle K and parking, and he may accept the invitation of 15 or 20-minute signs that indicate limited parking because no one comes to Diamond K for more than 20 minutes. He is hoping no one will go to the Circle K for more than 20 minutes.
Right now, there are no time limits on the parking which is his concern. So, he thanked staff and the Council for serving Lafayette. Having watched the meeting tonight is an excellent example of civics, and he voiced support.
Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers thanked Mr. MacGrath for his comments, support of staff and the Council, and for the Diamond K business.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Anduri) to approve the addition of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements shown on the plans between 3675 Mount Diablo Boulevard and Mountain View Drive be included in the project scope of work and that the costs associated with the frontage improvements be included in the project budget. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes:
None).
12. STAFF REPORTS – None.
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.
City Council Meeting Page 28 of 33 March 25, 2024
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 McCormick reported on his attendance to the MCE Board meeting wherein the Board approved their fiscal budget which had a surplus. MCE will be offering small and medium businesses in May a $25/month credit on their bill and all they have to do is apply.
Councilmember Candell stated the Council held its goal setting retreat on Saturday, March 23rd and the good news is the City is a very cohesive group in terms of their long-term and short-term goals, and everybody will be hearing a lot about fiscal sustainability. The City is facing fiscal instability in the future unless they take some action.
B. Legislation Committee Recommendations on Legislation Platform, Bills of Local Importance and Bill Matrix
i. Legislative Platform
Recommendation: Adopt the existing legislative platform without changes. ii. Bills of Local Importance
a. AB 1999 (Irwin) – Electricity: fixed charges
Recommendation: Support
b. AB 2236 (Bauer-Kahan) – Solid waste: reusable grocery bags: standards: plastic film prohibition
Recommendation: Support
c. AB 2430 (Alvarez) – Planning and zoning: density bonuses: monitoring fees Recommendation: Oppose unless amended
d. SB 834 (Portantino) – Vehicles: preferential parking: residential, commercial, or other development project
Recommendation: Support
e. SB 951 (Wiener) – coastal zone: City and County of San Francisco Recommendation: Watch
f. SB 1055 (Min) – Accessory dwelling units: regional housing need Recommendation: Watch
iii. Bill Matrix
Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Council Meeting Page 29 of 33 March 25, 2024
Casey Elliott, Townsend Public Affairs, said there are a couple of items before the City Council. The first is a legislative platform presentation, stating the Legislative Committee in reviewing the legislative platform adopted at the beginning of last year is recommending no additional changes. Staff reviewed the platform, had no additional edits, and the platform would be consistent with what was passed last year.
The second item relates to bills considered by the Legislative Committee at their meeting last week. There are five bills recommended for position, which he reviewed, as follows:
AB 1999 (Irwin): This is in response to State legislation approved in 2023 which allows for investor-owned utilities to create fixed chargesfor customers based upon income levels. As this process is running through the CPUC, the legislature is realizing that fees being considered are significant above and beyond what was contemplated by the legislature at the time. As such, AB 1999 would change that and establish the maximum fixed rate fee that would be $10/person or $5/residential customer if they are enrolled in the CARE program. This would be for lower income individuals. By way of comparison, the current proposal going through for fixed rate in the PG&E service territory, the average fixed rate would end up being $53/month, which can slide to $15 on the low end and $92 on the high end. This would lower that for all PG&E customers. For MCE customers, they already pay their fixed fee as part of that monthly charge, so this would not impact MCE customers. The recommendation is for support.
AB 2236 (Bauer-Kahan): This bill expands on the State’s efforts to curb plastic bag pollution. This measure is being sponsored by a coalition of environmental groups as well as the California Grocers Association and would limit the additional circumstances in which a grocery store can provide a single use plastic bag and would encourage more reusable bags or paper bags. This effort is being done in cooperation with the Grocers Association so they are moving that effort forward. The recommendation is for support.
AB 2430 (Alvarez): This recommendation has a position of “Oppose unless amended.” This bill would stipulate that if an affordable housing development has a monitoring agreement with the State through TCAC or HCD or the Debt Limit Allocation Committee, a local government could not charge a fee to that development for monitoring their affordability convenance. The position recommended would be “Oppose unless amended” to specify the amendment would be to require that if this bill is going to remove the abilities of cities to charge monitoring fees that it also explicitly be stated that local governments also do not have to monitor for compliance; that compliance requirements be handled at the State level.
SB 834 (Portantino): This bill was gutted and amended. Last year, the City Council took a support in concept position on the previous version of the bill which was a proposed housing bond. The housing bond language has been completely removed from this bill so, as such, the City’s previous position regardless of what is done here would go away.
The new bill would prohibit a local government from issuing a preferential parking permit to any resident or vendor for a development located within one-half mile of public transit and was specifically exempted from parking requirements as part of its development. So, if a residential or commercial development comes to the City and uses State provisions or density bonus law to get some concessions so they do not have to require parking, they then cannot turn around and request that the City provide them preferential parking treatment in public zones. The request is to support this bill.
City Council Meeting Page 30 of 33 March 25, 2024
SB 951 (Wiener): At the time the materials were put together for the Legislative Committee this bill dealt with modifications to the Coastal Zone within the City and County of San Francisco. This bill has since been amended. The amendments which were taken about 1 ½ weeks ago remove the most controversial provisions of the bill which were to shift the coastal boundary within San Francisco as it pertains the Coastal Act. Now as it stands, SB 951 would just require that any modifications to local coastal plans that originate from rezonings required under Housing Element law must be done on the same timeline as that rezoning itself. So, there would be a single timeline depending upon the rezoning, which would typically be 1-3 years to bring both the compliance for zoning as well as the Coastal Act at the same time. Those local coastal plans are still subject to review by the Coastal Commission.
There is currently a “watch” recommendation given the amendments that were taken. He believes this will remove a significant amount of the opposition that existed on the original version of the bill in that it no longer proposes to move the Coastal Act boundaries.
SB 1055 (Min): This bill has a “watch” recommended position. This bill would state that if a local agency meets all of its RHNA numbers, it would then be able to make some modifications to ADU law, specifically it would be able to limit the height of ADUs from the existing 25 feet within statute to 16 feet which was previous statute.
Councilmember Anduri said he is not sure he understands SB 834. He referred to the first page which says “recommendation for support” but on the explanation it states “no support or opposition for the current version of the bill.” He asked what is the recommendation.
Councilmember Candell said she thinks this means there is no one supporting it or opposing it yet, so the recommendation is pending Committee input.
Mr. Elliott confirmed and said since this bill has not been heard in the Legislative Committee in its current form, the official support and opposition outside stakeholders would provide has not been made official yet. The original recommendation, given the City had a position on it as it went to the Legislative Committee, was “pending Committee input” so this is where that recommendation came from.
Councilmember McCormick said to Councilmember Anduri’s point, the first page states a recommendation for “support” and this is the confusion. It should say “watch” or “pending.” Councilmember Candell clarified that the Committee does want to indicate they want to support it on the agenda.
Mayor Dawson noted on the agenda it states they are supporting it, but on the summary underneath status it states no support or opposition for the current version of the bill on record. Mr. Elliott said he probably could have phrased that better on the staff report. This was intended to indicate support or opposition from external groups.
Councilmember Anduri said it is the next page where it states “Recommendation.” Under that, it says “pending Committee input.” Councilmember Candell confirmed the Committee supports it.
Councilmember Anduri said he found SB 1055 to be very confusing too, but after the Council approves a certain number of ADUs then the City can require them not to go above 16 feet. He asked what is bad about that.
City Council Meeting Page 31 of 33 March 25, 2024
Councilmember Candell said the City has a certain number of ADUs that are in the Housing Element, and she asked if it is when they hit their ADU count or she asked is it if the City meets all of their targets.
Mr. Elliott confirmed it is the latter. An agency would have to meet all of their RHNA targets and not just those related to ADUs.
Councilmember Candell likened them to not very big carrots. Mayor Dawson said their discussion was that this was carrots more than sticks, but this was an unreasonable carrot to attain. So, they did not think should be a win when they would rather it be something more attainable or inspirational.
Councilmember Anduri referred to the third paragraph which states, “SB 1055 provides an opportunity for cities to revert to ministerial approval of 16 feet if it entitles enough affordable housing units.” Councilmember Candell said this is like if the City meets its VLI and LI, so it is all affordable housing.
Mayor Dawson said Laguna Beach has ADUs that people are popping up high to get views to the ocean, so they are watching this and could hardly support this kind of carrot.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
LIBBY HENRY said the agenda states on SB 951 to “discuss concerns and direct.” She asked what this means, but so far it does not mean any action being taken. Knowing the deadline for letters to be submitted to the legislative portal for the first hearing on SB 951 is this Thursday. This is why she wanted to urge strongly that the Council write an opposition letter for SB 95 1 in its entirety. She believes Mr.
Elliott blasted over many important details about this very bad bill. Scott Wiener did amend it, but he included a fact sheet after his amendment and he was not sure if Mr. Elliott has seen this, but in the bill, Senator Wiener states that the bill will “refine the role of the California Coastal Commission in coastal communities.” What he intends to do is take them out of the picture.
In other words, this will usurp the Commission’s authority to be involved in this at all. It is a direct attack on the Coastal Commission which was voter-approved 52 years ago. Senator Wiener wants to unilaterally destroy it and the coast-line that belongs to the people of California. For him to even suggest to get rid of everything is so abominable to her. She thinks the Council needs to support the California Coastal Commission in opposition to this. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors also voted unanimously against this, and she believes there are many, many coastal cities up and down California that are opposing this.
The reason he took San Francisco out was so he could include everybody else. She offered to send a copy of her letter to the Council.
Councilmember Candell said they are watching this one and it just changed prior to their Committee meeting. It was tough to understand it, but now as they understand it, Senator Wiener took all the teeth out of SB 951 so currently there is not anything in there. In this particular bill, there are not ‘teeth’ but they realize it could change at any moment. As soon as it changes, they can jump on it. Even other people in San Francisco and the Coastal Commission will be voting on all of these bills as they stand the week of April 11th and they may also change their views on this one if it stays the way it is. It does not mean there are other bills out there, and the Committee has asked Mr. Elliott to bring all of those to the Council because the others do have a lot of teeth.
City Council Meeting Page 32 of 33 March 25, 2024
ROBERT LAVOIE asked if he heard correctly that AB 1699 puts a cap on PG&E’s progressive fees for utility bills. He recommended that the Council not recommend progressive utility charges if this is what the bill states. He thinks people should pay for what they use and if they do not use it, they will pay less. Having economic tests is too complicated, and also he asked why PG&E needs to know how much he makes. It is just like health insurance based on one’s income, which is absurd.
Anything that Senator Wiener proposes he would say is very suspicious, so this is a big “no “ for him, but he will see what happens. He also got a big laugh from SB 1055 if anyone meets their RHNA numbers.
Mayor Dawson said AB 1999 is basically not the income-based charge. It is going with a flat rate which is much more amenable because it did not take into account people’s usage and complications.
Vice Mayor Kwok thanked Mr. Elliott for the work to review periodically the City’s matrix to ensure the bills are something the Council agrees with. He also said all bills are very complicated and having a subcommittee work on them and having outside help from Mr. Elliott’s firm is also very helpful. Some of the bills like the electricity charges and plastic bags are some things he takes an interest in, and others are fairly complex. So, he recognized the Legislative Committee and voiced support of the recommendations.
Mayor Dawson pointed out that the City’s platform adopted in 2022 was reviewed, but if there are other bills to bring forward, she asked that this be done so the Council can discuss them. She thanked Mr. Elliott for his work and representation.
Vice Mayor Kwok said the back half of the attachment has all of the bills Mr. Elliott is tracking with a color coding which was very helpful to see where they are tracking. One bill he is personally interested in is just generally the move towards remote participation in government, even though that did not make the top six list. He emphasized that it is new in the State and something that the City is trying to engage the public through and using Zoom at the Council level and other bodies. He knows not all of their peer cities are doing that, but he is interested in knowing any guidance on how to do this right in the future for democracy. There are costs of holding Zoom meetings, as it is not free, and he would encourage continued monitoring of those types of bills so the Council can be informed.
Mr. Elliott said he is happy to be of assistance. As it relates to the Zoom meetings, AB 817 is the big bill this session and the City took a support position on that last year. As the bill continues to move this year, they will be engaged on behalf of the City for that effort.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/McCormick) to adopt the existing Legislative Platform without changes and adopt the “support” versus “watch” positions on the bills in the agenda. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
16. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. E-mail from Rabbi Labkowski requesting a street closure and no parking zone on Golden Gate Way between First and Second Streets for Chabad of Lamorinda Celebration on April 14, 2024 between 12pm to 6pm.
Recommendation: Consider adoption of Resolution 2024-14.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
City Council Meeting Page 33 of 33 March 25, 2024
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Kwok/Candell) to adopt Resolution 2024-14. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
17. ADJOURNMENT – 10:23 p.m. in honor of American Red Cross Founder Clara Barton.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Gina M. Dawson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk