City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 42 April 22, 2024 7 City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall April 22, 2024 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 6:00 p.m.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, City Council/Board meetings will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing (Zoom) option. To participate virtually in the City of Lafayette’s public meetings and provide public comment, please follow these steps:
1. Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube.
2. Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public can provide public comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] for City Council meetings no later than noon the day of the meeting. Those e-mails will be distributed to City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3. Live Remote Public Comments: Technology permitting, members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing by using the link below. You must download the Zoom app or software. Zoom meetings can be accessed by telephone, computer, or smart device. When the Mayor invites public comment for the item on which you would like to comment, please use the "raise hand" feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) to alert staff you have a public comment to provide. Each speaker is allowed three (3) minutes to speak.
4. At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89008805648?pwd=ODQxRGxzaGNHSWVITUVFalFuUHBIZz09 Passcode: 426199 Or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128
Webinar ID: 890 0880 5648 Passcode: 426199
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 42 April 22, 2024 Mayor Dawson called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Dawson, Vice Mayor Kwok; Councilmembers Anduri, Candell, and McCormick
Absent: None
Present: Planning Commission: Chair LaBonge, Commissioners Farzan, Mason (arrived late), and Radonich
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Sonia Urzua, Assistant Planning and Building Director; Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner; Anna Tolle, Assistant Planner; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa referred to Item 10.G. and staff asks that it be removed and continued to the next Council meeting.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/Anduri) to adopt the agenda, as amended to remove Item 10.G. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick Noes: None).
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Mayor Dawson.
Noted Present:
Planning Commissioner Mason arrived and was noted as present at 7:05 p.m.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Items not on the agenda) – None.
7. JOINT SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION (6:00 to 7:00 p.m.) A. Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner
Project Description: MCR01-24 - Tree Ordinance Update: City-initiated amendment of the City of Lafayette’s Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 6-17 of the Lafayette Municipal Code) to address issues identified by the City Council and Planning Commission, City staff, tree permit applicants, stakeholders, and the public.
Recommendation: Receive a presentation summarizing the proposed Tree Protection Ordinance update, take public comments, and provide direction to staff.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 42 April 22, 2024 Senior Planner Arly Cassidy introduced the item which is a joint meeting to discuss the Tree Ordinance Update and to ask for Council and Planning Commission feedback on key issues as described in the staff report. She introduced Heather Coleman of Code Words, who will provide the staff report.
Heather Coleman of Code Words, consultant, provided the staff report and said she will be looking for feedback from Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners and on the proposed work plan. She provided a background of the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, Council priorities affecting the update, community engagement, review and analysis, and to identify issues the update will address. Ms. Coleman also requested feedback on whether to hold a second joint meeting to review alternatives. In lieu of having both the Council and Planning Commission meeting together, the Council could direct staff to draft an ordinance and could review during the public hearings and adoption process.
Ms. Coleman described outreach efforts with arborists, Fire District representatives, and people involved with and highly interested in the Tree Protection Ordinance for ideas on how it could be improved. They will conduct a survey where tree permit applicants can share their experiences in getting a permit, said the project will be advertised in the Weekly Round Up and the City will hold public hearings to consider the draft ordinance.
She then described the issues the ordinance update should address which are listed in the staff report regarding types, sizes, replacement trees, objective requirements, recommended tree list, streamline processes for tree permits, ensuring replacement trees are planted, hazardous trees, trees maintained by the City, appeal procedures, fire risk coordination with the Fire District, utilities and infrastructure and trees.
Ms. Coleman said they seek feedback on whether to hold a joint meeting to hear about alternative approaches to updating the ordinance, what goals they would like to see come out of it, and whether changes or additions are needed to the list of key issues presented.
Mayor Dawson asked for any questions from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Farzan said with respect to the alternatives, he asked if this is language they would look at, which is “Ordinance drafting after the fact.” With respect to the five priorities, he asked if wildfire management would be the top priority since that is the reason they are thinking about changing the tree ordinance.
Ms. Cassidy referred to Question A, the alternatives; she said the idea is that staff is coming to the Commission and Council before fully developing ordinance. Before getting into the language development and what direction they would take, such as replacement trees and their number. Staff will hopefully come with two or three options for each major question and there will be more detail included. The idea is to get alternatives hammered out before developing the actual language of the ordinance.
The idea of this joint meeting is that when reviewing the ordinance, most issues have been hammered out and it is more about refining the language. Regarding the five items, she confirmed they were not in priority order.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 42 April 22, 2024 Commissioner Mason referred to Item 4 and said he thinks two things would fall under the umbrella.
There are many narrow tree-lined streets where a tree and branches come down and where roads could be blocked. He wondered if an inventory should be done to determine where people are most at risk. The other issue is they talk about wildfire, but if they are just looking at this as Lafayette or also taking Moraga in with it because there are only so many exits out of Moraga and three of them go through Lafayette, they are all narrow two-lane roads. Anyone who has tried to go to St. Mary’s graduation can see how those roads get backed up. They may not be able to get emergency vehicles in and people out at the same time.
Secondly, he has a concern about the creeks and again trees and branches, creating a dam with flooding issues. Over the last two winters they have had severe storms. He regularly visits Mendocino and trees down there are common. So, he just wants to identify these as something to consider.
Mayor Dawson suggested getting questions from the Planning Commissioners and then questions from Council, and it might be best to help staff go question by question.
Chair LaBonge said the only question he would have for staff would be on the need for the joint meeting.
He asked if it could be something reviewed or decided upon at another time or he asked if it would definitely need to happen.
Ms. Cassidy said there is no requirement that a decision be made, but it would be nice because both bodies are in the room. Certainly, future meetings will be held with each body individually, and staff could return with that question.
Councilmember Candell said in the Safety Element, there is one program which addressed emergency removal of trees and not necessarily removal for defensible space. She wondered if this is in the Safety Element somewhere else. Ms. Cassidy said yes, the one program referenced here is the only program or policy that references the tree protection ordinance itself. There are, in fact, many policies and programs referencing vegetation management and defensible space under the Wildfire Section of the Safety Element.
Councilmember Candell asked if they can talk with MOFD and Con Fire about their new ordinances too, and Ms. Cassidy confirmed.
Councilmember Candell said under wildfire management bullet, it seems it is still restrictive. If there is an oak tree that is protected and it is in the defensible space, there was no carve out for that. She asked if this is something they can carve out as well.
Ms. Cassidy said they have not gone into the very specifics of what they want to talk about. They are very interested in Con Fire’s new defensible space policy and want to hold more dialogue about that and how it interfaces with the tree ordinance. They are interested in sorting out how more desirable and/or heritage-like trees might be preserved, but also paying attention to defensible space for homeowners.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember McCormick said in reflecting on what has changed since the last time the tree ordinance was updated, they are also hearing homeowners’ insurance are directing a lot of this vegetation mitigation and management which was not the case before. He asked if this is something adding to the ordinance, such that someone is being forced to cut down a tree because the homeowner insurance is mandating it to keep insurance. Or he asked if this is tracked under the standard fire mitigation.
Ms. Cassidy said it is definitely not mentioned by name in the current tree protection ordinance. This is an excellent suggestion and something they can look into as part of this update.
Councilmember Anduri said the City already has an exception in the ordinance under B.3 to maintain defensible space on land covered by flammable material. He asked if this has not been sufficient to cover the situation mentioned.
Ms. Cassidy said she thinks the desire here is to make the tree protection ordinance very clear in how it should be implemented and, while there might be a policy or program in the Safety Element that describes the situation, they want to be very explicit so homeowners can read the ordinance and understand exactly how it would be implemented on their property. They will pull more thoroughly from the Safety Element and make sure cross-pollination of these documents is more explicitly described so someone who reads the ordinance knows exactly what is and is not allowed or what documentation they will need in order to remove a tree with or without a permit.
Vice Mayor Kwok said since this is a kick-off meeting, he sees the Council will be working with Heather Coleman for a length of time, and he asked her to introduce herself and provide a brief background working with tree ordinances, and Ms. Coleman provided a brief background.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
ALISON HILL said she is speaking as a resident and a friend of oak trees. She lives in Lafayette Oaks, has 10 oak trees on one-third of an acre which are quite large, and she worked with the City on a very large oak tree that had to come down. She spoke about arborists and biologist tree expert who confirmed the tree was dying and it had to be removed or else it would fall on her house. The oak tree was actually on the City’s property, and thousands of dollars later, her tree was gone.
She spoke about the importance of oak trees in the environment, those involved in writing about oaks, and the need for oaks to receive special respect. She suggests that in addition to the zoning and planning experts that there be experts in oaks or native trees, which is more than an arborist. Jean Ateljevich was a Planning Commissioner fully knowledgeable on native species as well as Karen Maggio. While fire safety is important, the City must balance that with climate change and the need for shade to keep everything from drying out.
DAVID CLARK said he is not familiar with the tree ordinance and is glad to see the City is going to address defensible space aspects. He said he lives by the Reservoir and Farmers Insurance dropped their coverage late last year. One option they had was to create defensible space, and he questioned the trade-off. It turns out that between Farmers and the State FAIR plan, they offer a discount of between 2% and 4% of the premium so the incentive from insurance companies is not huge, so he was not sure how this might come into play into what may wind up being in the ordinance, but this is what is happening. He has not looked into removing any trees, but he imagines it is far more expensive.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 42 April 22, 2024 Another idea is that some of the feedback they received from Farmers for the non-fire coverage was that it is not just his house on a sloping hill and narrow street. It is all of his neighbors. He could create defensible space, which is great, but if his neighbors are not it may not result in any overall reduction in insurance costs or protection from fire.
ROB LAVOIE suggested goals and safety standards versus boiler plate mandates as helpful, noting there are conflicting interests with companies canceling insurance policies, asked what peer cities they were comparing to, said he likes Councilmember McCormick’s suggestion of waiving the permit fee if the tree is required to be removed for insurance purposes, given the high cost of removal. He also knows there are conflicts with trees on City property, but he also knows that owners are required to take care of them if they come into easement areas of private property. Regarding stakeholders, he asked who this would include.
Mayor Dawson asked what peer cities are being compared at this time. Ms. Coleman said they have not yet chosen the peer cities and it will depend upon which issues the City is looking at. She has information from Concord, Walnut Creek, Palo Alto, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, and others in the area. She will be working with staff to target that work, but they are open to input on which peer cities they should use.
Councilmember Candell said she thinks it would be very important to focus on some cities that are in very high fire hazard severity areas. On the peninsula, there are a couple of cities that are in very high fire severity zones.
Mayor Dawson asked what are the other stakeholders in the process. Ms. Coleman said residents are stakeholders, but there are also individuals who have reason to interact with the tree ordinance on a regular basis or who are very interested in this issue. She has spoken with Con Fire representatives, Engineering and Public Works Department, some residents and organizations that have been active in this issue, and she met with a group of arborists who have done work in Lafayette, as well as City officials. She can also speak with MOFD.
Ms. Cassidy added that they are also planning on putting a survey out and envisioning it be two parts; one more general so anyone can include their thoughts and one more specific to those that have already applied for a tree permit and had experience with it and can weigh in on the process itself. When they have the survey up, it will be on the current webpage for the tree permit, and they will make an announcement in the weekly Roundup.
Commissioner Mason said one good city as a peer city is Menlo Park. He has dealt with them a lot and they have an excellent tree ordinance, are very aggressive in their planning, and have a good list of tree experts they use and not just arborists.
Mayor Dawson referred to questions and asked that the PC and Councilmembers provide responses:
1. Do you support undertaking the TPO update at this time? Commissioner Farzan said he does not think tree issues come up except for tree removal and replacement for projects. He did not think there has been any controversy over it since his time on the Commission. He would ask if the City has the resources with everything else the City is doing for this to fit in.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 42 April 22, 2024 Vice Chair Radonich said with the timing of the Safety Element, it makes sense to move forward with updating the tree ordinance.
Chair LaBonge voiced support of its review and update, as well.
Councilmember Candell agrees it makes sense to work on this now.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he is 100% supportive of working on the TPO this year and is happy to talk about trees on Earth Day. He said what the City did not know in 2003 when the ordinance was first adopted was when fast-forwarding to today, 21 out of 22 of the hottest years ever measured have been since 2003.
The last 10 years have been the hottest on our planet and last year was the hottest of all. In fact, March was the hottest ever recorded. So, the last 20 years have been unprecedented in the plant’s climate and changes as a result that the community faces. He thinks it is very important to look at this project as planning for the next 20 years, which will get harsher. They need to re-look at the assumptions of what this ordinance was about and re-establish their priorities for the next 20 years to make the community safe, which is a key part of their Vision statement.
He thinks his priority would be how can we make the new TPO enhance the public safety, noting there are many issues that are emotional for the community that will be in conflict with each other, so he thinks it is helpful to have a touchstone to return to whenever they run into some issue they do not know how to deal with.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks it is important to plant more trees to have a cooling effect, and while we might differ on what the sole objective is of updating the TPO, he thinks it should be done this year. When getting into comments, he might take a different perspective than Vice Mayor Kwok.
Mayor Dawson said she also thinks the time is now. She would say that even though all this is happening with climate and fire seasons are getting worse and worse, it is still very new as to how cities are addressing this. In looking at city plans, there is not a good marriage of this, so they are trying to do something that many other cities are in high fire zones, particularly. It will be very complex, so the sooner they start, the better.
2. Feedback on the process and work plan:
Commissioner Mason said he would like to see if they can do a better job of outreach to get more public input here. When comparing what they are doing now to when they were doing the Housing Element.
There were many people involved, and they have three speakers tonight. This affects many people, especially when talking about different priorities for people.
Councilmember Anduri said he has strong support for the optional PC/CC meeting. He thinks it will be very important to get together and get a report from staff and the consultant before getting into detailed drafting.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember McCormick said he is normally leery of some surveys, but he thinks the ones people have gone through in the ordinance process before and getting feedback is phenomenal. They want it easy to understand as a goal. He is slightly concerned this is Ms. Coleman’s first tree ordinance update because it is a significant issue. Where the expertise and where experts can testify, it would be great to have this as well. So, he would like to know who is weighing in.
Mayor Dawson agrees with the community engagement, said she worked on tree issues before and maybe people have opinions about preservation, conservation, fire safety, etc. This affects homeowner properties, insurance, and how much the City is willing to get involved in this is something to consider as well. This is new so she trusts research will be done and brought back to the Council, and she also supports a joint PC/CC meeting.
3. What are your goals for this update and what would you like to see come out of it? Commissioner Mason said his main goal is he would like to have everyone engaged. He referred to the car wash across from Acalanes School which has had the same zoning for years. No one complained when the zoning was changed and then at the last minute, everyone wanted to provide advice. He does not want a situation where changes are made and then at the last minute, people comment, so he wants to get the word out as best they can.
Vice Chair Radonich said based on public comment tonight, she thinks it is important there is a clear understanding about trees that fall within the City’s easements. She agrees it is important that they reach out to specific oak and native tree experts and not just arborists, and that there are clear objective requirements in the TPO.
Commissioner Farzan said he thinks public engagement is very important, but he noted he is a bit of a pragmatist. We are going into May and into the summer, so often times important issues come up when people are not here or very busy, so engagement is important from all angles to ensure people are involved so they do not have comments like, “Why did you do this during the summer when we were out of town?” The world has changed since 2003. He is a huge fan of trees, and one reason they moved to Lafayette was because of the way it looks. He has massive oaks at his house and hopes they never die, so he wants to be sure they are looking at things from all angles.
Chair LaBonge said he thinks there are many things coming at people and the summer months issue is important. He would want it sold as some of the extremes to get people’s interests. A flyer saying, ‘Do you want all the trees removed in Lafayette or do you want more?’ This will evoke people to participate in a survey, so he would advise something grand. To what Vice Chair Radonich said on how to measure trees for mitigation, his day job has a lot of legalese. He finds it nice to put in a simple example using real world numbers. He is not a lawyer, but simple examples are sometimes better than craftily worded things, so he would suggest that, as well.
Commissioner Mason said lastly, he thinks Menlo Park does a great job. If they are talking about thinning out trees, they should also provide real clear guidance to help protect the trees we want to keep. Menlo Park identifies where roots are and the spread, which help care for heritage oaks. Oaks are hard to tell when they are dying until they are really dead. So, if they approach it from both sides, it will help the public.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Anduri said he thinks this is a very important ordinance. He acknowledges what has happened since 2003 so it is an important reason for looking at this and looking at the experiences the City has had. He will say that he thinks this is a critical ordinance for the community, thinks the trees are part of the fabric of what makes Lafayette. They have a clash between the two types of goals. When the tree ordinance was adopted, the idea was to preserve as many trees and in fact, get more tree cover within the City with primarily oaks and natives. Now, they have the situation of being aware of wildfire danger.
He agrees they need to consult with experts on oak trees, but they need to go a level above that, and he would encourage they go into academia or find expertise in the relationship between urban forestry and wildfire danger because he is sure there are people who are thinking about this. There was a good article in the New York Times today about tree cover. It is very important for cities to be planting more trees, which he thinks is true for Lafayette. So, he asked how this relates to the need they have to provide a defensible space and protect against wildfire. He hopes they can find someone out there thinking about the bigger picture and can give advice. This really is a critical ordinance.
He is concerned about the oak trees that are being cut down now without people getting permits. He thinks they need to study about how to enforce the ordinance and realizes how difficult it is. He has a neighbor who cut down an enormous heritage oak tree while he was out of town, and those do not grow back in less than 60 or 70 years. So, he asks how to protect the trees they have, because he knows they are losing many. He is concerned about what insurance companies are requiring and what that might lead to in terms of people coming in and providing that as the reason. If the City does not complete this in one year, he is not worried about it. He would like to think it through and get it right rather than get it completed this year.
Councilmember McCormick said he thinks this is one of those two or three touch points that the general resident will be faced with. The timeline is great, but if it takes longer to get it right, it is worth it. The notification he got about dropping their insurance identified many trees to come down. So, he is very worried that there are great ambitions but external forces that could be forcing people to make tough choices. If they cannot guide them through the process and have the City be an aid and not a hindrance, he would love that.
Mayor Dawson said for her it would be clarity on mitigations and if there are trade-offs to preserve insurance. This might be creative of how to keep a balance on the canopy they need as part of their defense against climate change but also doing what they need to do to support defensible space, at the same time protecting their heritage trees. So, there is a lot, and she would say the priority is because of the wildfire piece, but that does not mean they do not honor the protections put in place.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to the goals for the TPO update, stating the City is pressing its residents to increasingly ban together to join Firewise communities. The City is doing well in getting increased public embracement of Firewise best practices. That includes hardening homes and vegetation management. He would like to make it easier on residents who are part of the Firewise program not have conflicts of what Firewise is asking them to do and what the City’s tree ordinance has in place.
Mayor Dawson said one written public comment was about discretion. Sometimes there are different ways mitigation has been allowed and she thinks it is important to keep this consistent across the board in terms of mitigation. Enforcement is the other issue and how this would be done.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Candell said along with Firewise, Con Fire has mandated new requirements. They just have not enforced them yet. She was not sure if there was a date, but that would be important.
Mayor Dawson suggested a non-profit organization out of Palo Alto called Canopy. Palo Alto is a tree city and Canopy goes around and educates people. They have ecological advisers and work with Cal Fire too, so they might be a resource.
4. The key issues list.
Ms. Cassidy noted there are five slides with key issues, and they will go with the first that list broadest.
Commissioner Mason said he thinks they need to differentiate with trees. If you cut down every eucalyptus and pine tree in the City, it would not bother him a bit. He referred to neighbors cutting down heritage trees, he also went through this. His next-door neighbor had a 350-year-old, oak 6 feet in diameter which fell. So, they do not have disputes against neighbors, he would like to have a group of people who really know oaks that could come to consensus of whether an oak is dying and look at it as life safety. In Walnut Creek, the large oak tree fell diagonally across the intersection and if that had happened at rush hour, it could have been very deadly. So, independent of fire, the City does need to look at trees for life safety.
Chair LaBonge added that he thinks they ought to have a section that calls out what insurance companies are, given their mandate is different with financial risk for them and their stockholders. They should identify what they are asking because possibly there are known mitigations the City could do instead and recommend those or, quite frankly, just push back.
Vice Chair Radonich said while she agrees with the insurance topics, she thinks insurance is important, but that will also be ever-changing each year. So, they need to be very careful about objective requirements. If it is going to be included as a key issue, they should also leave enough room for flexibility because something that might make sense because of one insurance company this year, ten other insurance companies might not be doing it and three years from now, it might not be a thing. She was not sure how they do that balance, but it is something to be considered if they are going to go down the insurance route.
Mayor Anduri said he agrees with the comments on the insurance companies. There are practicalities of things they need to do. It is very complicated and thinks this needs to be taken into consideration, but he would not put something in there that someone comes in, says their insurance company says it needs to be done, and it will be done. It is more complicated than that. He would like to consider enforcement in terms of key issues to review.
One thing that has struck him in the City’s ordinance is there is no exception for dead trees. So, someone with a dead tree must pay the fee and then, even though the tree is dead, and they are taking care of the wildfire risk on the property, they must plant replacement trees so he would like to see this considered.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember McCormick said several things come under the umbrella of education and how much of that is part of this process or something they need to take on broadly. They have heard the kinds of trees that are good, the kind that are bad, when you need to get a permit, what to do when your insurance company tells you to cut down trees and you don’t want to, what is some ammunition in response, and so there is an opportunity to help have a much more educated populus. He likes this is the opportunity for education be one of the key priorities they look at even if it is a set of recommendations someone else has to work on implementing.
Mayor Dawson said she would agree but would be wary of scope creep though because the Council has its priorities laid out. To do that in the guise of wildfire safety since that is a priority would make sense.
What to plant and what not to plant would be good as well. She thinks what is important is what works and in the survey what is working for people. In some of the details here, she thinks this was the case before that any agency should be subject to the same rules, and PG&E has state standards to follow for utilities. As a priority, wildfire management would be a good way to streamline, given it is a Council priority.
Vice Mayor Kwok said to the question as to whether the Council agrees to the list of key issues or comments, he will keep it to three: 1) as a stakeholder, to include the Fire District as a key stakeholder in discussions and ensure they participate; 2) There was a question asked in the staff report about should there be a distinction between downtown and residential districts, and he thinks this makes sense. In addition, on the residential districts, he would like to further divide into residential districts in very high fire severity zones versus those that are not. He is not saying they will have different rules for them, but at least through this process the City should consider that, as much of the City north of Hwy 24 is in a different situation than those south of Hwy 24; and 3) On mitigation planting, his question would be, should the replacement trees must go on the same property or can they go elsewhere or nearby in the community, such as in a regional park, another local agency like EBRPD, EBMUD, or another agency where they could host the trees in a more sustainable manner.
Ms. Cassidy thanked the Council for their thorough responses, and this will provide staff with needed direction. Mayor Dawson and Councilmembers thanked Ms. Cassidy and Ms. Coleman for their work and thanked the Planning Commission for their input.
8. City Manager’s Update (7:00 p.m.)
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa gave the following update on department activities:
• From Engineering, a second public Open House for the connecting Lafayette project has been scheduled for May 1st at the Lafayette Elementary School between 6 and 8 p.m. This project calls for pedestrian/bicycle pathways around Stanley Middle School and access to Lafayette Elementary School. In addition to the Open House, there will be an on-line survey for the project after the meeting, and input from the Open House and survey will help to shape the conceptual designs which will be discussed at the Transportation and Circulation Commission meeting in June and before the City Council in July.
• From Parks, Trails, and Recreation, the Senior Services Commission is having its Age-Friendly Community Meeting this Thursday at 10 a.m. in this location. All meeting links and reports can be found on the website.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 42 April 22, 2024 • The Two Parks Collaborative Concept, which is improvement of two city-owned spaces; one is Leigh Creekside Park on Moraga Boulevard and the other is the Gazebo at Mt. Diablo Boulevard and Golden Gate Way. The Two Parks Collaborative Concept meeting will be held at 3 p.m. on Saturday at the Gazebo.
• The Public Art Committee is looking for mural sites on the public facing walls on downtown buildings. Property owners with high visibility sites downtown can contact the Public Art Committee through the website and to note that this mural program, which is City-funded, covers the funding for the mural and logistics.
• Last week, City and Chamber representatives gathered in groups of two and visited local businesses. This twice a year check-in was started by Councilmember Anduri last year and has been well received in the business community. The purpose of check-ins is to drop into to see how the business is doing and how the City and Chamber can help. Councilmembers Anduri and McCormick and she and the Assistant Planning Director had the good fortune to team with Chamber representatives. Speaking for Matt Pease and herself, they covered the block from Safeway Stores to Whole Foods. The walk-about was productive and the overwhelming response from businesses was that they were very happy to be in Lafayette, and they enjoyed the community.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
Sarah Lind said she had the opportunity to meet with the City Manager and shared she is grateful for the updates that come out in the Almost Daily Briefing. It is incredibly informative, and more people should take up reading that because it is so thorough. She knows a lot of work goes into preparing that. She also thanked the City for the time to meet.
She was surprised the meeting was not discussed in the update so she would like for a bit of an update to be provided regarding that because it comes off the heels of hotly debated topic and underscore that as City leaders and elected officials, she asked the Council to demonstrate leadership and neutrality in a situation where there are lots of people on multiple sides of an issue. This is what a true leader does, and if you cannot demonstrate neutrality, it is hard to be a leader. Part of being inclusive is including everybody’s side. Last week when she spoke, she said after public comment, it was basically hypocritical to hear what was said. Councilmember Anduri said all she did was ask questions, but moments before that, Mayor Dawson said, “We do not support what they are protesting” and that is not a question, so she asked that she recant that statement.
9. PRESENTATIONS
A. Environmental Task Force Annual Update and Announce the Winners of the Green Awards Recommendation: Receive update and announce the winners of the Green Awards.
Assistant Planner Anna Tolle and staff liaison to the Environmental Task Force (ETF). She recognized achievements of the ETF:
• Implemented a free lending program at the Community Center starting in March 2023. Residents can choose from two types of battery-powered leaf blowers as well as two types of portable induction cooktops to try at home. So far, 37 people have signed up to try one of the leaf blowers and 48 have signed up to try the induction cooktops.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 42 April 22, 2024 • The Council proposed the gas leaf-blower ordinance 688 in September 2023 and adopted it later in October 2023. Earlier this spring, the Council allocated up to $10,000 for community education and awareness on this new law which will go into effect on July 1 st. The ETF has begun using these
funds by purchasing lawn signs that are being distributed around town. Many signs are still available for residents to sign up to place the temporary lawn sign on their property. The ETF also has designed, ordered, and distributed tri-fold brochures, bilingual flyers in Spanish and English and an insert in the Lamorinda Weekly. Information is also available on the City website in Spanish and English and the ETF continues to plan for social media, videos, and other ways to get the message out to the public.
• Many residents participated in the Cleaner Contra Costa Challenge last year which helps students, families, and businesses learn how to reduce their environmental impact and take sustainable actions. As of March, more than 420 households are participating in the on-line challenge and collectively have saved almost 60 tons of CO2 in 2023.
As for the Green Awards, the ETF received several deserving nominations this year. After discussion and deliberation, the ETF has determined this year’s winners for their sustainable actions during 2023 and into the beginning of 2024.
Mayor Dawson stated there are 8 awards which she announced and read a short statement of why they are receiving the award. She and Councilmembers called upon winners, congratulated them, and then took photos:
• Student Mary Laska for a program to repurpose food waste; • Resident Elisabeth Dietsch for advocacy within the Springhill Valley Homeowners Association encouraging recycling at the organization’s annual picnic day; • Mighty Market for providing reusable and refillable containers; • Christina Goddard, administrator of the local Buy Nothing group; • Resident Chuck Silva, designing and installing graywater system for irrigation; • Contra Costa Fruit Rescue for collecting and donating fruit to feed those in need; • White Pony Meher School for incorporating sustainability through education, gardening, composting, cooking with seasonal foods and a green waste system; and • Assistance League Thrift Shop for reusing and repurposing clothing, books, and housewares keeping items out of the waste stream.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
BREAK
Mayor Dawson called for a break at 7:30 p.m. and, thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting at 7:37 p.m.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Dawson reported Item G was removed for continuance, and 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 April 8, 2024
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 42 April 22, 2024 Recommendation: Approve.
B. Waive second reading of Ordinance 692 Adopting school zone speed limits consistent with AB 321, California Vehicle Code Sections 515, 627, 22358.4 and 22352(b)(2) and adopt.
Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance 692.
C. Core Area Landscaping and Lighting District 1979-1 – Resolution 2024-15 Approving the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and Announcing the City’s Intent to Levy and Collect Annual Assessments for FY 24/25
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2024-15.
D. Residential Lighting District 1979-2 – Resolution 2024-16 Approving the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and Announcing the City’s Intent to Levy and Collect Assessments for FY 24/25 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2024-16.
E. City Council Priorities for FY 24-25
Recommendation: Confirm the priorities for FY 24-25.
F. League of Women Voters Lease Renewal for a Room at the Lafayette Community Center Recommendation: Renew lease with the League of Women Voters for 3-years at the following annual rates: $18,758.04 beginning May 1, 2024; $19,264.56 beginning May 1, 2025; $19,784.76 beginning May 1, 2026.
G. Potential Acquisition of Property at 221 Lafayette Circle – APN 243-140-005 Recommendation: Declare, as a minute order, its intention to negotiate for the purchase of 221 Lafayette Circle, APN 243-140-005 and schedule a closed session to discuss price and terms of payment – REMOVED AND CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A, B, C, D, E, and F. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None).
11. 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 to post the Revised Draft Housing Element for a 7-day public review period and then submit to HCD for the formal review.
Planning and Building Director Greg Wolff said staff is back before the Council for their fourth meeting in the last three months. They have been chipping away at comments from HCD in February and there have been five meetings with HCD’s new reviewer and program manager to work through each of those comments. Staff is bringing this evening the final two or three outstanding issues staff seeks direction on and then are requesting direction to re-submit to HCD.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 42 April 22, 2024 At their last meeting, staff did not schedule another meeting with HCD because, in their view, the City has adequately addressed issues pending the outcome of tonight’s meeting, which staff finds hopeful and would expect a positive letter from HCD if they are directed to resubmit. Once the required rezoning is in place, it will comply with State law.
Diana Elrod, Housing Consultant, said they have been working very diligently between meetings with the Council as well as with HCD staff. They had their final meeting with HCD on April 4th. Tonight’s recommendation is to receive the presentation, provide feedback, and direct staff to re-submit the Housing Element to HCD. The decision points before the Council today are three. The first is 949 Moraga Road and should it be included in the opportunity sites inventory. The second one is income distribution on vacant sites to meet the 50% threshold and the third is to affirm the red lines in the text of the Housing Element. Mr. Wolff added one more item--The AFFH program action 2.5; the border or half-mile map as requested by HCD.
Ms. Elrod said 949 Moraga Road site is a 35,000 square foot City-owned site. They would project 23 BMR units on this site. Keeping it in the inventory would require significant staff time and cost based upon timing, etc. as outlined by HCD. Essentially, they want the City to commit to making it happen within the 8-year period. Leaving it out would give the City more flexibility to implement other programs in the Housing Element and would not materially impact the inventory; however, there has been quite a lot of significant interest from the community in seeing the site developed for housing during the planning period.
In the staff report and in the revised implementation plan, there are steps the City would commit to in order to ensure 23 BMR units are built within the 8-year time period. Even though it is a heavy lift, staff believes it is of significant import and therefore they should keep it in the inventory.
The second issue is the question about the percentage of lower income distributed onto non-vacant sites.
As staff has said before, state law says that in the calculation provided by HCD, they need to have less than 50% of the lower income units on non-vacant sites or else they would have to make findings that show substantial evidence that uses on those sites would discontinue within the 8 years, which is a higher bar more difficult to demonstrate.
Based upon the Council approved inventory from November 13th which used a RHNA allocation distribution process for vacant sites, the City does not meet it for the threshold. The number is 57%. Ms.
Elrod then presented the front page from that particular housing inventory workbook so the Council can see how the numbers lined up. HCD has said they use a different income distribution on vacant sites, as the statute is flexible in how jurisdictions distribute units by income on opportunity sites. By increasing the percentage of lower income units distributed on sites, the state raised two concerns; 1) one about overloading a large site with too many lower income units because you would come up against the no net loss provisions more quickly in the cycle if vacant sites are skewed too far into lower income; 2) the concern about not meeting AFFH requirements for the distribution of lower income units throughout the community.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 42 April 22, 2024 Staff believes after much consideration and discussion that changing the income distribution on vacant sites to 30% VLI, 30% LI, 20% Moderate, and 20% Above Moderate, the City can meet the threshold by getting to 49% on nonvacant sites. Assumptions are on the left side and the 30-30-20-20 distribution of sites includes the roughly SB 4 distribution for FBO’s. In this particular version, staff did not include St.
Anselms and St. Perpetua but they can still meet the number at 49%.
The third item before the Council is changes to the Housing Element itself. These include redlines including recent changes that were made to address HCD comments. Those things in yellow highlight indicate areas staff will have to update following decisions made this evening. These primarily include summaries of the inventory by income category, the narrative pertaining to vacant site densities and calculations therefrom, modifications to the individual site tear sheets, and any other modifications requested by the Council. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the Housing Element for submission to HCD with changes made tonight by the Council.
Regarding the next slide, Mr. Wolff said staff mentioned and introduced this at the last meeting regarding AFFH mobility action 2.5, allowing the conversion of existing single-family dwellings into 2-4 units with ½ mile of the downtown. On a slide shown to the Council, Mr. Wolff said the yellow being the outline of the DSP and a quarter mile from that would put future residents well within multi-modal, walking, biking distances of the goods and services that are along the armature of Mt. Diablo Boulevard. HCD came back with a comment to expand the program and quarter mile is not usually the metric for walkability and bike ability, but rather half mile from transit. Many State bills use the half mile metric. So, staff came back and prepared a half mile map which was quite extensive to go from the buffer. In a way, the DSP area or polygon in yellow buffers off of Mt. Diablo Boulevard, and to some extent Moraga Road where goods and services and hopefully transit can be found.
Staff presented to HCD that taking a buffer from a buffer artificially inflates the area and presented a map which would have a half mile from the true boulevard where goods and services are located. HCD’s concern around this was does it really increase the area which can find the program available to them, and it does. It is not a 100% increase, but a substantial enough increase for HCD to find it appropriate.
There was an alternative staff presented which was a half mile rather than from where the crow flies on screen but by path of travel or the street network. That only provided an incremental increase above the quarter mile. So, HCD did not find that change was significant and thus was not supportive of that. What is on screen before the Council is what HCD can support, and it is less than would be a half mile from the DSP boundary. So, it is finding that middle balance with respect to the geographic extent for this program.
Ms. Elrod said next steps are to finalize the Housing Element with changes made today in preparation to submit it back to HCD for a 7-day review period, continue with scoping the required zoning changes, and objective development standards that will be needed to be completed in order for HCD to certify the Housing Element.
Mr. Wolff said there were questions relating to faith-based organizations (FBOs) and which organizations have expressed interest, which have expressed interest in not doing it, and a preference not to have their property upzoned. So, this is a summary of that. He will say that the program is 100% optional. For property owners in all circumstances of opportunity sites, including FBOs, it is ultimately up to the property owner whether and when they want to do a project on their property. There is no requirement to do so.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 42 April 22, 2024 The City is required by the State to show there is the opportunity for these sites to produce the housing and, ultimately, the market needs to do that which is why there are requirements around looking at governmental constraints, etc. so it is multi-faceted. There are 9 sites in the City which are FBOs with property that would be suitable for potential housing development. They could maintain their existing facilities and build some form of multi-family housing in parking lot or access parking area of the lot which is not occupied by the facility itself.
Staff reached out multiple times to all those on the list. Those in the first column, which are red staff did not hear back from. Those in the second column which are green expressed interest in the program (2), and then those in orange shading are the 2 FBOs which submitted letters saying they would prefer not to have upzoning on their site. Again, it is optional whether they pursue any development at all, whether they pursue development under the current zoning, the SB 4 State statute or whether they would utilize the City’s program to exceed the State program for the higher density.
Mr. Wolff noted that Lafayette-Orinda Presbyterian Church is not in the inventory because it lies within a very high fire hazard severity zone area and that was a policy decision not to promote housing in very high fire severity zones other than ADUs and SB9.
Ms. Elrod said tonight their request is that the Council approve the updated Housing Element for submission to HCD following the required 7-day review period, approve the recommendation to leave 949 Moraga in the inventory with a timeline proposed in the staff report, and approve the recommendation to distribute units by income on vacant sites at 30-30-20-20.
Councilmember Anduri thanked Ms. Elrod and staff for their work done since the last meeting. He clarified that if the Council adopts the recommendations with revisions, staff is fairly confident this would be approved by HCD. Ms. Elrod said they will issue a letter saying that the City is in substantial compliance, and once the City makes the rezonings, then HCD will provide the letter to state the City is officially certified.
Councilmember Anduri said it has been raised about the DeSilva site and how that is going to be handled in the rezoning. He asked how the City will treat DeSilva in the rezoning process and thereafter as the move toward development.
Mr. Wolff said the DeSilva site is 62 acres overall and through the GPAC and Planning Commission, and staff had showed an exhibit previously, the lower limit established by the State is one-half acre to be able to use the site in the inventory for below market rate for lower income units, and the upper limit is 10 acres. Above that, a significant feasibility study and proforma and development plan would be needed.
For practical purposes, the City has been operating with an upper limit of 10 acres and they have discussed with the property owner where that would best occur on the site. The site has a relatively gentle sloping grassland area up from Mt. Diablo Boulevard towards the reservoir ridge, the Rim Trail, and the area would be the western portion of that.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 42 April 22, 2024 There has been significant public comment and he thinks City interest in this site accommodating public facilities in the future as part of a development plan. That can be discussed and determined or negotiated through a development agreement with the developer and they are open to those discussions. Ultimately, it will need to pencil for them to move forward with the project. That is the opportunity to incorporate public facilities into the overall 62-acre site with a significant portion remaining undisturbed open space, perhaps with trails, perhaps with a disc golf course meandering through it, but ultimately, the City envisions the upper reaches as appearing as they currently do. The lower portion of the meadow/grassland area would be accommodating the housing growth and the public facilities.
So, in short, the follow-on rezoning would address the 10 acres for the residential and the remainder of the site would be open for public use, be it active recreation, parking, and open space, as part of the development agreement.
Councilmember Anduri asked if it would be fair to say that when the City has completed rezoning of the 10 acres selected out of the 62 and then start negotiating the development agreement, if it turns out given all of the factors that come into negotiating that agreement, that they need to move the 10 acres one way or the other, or expand it or contract it, that they could accommodate that. Mr. Wolff confirmed.
Councilmember Anduri referred to the FBOs and asked Mr. Wolff to provide background on what the outreach has been to the FBTs that have not responded.
Ms. Elrod said some of them sent 3 and 4 requests for comment and requesting a meeting. For those FBOs that did not respond, they got at least 3 and 4 and sometimes 5 letters and/or emails. Some of them went to multiple people and not just one person at the particular FBO.
Councilmember Anduri said those that did not respond the area the City is thinking of rezoning, he asked if this is the entire property aside from the buildings. Ms. Elrod said no, it is not. It is a much smaller portion of every site where they scoped it out to be relatively flat behind a parking lot or part of other non-essential uses. For one, there were 9 or 10 acres on one site, and they only accommodated about 1 ½ acres or less on each of the sites.
Councilmember Anduri asked in what way would an FBO be disadvantaged by being rezoned, taking into account not the entire property is being rezoned and that they can opt for the State overlay and do not have to do it under the City’s rezoning.
Ms. Elrod said she thinks the benefit is the City’s program would not require project labor agreements which the State one does. The one downside is they would have to do environmental review which they do not for the State one, but they also get more density than the State program would. So, when talking with HCD about this particular program, other jurisdictions are doing it likewise; that they are including those sites in their inventories and planning to rezone them to accommodate their own City programs.
Councilmember Anduri said they started out by discussing the expectation is that if they submit this with the recommendations, that the City will get the letter. If they were to submit without those three sites that have not responded, he asked what impact did Ms. Elrod think that might have.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 42 April 22, 2024 Ms. Elrod said they would lose numbers of units. She wants to say, again, this is an exercise in capacity to determine there is enough capacity for the RHNA allocation plus some buffer. So, the City does not have to have the approval of every single owner in the inventory to be included. If there are owners that said adamantly “no” they do not want to be on the inventory, this is one thing, but being silent on it as far as the State is concerned does not disqualify them from being in your inventory.
Councilmember Anduri asked what the impact would be if they did not include them in the inventory. Ms.
Elrod said she thinks Mr. Wolff is looking at it if they took those three off what it would do to the recommended inventory.
Councilmember Anduri said when they get to the discussion, in his mind it is to the balance between disadvantaged to the FBO of being rezoned versus how close they are to having this approved and what that does to the City’s buffer if they take them out.
Councilmember McCormick said he is trying to understand. They are adopting minimum numbers, and it seems like if they rezone a portion of their property, especially if they have not affirmatively said they are going to do something and they want to do something else with that property, they cannot, right? Ms. Elrod said they could still use SB 4 and do just two residences rather than using the full benefit of the rezone. They would have their choice to do it. It is either/or. She also said rezoning portions of each one of those sites does not in any way prohibit the church from doing other things as part of its mission, for example, building a rectory or a gym for the school.
Councilmember McCormick said also to confirm, the listing showed which was LOPC Green. He thought it was the Methodist Church and not LOPC. Ms. Elrod said LOPC did as well, and the Methodist Church has been in the inventory for two rounds. They did not get a specific letter this time around, although the Lafayette Methodist site has been in the inventory, and this is its third round.
Councilmember Candell said on that same thread, if they just want to raise money and sell the site that got upzoned, then this is a problem. They have to declare that and it might be worth more or a lot less thank it would be just on the open market. Ms. Elrod said she does not know. She would have to have the City Attorney weigh in on that, but it would still be zoned for residential. If they wanted to put two single family homes on it, they would use SB 4. It has a minimum density requirement in the sense it has to be zoned for a certain amount, but they have options about what they want to include on the site.
Councilmember Candell asked for clarity on that.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said she thinks what she is hearing from the Council she wants to clarify is that, if they wanted to build single family homes on the property, not use SB 4, not use the special ordinance the City will adopt, if the City is upzoning it to a minimum density multi-family, they would not be able to just build one single family home.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Candell said this is what she wants clarify on, and so they cannot. Ms. Subramanian said if the City was only upzoning a certain portion of the property, then the portion not upzoned could be subdivided through approval, and that portion of single-family zoning could be a subdivision of singlefamily homes. The other portion could be multi-family. So, there are multiple steps that would have to occur anyways, but currently, if the City did nothing and an FBO did not want to continue to be an FBO, they could sell their property and that property could be used for single-family homes and a subdivision could go in, in theory, currently.
Vice Mayor Kwok said to continue on that line, if the FBO decided they wanted to sell the entire property including the changed zoning as well as existing, and if the new buyer was a private individual, he asked if the individual would be able to build single-family homes there or, are they constrained by the zoning from the previous owner.
Ms. Subramanian said what would happen is the new private developer could bring single family homes on the portion that was not upzoned and then the portion that was upzoned would be multi-family.
Councilmember McCormick asked if HCD has looked at the steps staff has outlined, or he asked if they were concerned HCD would push back on those or not. Ms. Elrod said they were the ones that originally gave them to the staff, so they are feeling pretty good.
Councilmember McCormick referred to the allocation on vacant sites going from basic RHNA to the 30- 30-20-20, he understands they have been told they can do whatever number they want so they are going from 40% to 60% now. He thinks 60% is high and he asked what is stopping the City from doing 40-40-10-
10. Mr. Wolff said like many components of the Housing Element, they are trying to balance multiple interests and there is direction from the Council to explore what would achieve the 50% threshold. So, staff has provided numbers that do that and HCD has affirmed that those are acceptable because it falls below the 50% at 30-30-20-20. So, they would not recommend going beyond that because it increases the risk of more immediate no net loss running up against that and having to go through much of the same exercise of determining additional opportunity sites which they spent considerable time trying to identify all those they can to keep density increases to a minimum. So, this is first and foremost their concern—trying to be proactive in the risk management associated with it and not kicking the can down the road to only run up against it even after one potential project came in and did not meet the projected that is in the inventory but came in at the inclusionary. This is why staff is not recommending going above the staff recommendation.
Councilmember McCormick said he understands it is arbitrary, but basically we think it is a number that hits a certain threshold and does not go beyond that. He referred to the new way they are structuring the quarter mile to half mile zoning around Mt. Diablo. When talking about it from a bubble map to a roadbased network, one of the other considerations is that it would make it simpler and more rationale kind of zoning. They have to implement the different kind of zoning, instead of stopping arbitrarily in the middle of a road, they would have something that actually would make some sense conceptually versus a neighbor would not have a different zoning just because they happen to be slightly outside this weird compass-driven bubble. So, he thought that was another reason to use kind of a road-based network versus what HCD would accept or not accept.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 42 April 22, 2024 Mr. Wolff said he agrees with Councilmember McCormick and said staff is always looking for ways to make it clear. An example of that would be the zoning snapping to parcel lines as they exist, and not having district boundaries bisect properties which currently happens all the time. He does not know if they will ever be able to eliminate that, but they can avoid putting more parcels into split zoning. An upfront map could be done but it did not meet HCD’s comment and expectation about expanding the area which can take advantage of the program. So, it is not just the half mile but increased number of parcels that could use the program if they choose to do the conversion allowed under the program.
HCD’s primary concern with the AFFH program is about mobility and that goal of mobility applies Citywide.
Other communities have adopted programs which are broader and interspersed throughout the entire community. He would offer Danville as one example. One of their programs is that current law would allow any single-family parcel to get up to 4 units using both prongs of SB 9. Danville doubled that and said they will allow corner lots to go to 8 units which would be citywide. So, there are limited locations but sprinkled throughout the broader community. What they have heard are concerns about the roadway network evacuation and the north side of the freeway is a very high fire zone.
So, staff believes access to the downtown goods and services with an alternative to the car is important as they grow. So, thus the program was initially proposed as a quarter mile from the DSP, and they feel fortunate that they have demonstrated enough of an uptick with a half mile from the boulevard. So, the area from which the buffer is taken has been reduced but the overall buffer distance has increased to a sufficient extent.
Councilmember McCormick said they have heard from community members and others that it is a balancing act. If they are adjusting the ratios so much that they could reduce downtown zoning back to what it was, he asked what that would mean.
Mr. Wolff said this has been what staff has been discussing with HCD for many months now and that would be problematic via a calculation modification to deviate from the program to upzone in the downtown largely within one half mile from transit. So, this would be problematic with HCD. He does not know what they would come back to the City within terms of comments, but he suspects there would be new comments based on that change and thinks the City would not have the letter in the near-term.
Councilmember Candell said she was surprised they put 949 Moraga Way back in. She understands it. Her concerns are not that they do not want this to happen because they do. They want to push forward with this. Her biggest concern is if the City does not meet any of these deadlines, Portola Valley got de-certified because they did not rezone when they were within two weeks of rezoning. So, she asked if there is a risk that HCD may de-certify the City if they do not meet these goals and timelines they have indicated.
Ms. Elrod said anything like that is possible, but they have fallback milestones. If they do not think they can make it during a certain amount of time, they either have to find another site in the inventory and not one necessarily that the City owns to replace those BMR units. They have been clear that the City needs to commit to making this happen within the 8 years, but again, like Mr. Wolff said, they are trying to balance a combination of factors, and one of them is the fact this is the only City-owned site in the inventory that could potentially produce new units sooner rather than later.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 42 April 22, 2024 She thinks the reality also is that even if they hit many of the milestones, they may not get interest immediately because of the cost of borrowing money, the cost of labor, materials, etc. Those things are outside of the City’s control, and she knows they can work with HCD when they know they are having a problem because of that but HCD cannot de-certify a City for something that is out of their control. They can de-certify a city for something that is in their control, like Portola Valley. That was in their control, and they did not do it when they said they would, which is different than when a developer cannot get financing, for example.
Councilmember Candell said she listened to a SANDAG meeting, which is San Diego’s first in the State and they’re halfway point is coming up next year. There was a big SANDAG meeting and an HCD came, and they were saying all of them are going to fail next year because they have not built half of their goals.
They asked if HCD was going to de-certify them and they would not give them an answer. So, while she sort of agrees, this is building goals and they are being stared down, so are there reasons to figure out how they are going to deal with that first and then they would have a roadmap of what they are facing.
Ms. Elrod said she does not think there is any way to know that now and also, the truth is, every one of the City’s programs that has metrics and timelines is going to be in the same position.
Councilmember Candell said this just seems riskier because it involves a developer with all low income.
This is what the goals say, so she wants to do this and put every resource they have into this and would not change any of that. But, to tie it to HCD and their opaqueness, it seems to put the City into a lot of risk. This is why she understood it at the last meeting, and she was surprised to see the flip on this meeting. She asked what was it that caused the flip.
Mr. Wolff said he thinks it was the vast majority of comments. He does not think they heard any comments from members of the Council or the public advocating for taking it out. He thinks what staff was raising was concern about their ability. So, what it will take is additional resources to do that. He thinks it is clearly the one site that the City has control over, so it behooves them. What they have heard from all parties in terms of comments is that we want to do this. Then, it becomes a question of putting in the time and effort to do it. There will be factors beyond their control, but to the degree the things that are in their control, they can do and execute on. He believes if they were to commit to what is in the report tonight and just sit and not do anything, they would be at risk of being de-certified.
He said the one the City has going for it is that their inventory is sufficient that even if 949 Moraga fell out, they would still meet it, but they could always go back to HCD and revise it if, for some reason, despite their best efforts they are unable to achieve what they have laid out in the program. So, it seems to be a priority of all parties. There are risks with all of this, so it will take a determined effort and resources.
Councilmember Candell asked about how much extra resources will it take. Mr. Wolff said the City will need a project manager, but it would not be a full-time hire. They would need to have staff on board who could serve as the project manager, to have the RFP prepared, putting it out, and all efforts that are laid out, but he does not believe it has to be an FTE.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 42 April 22, 2024 City Manager Srivatsa agreed with Mr. Wolff that it will not need a full-time person. The last time the City did something like this, it was for Eden Housing. They had a group of volunteers and 1 ½ staff members working on and off for about 6 months to one year to find Eden and give the project to them. It does not take more than that. Also, she wants to bring attention that the City has an affordable housing fund. The Council allocated $215,000 in this budget and may again in the next budget. Those funds can be used to promote and build affordable housing, and 949 Moraga is the ideal candidate, given the City has control and the intent is for an all-affordable project.
Councilmember Candell referred to the AFFH and one quarter mile and said people could expand the number of units, but it was still within the footprint, and she confirmed this is still the case. Also, she asked if it takes effect in the very high fire zones. Mr. Wolff said it does not. Councilmember Candell said the maps are a little off. Also, she asked if they put the 1001 Oak Road into the pipeline because the PC just approved it.
Mr. Wolff said the PC recommended approval to the Council, and it will need to come to the Council before it is entitled. Ms. Elrod said it is already in the Housing Element. It is listed as it is proposed. They do not have it listed like other sites. They just did not put it in the pipeline yet because it is not actually a pipeline until the Council says it is.
Councilmember Anduri said it is in the sites, but he asked if the application is in as opposed to 88% of 60.
Ms. Elrod confirmed because the City has not rezoned. Councilmember Anduri said but they are putting it in as if they were rezoning. Ms. Elrod said it is as proposed. Councilmember Candell said it is a density bonus project, so they are only getting a couple of affordable units. It is not even at the RHNA allocation or at the 60.
Councilmember Anduri asked why they would put it in the pipeline. Ms. Elrod said it is not in the pipeline.
Councilmember Anduri said if you put it in the sites, he asked why it would not be listed like other sites.
They do not have financing, they have not broken ground, etc. Ms. Elrod said this is a good question and would have to ask about that.
Mr. Wolff said he thinks they are acknowledging there is a pending application at those unit counts. There are 2 very low, 4 low, 0 moderate, and 45 above moderate. The total for the site is 51 units. They did not want to immediately have to revise their opportunity sites calculations with an application pending.
Councilmember Candell said she knows they are only discussing the 30-30-20-20 for the vacant sites, but they could do that on the non-vacant sites, as other cities have done that.
Ms. Elrod said they could, but the problem is what happens is they would defeat the purpose of getting down to 49%. You want the vacant sites to be slightly above the non-vacant sites.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 42 April 22, 2024 DAVID CLARK said he does not follow or agree with the comments of Councilmember McCormick and the Planning Director. If the City goes to 40-40-10-10 or pick some number or something higher than 30-30- 20-20, it can impact the rest of the units. It does not need to just apply to vacant land and the vacant/nonvacant computation. If it does apply to other units, the buffer units the City needs is going to go down to 1600 or 1650, or something. So, when you worry about the no net loss provision, there are 350 units there that they have already identified that they can use at some point in the future. It is a circular argument that does not make sense to him.
He is frankly disappointed in the spreadsheet the Council was given in terms of this iterative spreadsheet.
The only thing you can control with that is the percentage on the vacant/non-vacant properties. It did not spill over into everything else which he thought that was going to go, but you cannot use that spreadsheet for that purpose. Rob Lavoie has a spreadsheet, and it is part of the packet, but with respect to the tradeoff which Councilmember Candell just brought up about why can’t you apply it to everything, and the answer is you have to maintain something so there is a difference between 49% and 51%. He asked not to use the same numbers.
These are numbers and he thinks the City can achieve both objectives—wind up with a substantially lower number of buffer units such that you do not have to upzone downtown at all right now. This is the important thing because they could avoid the upzoning process. They may have to go there at some point in the future. It should not be a big deal because they are not going out looking for new properties. He thinks they can make the math work for them, and it seems to him this is an opportunity and he asked to expand it to 45-30-20-5 which works too.
He has heard other arguments against that. One is that it is late in the game to change this. Okay, it is late in the game, but this is a real advantage, and he thinks they would be remiss if they did not take advantage of it. He heard percentages are not logical, are not achievable, but they are not targets. They are numbers the City can use to achieve a goal to meet the buffer requirement and to meet the 50% or 49% vacancy computation, and he thinks they can avoid all the downtown upzoning right now.
STELLA WOTHERSPOON said she thinks the Council can and should remove the FBO Sun Valley Bible, Calvary Baptist, and Temple Isaiah from the site inventory. The only two that can be legitimately included are Our Savior Lutheran which is interested and United Methodist which is a reused site. She tested removing the former three and keeping only United Methodist and Our Savior and with all the staff recommended parameters, and the result is a 25% lower income buffer well in excess of the minimum 15% requirement.
She did not understand the difference between “did not respond” and “total submitted-no comment” in the staff slide. She dropped in at Calvary Baptist yesterday and she asked two Councilmembers if they knew about the proposed rezoning. They said they received no inquiries, and they did not know. With respect to what Ms. Elrod said about the area on the parcels for the FBOs as non-essential use, not sloped, etc., she asked the Council to look at the Calvary Baptist tear sheet. She asked staff to put it up on the screen. The block of the zone is 10 feet across from the front of their building frontage where everyone parks their cars to walk into the church. When she showed that to the Councilmembers there, they said, “But that’s the front of our church. That’s our parking lot.” So really, there will be an alley in this location that is marked for the rezoning.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 42 April 22, 2024 So, she does not think it is ethical to include Sun Valley Bible, Calvary Baptist, and Temple Isaiah in the inventory under the premise that silence is consent. She questions what happens if the Council retains these non-respondent FBOs in the inventory, go ahead with the rezoning, and notice property owners within that process. She asked what if, at that point, these FBOs learn for the first time about this radical change to their properties and the properties’ values and protest. She asked if the Council will then revise the Housing Element and resubmit to HCD, or she asked if the rezoning hearings be procedural and nonresponsive to property owner concerns.
The Council may also question what HCD will think of the removal of the five FBOs. HCD is already skeptical of this program. They write in their comment letter, “Given the lack of past experience and degree of reliance on the FBO sites, the Element should evaluate the effectiveness of this program mid-way through the planning period and commit to alternative actions, e.g., rezoning, identifying additional sites, etc.” So, she believes HCD will accept the removal because it decreases the reliance on these sites for which it is already skeptical. The remainder of the inventory has sites that are better prospects for redevelopment.
The buffer is a healthy 25% and she questions what is the benefit from keeping these FBOs who have not affirmed interest. She maintains there is no benefit from these because they are no longer needed to provide lower income units, which is how they got into this list in the first place. And there are significant downsides. The alternative actions HCD describes such as rezoning, identifying additional sites, etc. alienating institutions of faith that have been in the community for decades. She just does not see any upside and thinks HCD will appreciate a solid site inventory without these three FBOs.
DAWN EAMES said the downtown should not be upzoned and is not necessary especially since it cannot be downzoned in the future. The buffer of 25% to 30% additional housing above the 2114 units was used instead of 15% already. She asked to stand firm not to upzone, especially since HCD admits the calculation of housing requirements was flawed until HCD does not approve the latest Housing Element submission.
She does not believe there is a housing shortage. If you look at Rockridge, BART station, high rises, and Ignacio Valley BART station development, those do not appear to have 100% occupancy yet, but were built years ago probably during the last cycle. So, she also does not believe the Housing Element area should be expanded further than the quarter mile from the edge of the downtown core.
A walkable downtown is not 2 ½ miles of Mt. Diablo Boulevard. The DSP and DGG identify the downtown as Mountain View to First Street. Contrived housing requirements will not work based on income levels and still maintain the quality of life for all segments of the community. A broad range of housing types will be built if there is a necessity for it. The market will determine what is needed. Rob Lavoie has done an indepth analysis for assisting the City and offering viable solutions in getting the 6th cycle Housing Element approved. She would hope his recommendations are heeded so the City’s character, composition, vitality, and viability are not irreparably damaged by unnecessary and unwarranted actions by the City just to meet a deadline and unreasonable expectations by HCD. Alternative #4 by Rob Lavoie is a great option that should satisfy HCD and Lafayette residents.
LIBBY HENRY ceded her 3 minutes to Robert Lavoie.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 42 April 22, 2024 ROBERT LAVOIE asked staff to display the exhibit he sent for Alternative #4 that shows the summary page.
He said he disagrees with Ms. Elrod’s comment that the City cannot use 30-30-30 on all the sites; that there are still scenarios that can solve the problem of the 49% by running that against all the different types of sites—the vacant land, FBOs which he is only using one of, but the bottom line is the City has enough capacity. The scenario he did used the 30-30-20-20 but then took 13% out of the LI and put it in the VLI.
So, basically it is still 60% for the low income which is combined. So, he does not think this is an issue they should circumvent.
Just because it has been in the plan and HCD has not said anything about it, the City did not ask them if they meet their criteria for solving the plan puzzle by reducing the upzoning downtown. This was pushed in during a big rush last November because they were going to submit to try and get it in on time for the January cut-off so the City would not be subject to the builders’ remedy. But, they have not had any builder’s remedy projects and they just had 101 Oak Hill that could come in under the builder’s remedy and they did not take advantage of even the 60 du/acre zoning the City proposed. They are using the existing 35 du/acre zoning. So, he thinks clearly they have adequate zoning downtown and they do not need to move up to the 60 du/acre.
He sent in a model to all Councilmembers, Mr. Wolff, and Ms. Elrod where they will see that without the 60 du/acre upzoning downtown, you can still meet all requirements they have. They can have over 50% on vacant land for the low-income units. This eliminates all the need for any upzoning except for DeSilva. As far as the AFFH, he asked why is it that HCD is ignoring the State’s law that upzones the FBOs, yet they are saying it does not meet AFFH goals. It is like they are blowing out the State law that upzones all the FBOs and then get after the City and make the City do some spot upzoning which is silly. There are many more problems with the spot upzoning than the overlay district proposed by SB 9.
The model he sent in shows 43-17-20-20 split, which is the same as the 30-30-20-20, and it also works if you put it on all the parcels or just do it on the vacant ones as in his Option Alt. 2. So, Alt. 4 has it applied equally to all different sites. Alt. 2 has it just applied to vacant sites, so either way it works. The bottom line is the City has a solution and now the City must take the leadership position and eliminate the upzoning in downtown. It will save the City a lot of headaches even if they have to go back and ask HCD about it. He suggested submitting the plan with it because they meet all of their requirements and they worked hard at this, and they have adequate density. They have a six-story building proposed under the current zoning and they do not need to go to 60 du/acre and have 100% density bonus law that has also been enacted since this plan was thought about last fall. There are so many reasons, and he outlined them in his prior email.
Mayor Dawson said in Mr. Lavoie’s scenario, he is saying DeSilva needs to go to 60 du/acre as opposed to the 35 du/acre. Mr. Lavoie said no, he said the development agreement should cover the whole thing, but Mr. Wolff has covered that, and it sounds like everything is okay there as long as they can scoot the 10 acres around later on with the development agreement.
He said this model works with or without Moraga. It works with or without the FBO’s except for the Methodist Church which has always been in there. So, he thinks none of those decisions are catastrophic and causing the plan to go out of compliance.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 27 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Candell said Mr. Lavoie says the City can go to that extreme and she asked if he was saying they should just report the VLI plus LI together. Mr. Lavoie said no. Instead of doing 30-30-20-20, you do 43-17-20-20 and that makes the model work with a 23% buffer and a 49% number for the non-vacant sites.
CHERYL MACDONALD said she appreciates David Clark’s comments and comments from Rob Lavoie. She thinks the chance for the City not to upzone right now is to their benefit because mid-cycle they will have to do something with HCD coming down. They have been told they have been set up to fail and if they do not meet their numbers mid-cycle they can upzone at that time. She thinks 949 Moraga should be considered whether they put it in now or later. They might need to reserve that for getting their numbers later and in the meantime, staff and Council could be working on this project for the mid-cycle. She thinks not upzoning the downtown now is something the Council should hold off on doing, even if it means a slight dely. They are not getting builder’s remedy projects, so she thinks the Council should seriously consider that. Regarding the quarter mile/half mile issue, she thinks the walkable route should be considered. She lives in the East End and will never go to the grocery store and walk. It is not reasonable, so the idea it will be walkable to necessities are mostly located in the core. They have Ace Hardware and the service industry. The East End is a different area, and it has always been like that. So, they will likely drive their cars to go into town.
Mayor Dawson suggested going through the different items staff was looking for direction on, and afterwards, address any other issues that have come up. 949 Moraga Road:
Councilmember McCormick said he appreciates 949 Moraga being in there. He knows there is the option of keeping it out and trying to do it anyway, but he just thinks it is a statement to have it in. They all agree it is the right site. He is committed to helping staff get it done and it is encouraging. He thinks a citizens’ committee can help. They have proven they can do that, and he would be happy to help with that too.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks the process was from 2005 to 2014 to get that done, but they are ahead of the game here because the City has the property so that cuts off two years of that process. He supports including 949 Moraga. He thinks it is an important statement and he really appreciates staff going back and looking at that. He knows it involves additional work on staff’s part. It sends a strong message and while he will not get into personal views of HCD other than to say he would hope that the City including that would not at some point redound to their disadvantage. It is such a strong signal on the City’s part that it should not be to their disadvantage.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he also supports including 949 Moraga Road in the opportunity site inventory. He thanked staff for giving the Council options on that and also for listening to the community feedback on that. He echoed Councilmember comments that this is an important, symbolic message that the City’s sole property and put this forward in a way that emphasizes they want to do this.
Councilmember Candell agreed with comments.
Mayor Dawson agreed with comments, said it is an investment of staff and City finances, and she thanked staff for bringing that back.
Income Distribution for Vacant Sites and FBOs
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 28 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Candell said she supports doing that on the vacant sites, but she absolutely supports doing that on all sites. She thinks HCD is blind to the distinction between VLI and LI and if, for some reason, the City sending that out with those separate, depending on how they do all of the opportunity sites, they do not have to show them all of those in the final opportunity site matrix. Other cities have not shown them. They just do VLI plus LI so it is the affordable percentage and affordable buffer and all the stuff they are doing, but if you show the separate ones it can get them into trouble so that may be a problem.
So, she thinks there are ways for the City to get around having to upzone downtown now. It would save them time and would save them what HCD does to all these cities in Southern California. It will give the City a year to find out what they are doing. If the City already upzoned and they will make the City do it again, this just buys them a year. She did not think they would go to no net loss in a year, but they will have a lot more information about what HCD is going to do mid-cycle to these cities in Southern California.
The City is allowed to change these distributions and she thinks it is worth it to really think hard about doing that now. Density bonus law is 100% so they are already double in terms of eyes of developers, so she thinks they should try to do this, not upzone downtown, upzone DeSilva, and they could do that very quickly. She does not think they are that far away. She thinks he 30-30-20-20 gets them there if they hide the LI and VLI; that they just produce a 25% buffer, not upzone, use those percentages, and go color-blind to HCD. It is an option. They have to go to Mr. Lavoie’s percentage of making the VLI be a lot more if they want to expose the VLI separate from the LI, but other cities have gone blind on those two columns.
Mayor Dawson asked staff to comment about combining that.
Ms. Elrod said it is definitely true that HCD considers VLI and LI as one number and, in fact, on the State spreadsheet the City also must fill out, those numbers are combined. The City has kept them separate to be transparent and to be able to make a decision, she asked if the Council wanted to have VLI showing a negative number even if the combined number isn’t a negative number. She thinks this has been an effort to show what the impact of the changes will do from a transparency point of view. Ultimately, the decision is the Council’s, but this is why staff did it this way.
Councilmember Anduri asked if there is a number assigned to each property. Ms. Elrod said yes, but then they would be aggregated as one number.
Councilmember Anduri said Ms. Elrod is saying other cities aggregate them, but there is an allocation to each property. It is just not shown. So, if there is a development on a property that is allocated 47% to VLI and so on and it is developed as an above moderate condo development, then they lose the VLI. So, he is not sure he sees the advantage.
Councilmember Candell said HCD, in their spreadsheets, do not give those numbers.
Mayor Dawson said it is the transparency piece for the City as they figure this out.
Mr. Wolff said staff has highlighted the red cell in the worksheet for some time because precisely what Councilmember Candell is saying—HCD ultimately will look at that combined but it behooves everybody to understand what are the inputs into that outcome. He cannot explain why HCD breaks out the RHNA allocation in the four bins, but the site’s inventory worksheet only uses three bins.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 29 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Anduri said when the City prepares its annual report or mid-term report, he asked if they are going to aggregate or show how they have done in each of the four categories. Mr. Wolff said annually the City must report in the four categories.
Councilmember Candell said, however, no city is going to get anywhere near their 6th cycle. They can report how many they have done. The City does not control how many of those get built except for 949 Moraga Road.
Councilmember Anduri said he is trying to see the advantage here because the City is going to be telling them that they are using 30-30-20-20. Ms. Elrod said 60-20-20 for low and very low combined. Mr. Wolff said he does not think the City has to report the percentages; they just report the raw number outcomes.
Councilmember Anduri said with staff’s discussions with HCD he asked how has staff discussed it. Mr.
Wolff said they discussed it in the four categories of 30-30-20-20.
Mayor Dawson said, however, they are agnostic to that. Mr. Wolff said they said the statute allows jurisdictions flexibility in allocating it, and they talked about the reasoning behind the numbers that have been used to date and ultimately, it is a choice to be made and the risks change accordingly. Staff would not be surprised with receiving new comments in the next round.
Councilmember McCormick said he thinks they are talking about two things together now. He thinks between what Councilmember Candell is saying and Rob Lavoie is saying is they do that in conjunction with not upzoning the downtown. That is where they have the potential issue.
Ms. Elrod said the percentage shown in the workbook now is a combined percentage of low and very low, but if the Council were to change everything that was 60 du/acre and put it back down to 35 du/acre, you would have a significant negative number in very low income.
Councilmember McCormick said this is why reallocating even the 60 du/acre is so important. Ms. Elrod said you would still have an overall buffer but for the purposes of transparency, you have lost VLI units, which is what the Council should know was happening.
Mayor Dawson said the staff recommendation is using the 30-30-20-20 for vacant sites.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he is supportive of staff recommendation to use 30-30-20-20 on vacant sites.
Councilmember Anduri said the real issue here is what does the Council want to do in the downtown zoning and not this particular detail. So, he thinks the Council should discuss that and then the allocation flows from that, recognizing they are linked. The staff recommendation is based upon meetings with HCD, and that the City maintains what they have been submitting and discussing with HCD. Based on what he knows, he would support that.
Councilmember McCormick said there was the other conversation Ms. Wotherspoon brought up about FBOs and not including those. He said it is all related. They could use this reallocation of the percentages to make up for not including the FBOs and for keeping downtown zoning the same. He does not think they could do them all, but that also works as well because FBOs give them a nice buffer on the VLI.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 30 of 42 April 22, 2024 Ms. Elrod agreed, and she also wanted to remind the Council that the two concerns expressed by HCD is not just no net loss, but also AFFH. If the City dramatically changes the distribution by income, they will have to go back through an analysis of the site’s inventory with policy. At the staff level, they feel at 30- 30-20-20 it is not as big a change of 40-40-10-10, but it is still pushing the limit. They had the analysis with the FBOs. Now, if they take the majority of them out, then the big site becomes, in terms of the inventory for lower income would be DeSilva, and that changes the distribution of lower income units throughout the unit.
Councilmember Candell said she thought if they put the FBOs in the Housing Element they are not allowed to use them for AFFH.
Ms. Elrod said it is a different question. FBOs are used as mobility actions and not FBOs for the inventory.
When they have an analysis for the sites inventory the consultant looks at every site and what they have identified as the distribution of units by income on those sites. They plot that and tell the City whether or not they are overloading certain areas of the City with lower income units. So, if you have a big site like DeSilva and you put a huge number of your lower income units, that analysis gets skewed and the benefit of having done the FBOs was to distribute units more of lower income throughout the community. It is not the mobility action, per se. It is simply to meet the distribution needed to satisfy AFFH. That is a completely different conversation.
Councilmember Candell said if the Council takes them out, she asked if the half mile big bubble come back in. She asked if that helps offset that. Ms. Elrod said the City cannot count them in the inventory.
Councilmember Candell asked if there is a difference between 30-30 or 47-13 as it relates to DeSilva, or he asked if that is impossible to say at this point. Ms. Elrod said it is impossible to say at this point. She would think there wouldn’t be, but there is something logical about 30-30-20-20. It does not seem like a dramatic change from the existing RHNA allocation.
Councilmember Anduri asked if Root Policy has considered, in effect, 60% lower income. Ms. Elrod said no, it has not. They have only analyzed vacant land according to the RHNA allocation. There has been no analysis if they change the distribution on just vacant sites to 30-30-20-20. What they would do is reach out to Root Policy and ask if this is a dramatic change. If the Council were to do that, for example, and you take out FBOs and you reduce the 60 du/acre down to 35 du/acre, that would definitely need a re-analysis of redistribution of units.
Councilmember Anduri agreed, but applying 30-30-20-20 to DeSilva, leaving int the three FBOs, and leaving the zoning as is, he asked if Ms. Elrod had an opinion of whether that would work. Ms. Elrod said she believes that would work. She thinks they will reach out and not ask for a full analysis but get Root Policy to weigh in on simple distribution of numbers. So, they are saying this site is going to be “x” number of very low-income units and low-income units and see if that changes their analysis from prior.
Mayor Dawson referred to the concern from a resident about FBOs and the 35 du/acre rezone. It is not like they can opt out because once it is upzoned, it cannot be downzoned. She asked if there were thoughts about that.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 31 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember McCormick said just changing the spreadsheet that staff provided and removing the three FBOs, it changes the buffer down to 25% from 37%. If they are hiding the distinction between very low and low income, this seems to be the only material impact and asked if staff had a chance to model that.
It makes the other things they are talking about much more difficult. He thinks there are only so many times you can take advantage of this extra buffer they have gotten because of 30-30-20-20. They will lose it back again if they do something like that. So, he asked if this is still detrimental to the FBOs if they do this without their agreement. It still feels like if the Council zones something and they try to sell it, it is different than it was before they upzoned it. It would seem like it would impact future development on that site.
Mayor Dawson asked if there are legal ramifications from that.
City Attorney Subramanian said staff was not worried about a takings issue that was raised in the past. As one of the commenters noted, when the rezone comes, you could have the property owners pay more attention and then the Council would then consider revisiting that issue at the rezone process which would then affect the Housing Element if the Council wanted to consider changing their mind on at least the ones the City has not received feedback on.
Mayor Dawson said she thinks it is a good program but is uncomfortable with it as they are community partners. Until they have some confirmation or acknowledgement that they even know this is what the Council is talking about, it would be important. She knows staff has done due diligence, but she is looking for a comfort factor on just going on whether they include those three the City has not heard from or not.
Councilmember Candell said she definitely thinks they should not include the three. She would not even include any of them at this point just because the rezoning will take a while. She suggested keeping the Methodist Church in there because it has always been in the Housing Element and then fudge the percentages a little bit to get them back to where they were. She thinks it will save them a lot of headaches and some legal and emotional dilemmas.
Councilmember Anduri said he is troubled by this because they have been talking about this for months and most Councilmembers are strongly in favor of including FBOs, so he is concerned now they come to the meeting and are facing this.
Councilmember Candell said they did not know they could change the income distribution percentages in order to get to the numbers they need. They are so close, and they thought these FBOs were getting them over the edge, and they did. For a while, they were their only choice. Then they found out they cannot use them for AFFH and while not a taking, it could be a hardship for some of these churches who may just want to sell someday. So, she would be willing to try to remove them completely.
Mayor Dawson asked if staff knew of any other communities that have done FBOs. Ms. Elrod said yes; Orinda and there are several all over the State that have used them in their inventories. They did essentially what Lafayette did which was to find a portion of the land that would be potentially a good site and call that the site. Obviously, things would change, but this is a capacity analysis. They are not saying there will be a development there. It was a capacity analysis.
Mayor Dawson said she definitely approves the program, which is great, but it is a land use issue, and they are changing it from existing land use for organizations.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 32 of 42 April 22, 2024 Vice Mayor Kwok said to follow-up on Councilmember Anduri’s comments, the Council was all supportive of this. He was supportive because it provided some optionality as Mr. Wolff mentioned. To the extent that it additive and they are giving something extra even if they did not want to use it, it is something he is supportive of. He thinks the nuance here he is confused by a little bit is the question of, is there a downside in the even the church wanted to sell the property outright. If they had a 3-acre property and 1 acre was something the City changed the zoning to. If they sold the property outright to a non-church, non-faith-based buyer would the selling price be diminished because of their action today or not.
Ms. Subramanian said she cannot speak to that and does not know it would be diminished because the City is upzoning it. This would be a real estate issue an appraiser would review at the time of sale which could be much more into the future. For legal purposes, staff did not find it would be a taking of property.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked if it would be a disclosure that the church would make in the sale that says onethird of the property is upzoned. He asked if it is an encumbrance or an option. Ms. Subramanian said it is zoning just like your property is likely zoned single-family residential. She presumes it would be a disclosure but cannot speak to that. A portion of the property would be single-family and a portion of would be new zoning.
Vice Mayor Kwok said the upzoning to a higher number is something that would add value. The question is, if there is an attachment that says there is a minimum density required of that, he asked if the minimum density applies in the sale to the new buyer.
Ms. Elrod said yes, but only for the portion of the site that has been described as the opportunity site and not the whole thing.
Councilmember Candell asked if they put some minimum affordable requirements on it too. Ms. Elrod said yes, they did but it tracks SB 4. They have to opt to do it.
Councilmember Candell said, however, the City is putting minimum affordability requirements on the zoning, as well, so it is a legal thing. It is not like they get to build market rate units there. Ms. Subramanian said a portion of it would be affordable. Ms. Elrod said a portion of it would be 5% above moderate and she thinks 20% moderate so they would have 25% moderate income or above allowance, which is actually better than the State because the State does not allow that.
Councilmember McCormick said it is 75% VLI so it is good for the numbers, but it is a significant limitation.
In some ways, it makes it more valuable or less valuable depending on who is buying it. To put another spin on it, it is something they could always add later if, during a mid-year check the City was not meeting its numbers, that would be a way.
Vice Mayor Kwok said staff can answer that question, but it strikes the question of how critical is keeping FBOs in and if taken out, does it tip the apple cart and change things.
Councilmember McCormick said this is why he is worried. If they do nothing else and go down from 37% to 22% buffer, he asked how they quantify that. Councilmember Candell said they are able to go to 15% to 20%.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 33 of 42 April 22, 2024 Mayor Dawson asked if they could do that later or whether it is so baked in it upsets everything. She asked if the FBO portions of the church sites can shift similar to what they are talking about in DeSilva. Ms. Elrod said yes, it could be. Staff decided the easiest way to do it was to map out a section that seemed reasonable in size. They did not go into anything about setbacks or other things, but just to see what the capacity would be on a reasonable portion of the site.
Councilmember Anduri confirmed that when they rezone the FBO, they will have a definite area and in comparison to DeSilva, they can change. He thinks it would be more difficult with an FBO where they could come in and say the City zoned this part of their property and they need to sell another part to this buyer for a single-family residence and whether they can shift it over a bit, keep the same acreage, and just move it to the west.
Mr. Wolff said yes, the relocation of the designated area would be part of the project entitlement approval process. What was added into the last example was adding in a subdivision as well. Councilmember Anduri asked and confirmed that if a church were to sell any of its property they would have to go through the subdivision process.
Mayor Dawson said the other question is, is there any possibility of a clause that if the church no longer functions as a church the zoning then can be changed. Ms. Elrod said she does not believe it can. Once it is zoned, it is stuck that way regardless of the land use designation.
Councilmember Anduri said they are talking about relatively small acreage in each case here. They could conceivably rezone one-quarter acre somewhere else and downzone the FBO acreage. Mr. Wolff confirmed.
Mr. Wolff returned to the question if the City removes the FBOs where the owners have not weighed in or have been non-responsive on the rezone, this would leave three remaining in which are Sun Valley Bible Church, Our Savior and Methodist. Ms. Elrod said they would get down from 37% to 25% in the overall inventory and the VLI goes down to 10 units.
Councilmember McCormick asked if they should be concerned with that number. Ms. Elrod said she would be, but she is always trying to be as conservative as possible to mitigate as many risks as are realistic. For her, she feels like you have one site that comes in with just inclusionary rather than what they projected, and they have such a small buffer, they would be stuck trying to find pretty quickly particularly if a site is as big as DeSilva. This is why they were trying to be very judicious about what the percentage is on vacant sites. You not only have the capacity problem, but she asked what happens when you actually get a project on one of the sites. For DeSilva, if you have 150 units for low and very low, an above moderate project of any size, those 150 units must be found somewhere in the City’s buffer.
Councilmember Candell asked if they aggregate the VLI and LI buffer for that calculation. She asked if it is blind to the combination.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 34 of 42 April 22, 2024 Ms. Elrod said it is blind to the combination. In being as conservative as possible and still getting to where you meet the 50% threshold, you get one project on a site that completely makes the City scramble immediately for more sites, this is the balance here. This is what staff has been trying to get at—to create an opportunity where they kick the can as far down the road as they can because it will come up at some point. And, once they discover the City is not in compliance or come against no net loss, they only have six months to rezone. If not done within those six months, HCD will pull the City’s certification. So, she would like that to happen as later in the period as they can rather than next year because staff has a lot of things to do.
Councilmember Candell said another point is the 5th cycle they never went out of compliance because half of the developments in Lafayette were outside of their Housing Element, and they get to count those. So, these are reasonable risks. They made it last time, but not this time because they are being set up to fail, but hopefully they do not get out of compliance.
Mr. Wolff said it is correct that they are able to count any project in the income categories in which it fits, so irrespective of whether they are previously identified as an opportunity site, the City is able to count them against the RHNA allocation and the City’s progress. They fall significantly short as do most communities on the lower income. Above moderate is the only income category where the City met or exceeded the goal.
Councilmember McCormick said if they miss and have to scramble, if they did not do the FBOs now, he asked if they could do them later as a mitigating factor. Ms. Elrod said yes, and it would have to be done within six months.
Vice Mayor Kwok said also the question is would they get HCD to approve their Housing Element without the FBOs in it at this point in time, so it is not just a question of delay but any change here.
Mr. Wolff confirmed and said staff mentions it achieves to some degree, the AFFH goal of distributing varied incomes throughout a broader geographic extent of the community. Ms. Elrod added that they could include FBOs as mobility actions if they did not have them in the inventory. They cannot use them for both purposes according to HCD. Mr. Wolff said so it is not an AFFH achievement, but it serves the purpose of distributing the lower income units in a broader geographic extent, which is an issue that the Housing Element needs to look at.
Mayor Dawson said if the Council removes the three churches, it comes down to 10 VLIs and Ms. Elrod said the buffer was 52 down to 10, so they lose 42.
Mayor Dawson said she likes the program but was still uncomfortable with the City using letters to include but nothing to include the others,so this is inconsistent. The program itself is opt in with a low percentage of the churches ending up needing to sell, so it is one of the things to think about in the future as an unknown. It is a tough decision, but she was okay with that because she likes the program and the fact it is opt in.
Councilmember Anduri said on the three FBOs the City has not heard from, he asked if there is a third category of property in each one of those or left-over one-third of an acre so that if they want to shift it in order to subdivide and carve off another site to sell for a house, he asked if this works.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 35 of 42 April 22, 2024 Mr. Wolff said he does not think he can categorize it uniformly across all of the sites. So, he would say generally, yes, but that is a caveat he would need to look at to be definitive.
Councilmember Anduri asked if it is also possible because he was thinking in terms of the rezoning process, rezoning the entire property but if it is a 1 ½ acre property that is rezoned and they want to sell one-half acre, that they could do a matching upzoning somewhere for that half acre as single family. Mr. Wolff said yes, staff would want to balance the reduction with an upzoning elsewhere. It could be the same site or a different site.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked and confirmed the City would have six months to do this. Ms. Elrod said the same rule applies. It is the no net loss issue where once you fall out, you have to find a replacement site within six months.
Councilmember Anduri said he is thinking of a different situation where, five years from now, an FBO site comes in and says they want to sell this and raise some money, there is no time limit then. They just have to do the process at a Council meeting. Mr. Wolff confirmed and said it is similar to the process they would need to go through right now if they own one parcel and wanted to sell off a portion of it.
Councilmember Anduri said in one sense, they are just thinking of hypotheticals here and things that might benefit. They also get comments from the public saying they hope the church does not go away and sell the property which is a fear. But, in terms of financials, if a church needed to pay off its debts and go away, this rezoning would help. It would seem they could get a higher price for the property, so in that sense, the rezoning is advantageous.
Councilmember Candell said it is not for the affordable housing requirements. It is 70 % affordable.
Councilmember Anduri said he is not a real estate expert, but he would think that if you had a one-acre parcel that could support 35 dwelling units, that will get a higher price. Councilmember Candell said BMR units always have to be subsidized and that is what these are. It is 70% BMR zoned and so they will have to get subsidies to build that. So, she thinks it is worth a lot less because they would have to get so much subsidy to build anything on it.
Councilmember McCormick said it is a profit versus the price. There is no doubt the building is more valuable when there are 35 units on it, but the question is the net profit after building it.
Councilmember Anduri said he is thinking of the seller of the property because nothing is going to move forward until they get their price. He is thinking they are going to get a higher price from the 35-unit developer than for someone who is building a single-family house.
Councilmember Candell said she does not see that at all with the affordability requirement on it, because of subsidies. Mayor Dawson agreed and said SB 4 was to support that kind of building.
Councilmember McCormick said to be fair, if they do not make the affordability requirement, the City has to find it elsewhere and the developer is not constrained. This is the City’s constraint. The only thing they are being subject to is the zoning and not the allocation.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 36 of 42 April 22, 2024 Mayor Dawson said they have a program similar to SB 4. There will be a minimum affordability, and Councilmember Candell said she does not think they can get out of it. Mayor Dawson said so it would end up being like a spot zone if someone were to sell it.
Mayor Dawson said she personally would be more comfortable if they did not include the three FBOs because the City does not have any information. They are down to 10 VLI units, but they will have to spread them around.
Councilmember Candell asked if this is the decision.
Mayor Dawson said it looks like the Council has agreed with the 30-30-20-20 on vacant sites. She asked if the Council agreed with how it is already for the non-vacant sites with what staff is recommending, and Councilmember Candell suggested using it the same on all sites.
Vice Mayor Kwok said if you use the same on all sites, he asked if the next step is to say not to upzone the downtown and then change that also. Councilmember Candell said she would support that here in this meeting.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he thinks the Council has something that can be approved as is and nothing is perfect so he would be in favor of keeping the staff recommendation at 30-30-20-20 and keeping the ratios the same on the others. On the FBO question, he thinks the Council is struggling to find a path forward if you eliminated the three churches. He asked if they go back to HCD without that piece and still try to get this through or other options.
Ms. Elrod said if the Council takes out the vast majority of FBOs, they would definitely need to have Root Policy weigh in on that. This fundamentally changes the distribution of low and very low-income units around the City. Based on that, the vacant parcels would play a more predominant role in providing those units. So, definitely if the FBOs were taken out with the exception of Lafayette United Methodist, then they would have to go back through another analysis with Root Policy.
Councilmember McCormick asked if they would have to come back and do this again, or if the analysis looks good, they would continue. Ms. Elrod said they have not worked with Root Policy in some time. She thinks the last iteration they did was the FBOs and DeSilva. So, she does not know whether they are even available.
Councilmember Anduri asked and confirmed they have looked at DeSilva and FBOs, but Ms. Elrod said what happens if you take out the vast majority of FBOs the onus is primarily on the vacant sites to give the City the very low- and low-income units. Then, they are less distributed throughout the community and more heavily weighted to DeSilva. The analysis could be fine, but they would have to go back and ask Root Policy to redo it.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 37 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Anduri said he understands there has been outreach three or four times to each of these institutions. He is pretty sure for at least one of them, they have received input from either neighbors or parishioners concerned about the City taking this action but have heard nothing from the institution itself.
If the parishioners were expressing an opinion, he is surprised they did not hear from the institution. He would have to think that based upon the outreach from staff that the institutions know about this and they have had an opportunity to express their view. He knows proceeding with the rezoning would not be considered a taking, but he asked if the City Attorney thinks the City has done everything they should do with respect to this process. He knows there will be another process with the rezoning, but he asked if the City Attorney believes the City has satisfied any obligation so far as notice.
Ms. Subramanian said she thinks they have. If not mistaken, the City has sent multiple notices and as Councilmember Anduri has pointed out, this process they have sent multiple notices. As part of the rezone, the City is required to send another notice, so there will be continued notices going forward and they may not receive any feedback again as part of a rezone should the Council move forward with this proposal.
Councilmember Anduri noted that the Council is looking at this now in the context of a negotiation and where they are in the negotiation. He knows they have had people say they should take longer to do it, but his concern is what that does with negotiation. He thinks it is important for the City to get approval.
It is very good they have not had a builder’s remedy application to date, and it may be they would not get one. But he thinks it is important for them, given all the input they have had, to move forward.
In terms of what they approve tonight, looking at 949 Moraga Road, the input received from all segments of the community favors including that. He thinks they would move forward on that whether it is an opportunity site or not. He thinks they send a positive message if they include it.
On the income distribution and related upzoning of the area along the freeway, they have heard comments on that, and he is prepared to move forward with the upzoning just because of where they are with HCD. And, with respect to the FBOs, they have been talking about this for months now, have taken out the institutions that have come in and say they do not want to participate in this, so he was in favor of moving forward with the five institutions here and would move to accept the staff recommendation and make final edits based on decisions discussed and submit to HCD for formal review.
Mayor Dawson said they agree with 949 Moraga Road. She asked for a straw vote on the 30-30-20-20 on the vacant sites. All Councilmembers agreed.
Mayor Dawson asked for comments regarding the AFFH action about using the half mile buffer from Mt.
Diablo Boulevard instead of the DSP boundary.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks it is a very good point about not going the entire length of Mt. Diablo Boulevard, but it is contextual, and he asked what does it do in the context of the Council’s discussions.
He would cut off Mt. Diablo Boulevard and not go out the half from the Risa Road. Mr. Wolff said he will confirm the intersections, but the map did not go out to the Reservoir or Risa Road.
Councilmember McCormick noted their rezone area is 1.75 miles actually and not the entire length of Mt.
Diablo, so they went a little past that. He asked staff to display the map. With the buffer it goes all the way to Pleasant Hill Road.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 38 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Candell said they may not show it in the very high fire zones so there is no confusion. Mr.
Wolff agreed and noted the program language says that if you are within one-half mile but within a very high fire hazard, you are not eligible. The program language has two components—the blue, which is the half mile and the red, which is a disqualifier. So, they simply wanted to be clear showing both parameters where there is a qualifier and where there is a disqualifier.
Mayor Dawson said she appreciates the compromise on the buffer on the buffer as opposed to what was proposed here coming from Mt. Diablo Boulevard. She thinks that was a creative way to look at that and still satisfy HCD. She voiced support of this.
Councilmember McCormick agreed it is better. Councilmember Candell said she also agrees. The parameters of staying within the envelope is important and she thinks it is helpful for people understanding this. Vice Mayor Kwok agreed and said this is something HCD has asked the City for numerous times and staff has managed to find a proper solution in what is presented, so he is supportive.
Mayor Dawson asked if there are parameters excluded from the half mile at all. Mr. Wolff said there are three potential ways of using the buffer as it would intersect the parcels. One would be if any part of the blue touches the parcel, the parcel is eligible. A second would be if the parcel is entirely within the blue, and they can vary, or you can use a centroid which is a geographic weighted center point of the point and if the centroid is in the buffer.
Mayor Dawon asked what would staff suggest using. Mr. Wolff said he thinks if the blue touches it, it is the easiest to administer and for the public to understand. Staff can produce a map using a centroid or entirely within. It is really a policy decision, and it is the edge condition. Staff is happy to accept direction as a matter of policy.
Mayor Dawson suggested deferring to staff on this. She knows there are different thoughts on the FBOs that have been included in the plan. She said FBOs are now in the program even for those the City has not heard from and for the two that have said they do not want to be included. They have confirmed they have done due diligence in terms of feedback and records, emails and letters. Mr. Wolff said he is confident every FBO knows about the program either through the City’s outreach or community outreach.
MOTION: Councilmember Candell moved to only include two FBOs and remove the three FBOs that have not responded. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilmember McCormick recognized that the FBOs have been notified and are aware. Vice Mayor Kwok said one decision important is the City Attorney saying this is not a taking and he is more comfortable as a result. Councilmember Anduri voiced support of staff’s recommendation. Mayor Dawson agreed.
Mayor Dawson said the next action is to direct staff to make the final minor edits based on the above and submit to HCD for formal review.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 39 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Candell noted the fourth action is affirming the revised Housing Element redlined edits, and she has comments. She said there are many things that will change like Lafayette Lane is still in there.
A more general question is that with AFFH stuff, there are many action items that were supposed to be done in Q-1 of 2024. All this will change, and Ms. Elrod confirmed and staff will make changes, publish for a 7-day review period, the Council can see everything staff publishes and then they will return it to HCD. They technically have 60 days to write a letter to the City. They may take less time because they are so close.
Mayor Dawson asked if there were any other comments on redline edits, and there were none. She suggested a motion.
Councilmember Anduri asked if the Council is approving the Housing Element as revised. Ms. Subramanian said the Council is directing the revisions commented on to be submitted to HCD.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Kwok) to direct staff to include 949 Moraga Road, use 30-30-20-20 for the vacant sites, use the half-mile from Mt. Diablo Boulevard, and make final minor edits based on those changes, and submit to HCD for formal review following a 7-day publication and comment period. Vote:
4-1 (Ayes: Dawson, Kwok, Anduri, and McCormick; Noes: Candell).
12. STAFF REPORTS – None.
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.
14. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
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 Anduri said he sat in on a Creeks Committee meeting which was very interesting.
Representatives of EBRPD were there and they were talking about the repair of the trail that goes from Moraga Boulevard to Mt. Diablo Boulevard. His understanding is they have a very short working period because of anything having to do with the creek. They can only do work between August and October of each year. If all goes well, this year, they will do temporary stabilization on the trail which means it cannot be used by the public. Next year, they will have in their budget to do the fix on the trail if all goes well. In 2026, the bridge will be replaced with a bridge where people will be able to see the creek as opposed to the higher level.
On May 4th in this hall, the Gold Coast Players disbanded but collaborated with Berkeley Chamber Performances, and this is their first season in Lafayette. They scheduled three concerts; one in October, January, and the final one is May 4th. He was able to go to the first one, and it was about 80% full. Gold Coast Players were selling out. He was not able to go in January where he was told there was only 60%. He is hoping to fill the hall on May 4th and encouraged people to attend so they schedule another season here.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 40 of 42 April 22, 2024 He also attended the Lamorinda Village Annual Luncheon. They have gone through a program defining what they are doing and calling it “Redefining Aging.” He would encourage Councilmembers attend next year.
Lastly, as the City Manager mentioned, on April 25th the Senior Services Commission will go over the AgeFriendly Action Plan.
Councilmember McCormick echoed the City Manager’s comments on the Walk About. They did an extensive walk on the north side of Mt. Diablo from Oak Hill almost down to Mechanics Bank. The feedback from businesses was very positive. Business owners seem to truly love Lafayette. He reported the Chamber is doing their Coffee with the Mayor this Friday with Supervisor Candace Andersen.
Councilmember Candell reported Lafayette Community Day is coming up June 1st which is a joint effort between the City and the Community Foundation of Lafayette. The website is up at www.lafayettecommunityday.org and everybody can sign up. City staff and Councilmembers can be captains of projects, and she asked to let her know because she is in charge of the volunteers for those.
She also reported that SB 9 went down in the lower court in Southern California for charter cities. It was the straight premise for passing SB 9 which was for affordable housing, but this does not provide any affordable housing, so how can that apply in charter cities. She is sure it will be appealed and press releases about it.
Vice Mayor Kwok said subsequent to the last Council meeting, on the next day he met with Nikki Cowger who spoke the night before about her concerns related to people holding signs outside Lafayette Elementary School during the weeks before and after transgender day visibility on March 31st. Ms. Cowger is a resident of Lafayette who is supportive of transgender community members. As a practicing attorney, she said she understands and supports First Amendment rights and free speech; however, she noted that there is an appropriate time, place, and manner for individuals to express her views. Her ask of the City was to clarify the time, place, and manner under which the City allows free speech in the community and asked for clarification of how the City will enforce violations of time, place, and manner regulations. She finally encouraged the City to educate the public on these guidelines and to enforce the guidelines if they are violated.
A few days later on Friday, April 12th, he and the City Manager met with Mark Lonergan, Rob Lavoie and Sarah Lind regarding the same matter about transgender day visibility. They expressed concerns that the Lafayette School District curriculum is providing educational materials about transgender issues that are in a direction which they do not agree with. They stand in support of some of the messaging on the signs that are being displayed outside Lafayette Elementary School. One of the residents who met with them asked that they not be vilified by the City or City Council for their opposing views and another resident also asked the Council consider taking a stand against the Lafayette School District’s current transgender curriculum.
City Attorney Subramanian added that staff has been internally talking about staff preparing some sort of document to go out publicly about the First Amendment, the ability related to protests on sidewalks, the City’s sign ordinance, and some of the regulations and restrictions that apply to get the work out to the public.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 41 of 42 April 22, 2024 Councilmember Candell referred to the Two Park meeting on Saturday and would like to go. She is not a liaison on the PTR Commission, but she said she will just listen and not provide comments. Ms.
Subramanian said she can coordinate with Councilmember Candell off-line and ensure there are no Brown Act violations.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks this would be educational for all Councilmembers, and this is a second community forum. The PTR Commission has the consultant who is working on the Two Park designs and is receiving input. He said the question is whether Councilmembers can go and listen to the community members as they give their input.
Ms. Subramanian said if there is a majority of the Council attend, since it is the City’s meeting of the subcommittee, while she is not a fan of this because it starts out just listening, but it can go elsewhere. If the Council is attending another agendized Brown Act meeting of another public commission and are sitting in the audience and not sitting next to each other and talking about what is on the agenda, in theory this would not need to be agendized under the Brown Act. She emphasized Councilmembers should not sit next to each other or talk to one another.
Vice Mayor Kwok reported that yesterday he was pleased to attend Earth Day celebrations in Lafayette Plaza. The City was represented by the ETF and Sustainable Lafayette in talking about the upcoming transition to electric leaf blowers. Fortunately, staff brought the leaf blowers and members of the public got to try them out on the plaza. Councilmember Anduri was present staffing the ETF booth, and Mayor Dawson was greeting people, and he was doing the leaf blower demos. He was also pleased the Youth Commission was present for the second year in a row with activities for kids to plant and bring home wildflowers, which was popular.
Yesterday, he also had the honor of representing the Council to attend a Boy Scouts Eagle Court of Honor ceremony where four young men finished their Eagle Scout. It was a pleasure to see 80 members of the community attend this moving ceremony. He hopes other Councilmembers will have an opportunity to attend future ceremonies, as it was very enjoyable.
Mayor Dawson echoed Earth Day celebrations and thanked partners and commissions that worked hard to bring their work and the City’s programs to the public.
Mayor Dawson opened the public comment period.
SARAH LIND commented Vice Mayor Kwok’s recap of their meeting last week and they did have a lengthy discussion and she appreciates the time that was allocated. But she clarified that in the conclusion of their meeting she specifically said it is important to stand neutral. She did not say, take a side. So, she is sorry that was misinterpreted.
She would love to provide an opportunity to anybody else to ask questions regarding that meeting because she does not feel as though what they were conveying was accurately received. She believes that Rob Lavoie is listening right now and knows he is a very dedicated citizen who pays quite a bit of attention. It is unfortunate that the messaging they took the time to articulate and discuss in a very civilized manner was not received accurately which was mis-conveyed here. There are citizens and constituents who have a difference of opinion on matters that are taking hold of the City, and it is not the City to say where they are allowing free speech. It is the Constitution that says that, and she asked to keep that in mind.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 42 of 42 April 22, 2024
16. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None.
17. ADJOURNMENT – 10:27 p.m. in memory of former Lafayette Mayor George Wasson.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Gina M. Dawson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk