City Council Minutes Page 1 of 36 June 9, 2025
*
City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall June 9, 2025 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 5:45 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 Minutes Page 2 of 36 June 9, 2025
1. CALL TO ORDER – 5:45 P.M.
Mayor Candell called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Candell; Vice Mayor Anduri; Councilmembers Cervantes, and McCormick
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Mike Moran, Engineering and Public Works Director; Jonathan Katayanagi, Parks and Recreation Director; Jamie Williams, Chief of Police; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/McCormick) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
5. CLOSED SESSION
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code section 54956.9 (d)(1) Leamy, et al. vs. City of Lafayette
Contra Costa Superior Court, Case No. MSC20-02456
REPORT OUT ON CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Candell announced that there was no reportable action from the Closed Session.
6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 6:00 p.m. – Mayor Candell led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
7. MAYOR CANDELL – LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT
We acknowledge that Lafayette is part of the unceded, ancestral homeland of the Bay Miwok people. The Bay Miwok and neighboring Ohlone people have lived in and moved through this place for thousands of years. They stewarded and shaped this land for hundreds of generations. We express our appreciation and gratitude for this profound legacy, which enhances and contributes to our lives to this day. We will strive to honor this land and strengthen our ties with the Indigenous communities that continue to live and work in our East Bay region as our neighbors and community members. We acknowledge and honor them and their ancestors, elders, and next seven generations.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Items not on the Agenda) – 6:00 p.m.
City Council Minutes Page 3 of 36 June 9, 2025
KATHRYN WINOGURA said she had been at the Council meeting a couple of months ago to talk about the petition to ask the City Council to look at and have concern over safety issues regarding protestors in front of Lafayette Elementary School every day. They have 415 signatures of mostly Lafayette residents on their petition, with particular concern over safety and not about the First Amendment issue. About 1 ½ months ago, she was in an on-line meeting where Mayor Candell was updating a group of them on where things stand and difficulty working around the First Amendment issue. At that meeting, she asked about the harassment and safety issues, the near traffic accidents, and testimony from the crossing guard that has been regularly given to the Council, as well as significant testimony and examples around safety and harassment.
She said Mayor Candell’s response was, “Really? Is that going on because the City does not have enough documentation on that? And, if that is going on, it should be given to the City so they can see where the safety issues are.” She brought this back to the community of activists she is working with and there was shock. The feeling is that this has been brought to the City Council with children being confronted and talked to, parents being harassed, and near traffic accidents. She heard about one that happened three weeks before school ended where a pedestrian witnessed a car slowly going by and distracted, looking at the signs, and they slammed on their breaks right before hitting an adult pedestrian and her dog. So, her request is, could the Council address the fact that this has been brought to attention, and she asked what is needed from them to have it better laid out.
LISA DISBROW pointed out that the petition mentioned is signed by about 400 people out of a community of 25,000, that the police disputed all concerns about safety, and that there are only 3 crime reports and all 3 are of people harming her. She wants to talk about last year and this year in the context of ideology.
They have taken up 6 Council meetings talking about her protests when she clearly have First Amendment rights based upon the City Attorney’s information. She pointed out that the Council shut down at least 8 speakers trying to talk about the purpose of the protest and said it was not in the Council’s purview, yet today, all Councilmembers were at Lafayette Square raising an LGBTQIA+ flag. She wondered how this is in the Council’s purview. Thirdly, the California flag which should be on the pole has been replaced by the LGBT flag, which does not represent the community because there has been no vote, no election over it, and she thinks that would be Unconstitutional. She remembers the Council took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
She also pointed out that two meetings ago, the Council had the DEI Chairperson speaking about coordinating with both Lafayette Elementary and Acalanes High School, yet when she wanted to bring up school issues, the Council cut them off. So, she has a pamphlet for each Councilmember which is genderaffirming care, the myths of gender dysphoria, which is a condition in which a person feels incongruent with their biological sex causing extreme psychological distress. It goes on from there talking about anxiety disorders, eating disorders, autism spectrum, childhood trauma, and social transitioning which is definitely happening in all schools because they have a confidential gender plan that they do not share with parents unless the minor child indicates that is their wish.
SARAH VICKERS-WEBB thanked the Council for its role in raising the flag today. She came here a few months ago when they first brought up the petition and she ceded her time to someone else so they could speak.
City Council Minutes Page 4 of 36 June 9, 2025
She wrote an email afterwards based on her observations at the meeting which she read into the record relating to hateful comments, concerns about litigation costs, someone refusing to move from the crosswalk by the crossing guard and hearing the Mayor state this is a “big, tough issue.” She asked if protecting the lives of crossing guards and drivers, protecting a vulnerable population from emotional abuse, protecting school children from harmful distraction, saving the lives of trans-kids who are selfharming as a result are big tough issues.
According to a recent study, anti-trans laws have caused up to a 72% increase of suicide attempts by trans and nonbinary youth. Seeing government failure to act against transphobic predators is harmful as well.
Regarding the lack of calls to the police this year as compared to last, the only reason she has not been calling the police regarding the protestors this spring, including when they went onto school property, is because she completely lost faith in the police to do anything to protect trans people after what happened last year. Last year, she called the police after Lisa Disbrow held a sign identifying particular individuals at Stanley Middle School by the way they were dressed as owls and cats. Regardless of how these kids identify, there is documented evidence against violence towards people that has been put on social media that other people can see.
MITCHELL FOSTER said they go by they/them pronouns. He is a nonbinary working-class millennial member of Lafayette, and he has lived here for 8 months. He is a member of the Lamorinda community not just because they lives in Lafayette but also because he goes to work as a full-time staff member at St. Mary’s College. They is the Director of the Intercultural Center at St. Mary’s College and is also a member of the Bay Area Chapter of the National Federation of Filipino-American Association as well as the Lafayette DEIB group. Having moved from Washington, D.C. to the Bay Area after assuming their current full-time position at St. Mary’s College, they chose to live in Lafayette because it was a more manageable community to be a part of and enjoy a quiet, calm, and disconnected location, but also an area that finds easy access to the goings on in the East Bay and San Francisco. They and their partner of 4 years who is here with them today enjoy the ability to leave the car at home and take BART to SFO Airport when visiting family and friends from the East Coast. In their 8 months here in Lafayette, he has seen how the community shows up for queer issues, particularly rallying behind trans, nonbinary issues.
As a visibly non-binary person they do not have the privilege of blending in with his cisgender counterparts. In today’s political climate it is so much more important to know that they can engage in a mundane activity like walking down the street and be safe from assault and/or harassment. It is really disheartening to see that there are those in this community who protest trans identities as if these identifies are chosen by the people who hold them. As someone who is Filipino, their transness does not only exist within the modern and contemporary discourses of gender or within the contemporary and modern context. Their identity is also that of their ancestors who held gender non-conformity in a high regard so much so that Babuyan Islands of the Philippines who were sometimes gender non-conforming people were not only accepted but were given important roles in their tribes and communities as healers and dream interpreters.
City Council Minutes Page 5 of 36 June 9, 2025
They commended the City Council for supporting LGBTQ+ rights and urged the Council to be unwavering in this commitment no matter the political challenges. Trans and nonbinary folks are just as important members of this community as everyone else. They also added that another reason they chose to live in Lafayette is the easy access to public transportation through the County Connection’s shuttle to St.
Mary’s. Not only do they get to get to work safely but also gets to see their students and colleagues in the shuttle frequently, those from Lamorinda and those from neighboring towns and cities. This is a benefit they enjoy as a member of this community, and they would like to request the City Council to look into other opportunities to make public transportation more accessible to other neighboring communities like Walnut Creek and Concord without having to utilize BART.
Mayor Candell announced that the Council was at the LGBTQIA+ flag-raising today and were not able to raise it, but it is raised at this moment.
9. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Srivatsa said she did not have an update this evening but is available for the budget and work plan items, given she is participating remotely.
10. PRESENTATIONS – None.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Candell asked and confirmed a member of the public wished to make a correction to Item A from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Candell removed Item A.
B. Consideration of Bills of Local Importance and Legislative Matrix
1. AB 66 (Tangipa): California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: egress route AB 66 (Tangipa): California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: egress route projects: fire safety
Recommendation: Support
2. AB 69 (Calderon): FAIR Plan policy renewals
Recommendation: Support
3. AB 888 (Calderon): California Safe Homes grant program Recommendation: Support
4. SB 346 (Durazo): Local Agencies: transient occupancy taxes: short term rental facilitator Recommendation: Support
5. Legislative Matrix
Recommendation: Receive and file.
C. Quarterly Financial Report – 3
rd Quarter, Fiscal Year 24/25
Recommendation: Receive and file.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Cervantes/McCormick) to adopt the Consent Calendar Items B.1 – B.5, and C. Vote:
4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
12. OLD BUSINESS – None.
13. STAFF REPORTS
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 36 June 9, 2025
A. Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager and Mala Subramanian, City Attorney Announce City Council Vacancy, Next Steps and Process to Filling Vacancy on the City Council Recommendation: 1) Announce the vacancy on the City Council. 2) Direct the City Clerk to advertise the position for two weeks and accept applications until one week prior to the first interview. 3) Direct the Mayor and Vice Mayor to draft interview questions for consideration by the Council at the June 23rd meeting. 4) Schedule an interview date on July 15, 16 or 17th for candidate interviews and ultimately adopt the resolution to fill the vacancy.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian gave the staff report and overview of the item regarding the City Council vacancy, next steps and process to fill the vacancy on the City Council. Per the Government Code, the Council is required to fill the vacancy within 60 days of its occurrence, and per the LMC, the process used in the past where the term will not expire until 2028, the Council will fill a vacancy until November of 2026 which is when the next regularly scheduled election will occur. On the ballot, there will be a two-year term that someone can apply for. There will be three seats up in November 2026; two will have four-year terms and one will be a two-year term being discussed.
The Resolution approved by the Council in 2019 calls for a process where the Council declares the vacancy, direct the City Clerk to advertise the vacancy for no more than two weeks and accept applications, schedule an interview to occur such that the Council can adopt a resolution after candidates are interviewed to fill the vacancy within 60 days. Staff recommends the Council set a date of either July 15, 16, or 17 to schedule interviews, and then fill the vacancy no later than July 30th, which will be the 60th day. In the past, the Council has held interviews and have appointed that person that night such that they are ready to fill the vacancy immediately.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he knows the language talks about the next election of November 3rd, but in reality, what the Council has done is Councilmembers who have been appointed serve until the change-over Council meeting. They do not say someone is off the Council on November 3rd and they cannot come to the second meeting in November and then they have a new Councilmember in December. He asked if they interpret this language as meaning the first meeting after the certification of the vote.
Ms. Subramanian confirmed and as pointed out, if the election is at the beginning of November, then the County needs to certify the election results which usually occurs by the end of November, and then the Council swears in the person along with the other two positions, usually at the first meeting in December.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he thinks the last two times the Council did this, they set a date but also identified a second date. Mayor Candell agreed and highly recommended this.
Councilmember McCormick said being a recent participant in this process, the Council will set one night but there could be a second night. To confirm, there could be a decision on the first night which is completely acceptable. Ms. Subramanian confirmed and said if the Council wished, it could set two nights with the second night being there just in case but if the Council is ready to appoint someone after the first night, that would be the Council’s pleasure. The Council could say it will do it one night and then decide they need a second night, as long as the Council appoints by July 30th.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he thinks going in though they identified two nights the last time because if they do not do that, they have the 48-hour noticing requirement. Ms. Subramanian said special meetings are 24 hours, but given the timing and having four Councilmembers available, it may be better to identify two nights just in case the Council needs it.
City Council Minutes Page 7 of 36 June 9, 2025
Councilmember Cervantes said there is a primary in 2026 also, and he asked where it is set up as the next election or he asked if it is November. Ms. Subramanian explained the ordinance calls for the next regularly scheduled municipal election, which is November.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period.
JENIFER PAUL said with Councilmember Dawson’s resignation, Lafayette faces its 5th City Council vacancy in 9 years; 2016, 2019, 2021, 2024, and 2025, a frequency that is now surpassing regular elections. Last year, she stood before the Council and raised concerns about the lack of a formalized process for filling vacancies and that was when it was 4 in 8 years. At the time, Vice Mayor Kwok’s view was that vacancies were “not too common.” That unfortunately led to inaction, but the current situation demands a transparent, structured approach to restore resident trust. While Lafayette’s policy provides guidelines, it lacks a defined process, the steps, and the procedures and instructions.
The 2024 appointment process exposed issues such as inconsistent interview questions, a rushed 11:00 p.m. decision without discussion, and no on-line access to the meeting. While she completely supports the City’s plan to announce the vacancy advertised for two weeks, drafting questions, scheduling interviews in July to ensure they meet the government deadline, she believes to prevent further ambiguity, she urged the Council to hold a public meeting to establish a lasting framework. While ideally, this would be wonderful, it could be a task force. She understands that due to the short time of Councilmember Dawson’s abrupt departure. She thinks this is a chance for the Council to hold a meeting by the beginning of July and receive resident input to ultimately discuss and decide the following: 1) What is the method to narrow candidates after the initial interview? 2) What is the criteria for second round interviews? and decide ahead of time if the Council holds them, which she encourages the Council to do. 3) What whether questions beyond a pre-determined list are allowed? This was a huge issue last time. 4) Ensuring meetings are recorded and accessible, which did not occur last time. 5) Prohibiting late hour decisions which she believes will avoid rushed outcomes. These steps will enhance fairness and transparency.
Mayor Candell asked if Ms. Paul could email that full list to the Council, and Ms. Paul agreed.
Vice Mayor Anduri said if three of the four Councilmembers have a first choice, he asked what is the reason for a second night of interviews?
Ms. Paul said it did not go that way and she sent a long email last year describing how it went down. It is about the process and not the person. It did not go that way and she can send the Council her email again to clarify that.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he was there and there were three Councilmembers who had a first choice, and he does not understand why they would have a second night of interviews if there is a majority in favor of a candidate.
Ms. Paul said there was some ambiguity at that time and will re-send the email which will clarify everything, and she said she will make it public.
Ms. Subramanian added that the additional recommendation is to direct the Mayor and Vice Mayor to draft interview questions.
City Council Minutes Page 8 of 36 June 9, 2025
Mayor Candell suggested going through the four recommendations:
1) Announce the vacancy on the City Council which has been done. Vice Mayor Anduri asked if there is any difference in saying “announce” and “declare.” Ms. Subramanian said, no. 2) Direct the City Clerk to advertise the position for two weeks and accept applications until one week prior to the first interview. All Councilmembers agreed with Item 2. 3) Direct the Mayor and Vice Mayor to draft interview questions for consideration by the Council at the June 23rd meeting. Council discussion ensued on this item.
4) Schedule an interview date on July 15, 16, or 17th for candidate interviews and ultimately adopt the resolution to fill the vacancy. Mayor Candell asked Councilmembers to look at their calendars. If the 15th and 16th are available, those should be scheduled. Councilmember McCormick said based on Ms. Paul’s comments, they can schedule the two days, but they may only need one and recommended being explicit on what their expectation is. Councilmembers voiced their availability on July 15 and 16, 2025.
Ms. Subramanian said the last time when interview questions were drafted, they were brought back at the interview date and discussed just prior to interviews so candidates had to be more spontaneous in their answers. This could be done or alternatively, they could be brought back at the next public meeting.
Mayor Candell said she likes June 23rd date to get them out early and also right beforehand.
Vice Mayor Anduri said while not a strong preference, his preference is to do it just before the session on July 15th,so people do not have a pre-made script. He thinks the last time they did it just before the meeting, and Ms. Subramanian confirmed and said there could be changes or modifications made at that point which allows for a more spontaneous interview process.
Councilmember McCormick said as someone who went through it, that is preferable.
Councilmembers agreed to modify Item 3 for interview questions to be drafted and considered by the Council the day of interviews on July 15th before interviews.
Vice Mayor Anduri said in terms of what the Council is approving in the motion is July 15 and 16th if necessary.
Councilmember Cervantes asked if the other two Councilmembers would have an ability to look at the interview questions beforehand. Vice Mayor Anduri said Councilmembers received the questions in advance, and Ms. Subramanian confirmed they would be part of the packet for that meeting. Alternatively, if the meeting starts at 5:00 p.m. and the Council allots an hour to discuss the questions, they could be distributed to the Council at the meeting and the public, but then the Council would not have them in advance. Councilmembers said they like spontaneous answers to questions and agreed they can meet 30 minutes prior to the meeting.
City Council Minutes Page 9 of 36 June 9, 2025
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Cervantes) to 1) Announce the vacancy on the City Council. 2) Direct the City Clerk to advertise the position for two weeks and accept applications until one week prior to the first interview. 3) Direct the Mayor and Vice Mayor to draft interview questions for consideration by the Council at the July 15th meeting. 4) Schedule an interview date on July 15, and July 16 if necessary, for candidate interviews and ultimately adopt the resolution to fill the vacancy. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
Mayor Candell asked if they can discuss the possibility about creating a formal process, and Ms.
Subramanian said this would be a new agenda item the Council could discuss as to whether the Council wished to bring that back.
Councilmember McCormick referred to the feedback the Council got after the last process, stating it does not matter if the person had run in an election before, has not been a Councilmember before, or anything like that. The Council looks at whoever comes forward in the context of the interview.
Vice Mayor Anduri also mentioned that the 2019 resolution goes out of its way to say whoever is appointed can run for their position at the next election goes without saying. They can also run for another position in the next election.
B. Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager and Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director
1. Department Work Plans for FY25-26
Recommendation: Approve work plans as presented. Conduct midyear review in December in conjunction with the adoption of the Final Budget.
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa said as background, on March 7th, the Council held a special workshop to review current priorities and also assess the City’s financial outlook, staff capacity, and establish priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. The Council identified three priorities and, following that workshop, the Department Managers met on March 28th and identified projects that aligned with the Council’s priorities and listed key tasks, including unfunded State mandates that the City is required to complete in the upcoming fiscal year.
This work informed the development of the draft budget the Council will consider later on in the agenda.
Before the Council are the work plans for the five City departments and all tasks are funded through the General Fund, grants or other sources, and staff recommends approval of work plans as presented and also that a mid-year review be conducted in December to align with adoption of the final budget. She and Ms. Robinson and Department Managers are available to answer questions.
Mayor Candell said in the department work plans they have a Housing Action Coalition lawsuit, and it was said that the Planning Department might have to be putting a lot of work in there. She asked how that fits in if all of a sudden there is a bunch of work to be done.
Ms. Srivatsa said the Planning Department work plan has been pruned down considerably. The main emphasis this year is getting the Housing Element implementation tasks completed. If staff finds that the lawsuit is taking more time, staff will return to the Council to remove tasks from the work plan. She asked Ms. Subramanian if there is an anticipated timeline to determine when staff will be heavily involved in work for the litigation.
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 36 June 9, 2025
Mayor Candell said there is a color coding in the Housing Element table and the percentage complete does not match the color coding in the table. She asked if at some point the Council could receive an update for a better legend. Ms. Srivatsa said staff can add this to an upcoming agenda.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if the lawsuit referred to been served. Ms. Subramanian said yes, it has, and she will follow-up on the City’s deadline to answer.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period.
PETER LINGANE referred to Goal 5 in the work plan which seeks to use the Housing Element to increase the proportion of Hispanics, Blacks, and African Americans in the community. He has 3 Hispanic grandchildren, so he suspects he does not have a tremendous animosity to Hispanics. When they bought their house in Lafayette, there was a clause that said they could not sell it to an African American and his wife was incensed and had the clause removed, so they have no animosity towards African Americans, as well. They could have changed their deed to say they could only sell to an African American which would have been positive discrimination and intended to overcome the historical negative discrimination. Their courts seem to be moving towards consensus that both positive and negative discrimination are unlawful.
David French writes in the New York Times who is a former litigator and had an article yesterday on this very topic. He discussed positive discrimination in the Ohio case, and he concluded it is likely unlawful to use skin color or other group characteristic as a proxy for historical injustice. Goal 5 of the Housing Element calls upon Lafayette to take meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation. Goal 5 seeks to use the power of government to discriminate in favor of Hispanics, Blacks, and African Americans based solely on the color of their skins. Goal 5 is well-intended, but it is likely unlawful. He asked the Council to direct staff to remove Goal 5 and its associated work plans from the Housing Element.
KENT GRIGG said he misunderstood what the previous speaker was saying, stating he thought the intention as to give them favoritism, and the argument would be made on the other side is that this discriminates against Whites.
ROBERT LAVOIE echoed Mr. Lingane’s comment and said he had this concern during the development of the Housing Element, and Nick Waranoff has written a few comments on that, as well. There is no way that reverse discrimination can be legal, and it could put the City at risk for lawsuits, and he hopes the Council will follow his request.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Cervantes) to approve work plans as presented. Conduct midyear review in December in conjunction with the adoption of the Final Budget. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
2. Consider whether to market the Campana property for sale. Property located at 990 Moraga Road, APN 243-222-023
Recommendation: Engage John Cumbelich & Associates to list the Campana property for sale at a price of $3.8M and authorize the City Manager to enter into a listing agreement with the broker.
City Council Minutes Page 11 of 36 June 9, 2025
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson said the City has conferred with their realtor at John Cumbelich & Associates regarding putting the Campana property for sale at $3.8 million. What the Council is asking tonight is the ability for the City Manager and sign an agreement and to allow the realtor to start marketing the property immediately.
Councilmember McCormick said he and Vice Mayor Anduri were on the subcommittee that looked at the property. The staff report does a good job of outlining the issue but to reiterate for the public, this was not a decision made with any haste or ease. The original purpose of the Campana property would be to eventually have an open parking transportation link behind the Plaza Way buildings and businesses and potentially having housing, but the City accomplished the first objective, which was getting the Campana building but they were stymied by a variety of means with both the McNeil property next door as well as the inability of the Park Theater Trust – due to State law changes-- to dispose of the 4-plex behind it. So, having the Campana property by itself as its only link in the chain was untenable. And to be fair, the fact they have had interest in the property, which was a pleasant surprise, led them to move forward to see what the market would bear.
Councilmember Cervantes said the whole concept of the Plaza Overlay was a key piece until State law unended it, and as he recalled there is a Plaza Overlay update in the works. He asked if any of that could relate to this property, as he wants to be sure they are looking at this in the context of the overall plan.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he thinks they could consider this the Plaza update.
Mayor Candell asked if they are not going to do a Plaza Overlay update. Vice Mayor Anduri said there is not much more to say if they do not have those properties it would be very difficult to realize the vision.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period.
DAVID CLARK said he is a member of the Creeks Committee, and it bothers him a little bit with the discussion here and the staff report as there is no mention in there of the easement they have discussed multiple times that will connect the creek to the street, and he asked if that is intentional or an oversight. When this was brought up before, he was told they must wait until there is a buyer or a listing, and then they will disclose it. This is pretty close to a listing, and he frankly would like some assurance that the easement itself is still under consideration. That was never an issue. He thinks the issue was where was that easement going to go because right now there is a flood control easement that runs underground at the Campagna property.
So, that will be in place for whoever the buyer is, and they will not be able to build on top of that flood control easement, but they can park a car on top of it. In talks previously, he realizes the City cannot put an easement on property it currently owns, so it will have to be a disclosed condition and a provision in the contract of sale it seems to him that there will be an easement. The trail can probably go in a couple of different directions, and it does not have to follow the flood control easement but just get from the Happy Valley Creek where it butts up to the Campana property, goes underground, and the street. If this is still not in play, something happened he is not aware of, and he asked to include it in the staff report or a direction to the realtor that this needs to be disclosed in the listing that the intent of the City is there will be a public easement to provide a path along the lines they have been talking about. The fact it is listed for sale at $3.8 million he asked if that takes into consideration the placement of the easement or not. It seems to be a relevant factor, and it should be disclosed.
City Council Minutes Page 12 of 36 June 9, 2025
KENT GRIGG asked if anyone considered the parking requirements for the Park Theater. If it is very full he asked if people will be parking on the street and asked if residents and visitors of the new development be parking on the street. He asked if a study has been done that would say how many cars would fit on the Campana lot.
ROBERT LAVOIE said he wanted to follow up and see if there is any way to save the parking in that area. It seems the hang-up are the replacement units but possibly it is the McNeil Building too. He was not aware there was another property holder in the mix, but he asked if the City looked at finding 4 units somewhere else in town to keep that parking there because they are losing the 949 Moraga parking and now this place, which was going to fix some of the parking problems around the Plaza Park. Lastly, he asked if the $3.8 million from the sale will go back to the parking fund and asked if the City will look for a new replacement for these two lots that are missing. He knows the parking people are working on a global Citywide project and they believe there is enough capacity, but that is before they eliminate all of the parking with their housing by right in the next couple of years, so it is very concerning.
Mayor Candell stated the Council also has a letter from Mr. Clark and she knows the City cannot put an easement on it now, but she asked if there is a way to add something in the sale agreement about the easement.
Ms. Subramanian said yes, there is. If there is a desire to require an easement be part of the transaction, the City could do that if that is the Council’s pleasure. She said the City Engineer may have some comments on this, as well.
Mayor Candell said if they do that she asked if this decision would need to be delayed. Ms. Subramanian said no, she did not think the Council would delay it. She does not know if it would affect the sale price or not, and the Council could still proceed with the recommended sales price.
Vice Mayor Anduri said they had discussed two easements on this property. One would be over the flood control easement which is for the channel, and they cannot build on top of it. They would want an easement on top for access along the creek. They are playing a long game on this obviously because they have no easement beyond this property, but they would want this easement leading to the edge of the property.
The second easement the Council discussed was from the northern curb cut now on the property directly east to the edge of the McNeil property.
Ms. Subramanian said that would require a legal description. Vice Mayor Anduri said they talked about a survey to make sure they have the right spot there, but right now that is open, but they need an easement on that open area.
Mayor Candell asked how they would proceed if they were wanting to do both of those easements.
Ms. Subramanian said the Council could make the motion to proceed, with any sale subject to the placement of those two easements. Staff would need to conduct a survey, and it might be helpful to hear from the City Engineer to know what the scope of the easement may need to be.
City Council Minutes Page 13 of 36 June 9, 2025
Vice Mayor Anduri noted that the Poy property comes up to the side of the building on the Campagna project. Along the side of the building there already is an easement in place he believes, but they were going to confirm that. So, the new easement would be from the curb cut to the edge of the building so there is an easement that goes all the way from the curb cut to the McNeil property.
Councilmember Cervantes said he understands the easement on the south side with the flood control channel and potentially the creek access. On the north side, right now this is parking along the north side and asked if the easement is cutting into that. Vice Mayor Anduri said no. The easement is south of the parking spaces.
Mayor Candell said the recommendation is to have the City Manager engage with John Cumbelich & Associates to list it for sale at a price of $3.8M but then to adjust that, if needed, to add these two easements.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson said she would like to clarify a statement. This property was not bought with parking funds. It was bought with City offices funds, and they would return to that fund and not to the parking fund.
Councilmember McCormick said there was also a question about the Park Theater, which is one of the many reasons why this one step in the vision has not proceeded due to several changes in State law subsequent to the purchase of the Campana property. One was the fact there are no parking requirements allowed within one-quarter mile of a major transit stop which means the City cannot require any parking for anything in that region, including the Park Theater. So, there are parking concerns but there is no requirement any longer.
The second one which stalled the original design about the 4-plex is that the Park Theater Trust currently owns the theater and the 4-plex, if they demolish the 4-plex they would need to rebuild and find 4 units of housing elsewhere and relocate those tenants to those units. Needless to say, the charitable trust for the theater is not in the position of building housing. So, those things along with the McNeil property not being able to be purchased by the City has caused the City to re-think their options.
Councilmember Cervantes said he has struggled with this because he felt the concept behind the Plaza Overlay made sense and creating parking which would be integrated with what the Park Theater was doing was a pretty compelling idea. He walked it with the City Manager and the Planning Director. As a concept, it seemed very creative, but as he was thinking through this, there are a couple of Jenga pieces that have been pulled out from the City. One is the McNeil property and the other is the 4-plex behind the Park Theater.
Without those, this does not really work. He asked about the Plaza Overlay update earlier because he asked if there is something in the works that gets the City there, and recognized the Vice Mayor shaking his head “no.” So, he asked if there is any way to salvage this or he asked if this is a dead-end.
Vice Mayor Anduri said Councilmember Cervates does not know how much this hurts, but it is a dead end, and it is very, very sad. Mayor Candell said they were all very enthusiastically supporting getting both properties and making this happen and unfortunately, the Jenga pieces did not play out.
Councilmember Cervantes said he is a late-comer in this and was beginning to pick up the enthusiasm for the concept, but with the change in State law the City does not have anything compelling to further parking in the downtown within one-quarter mile from BART.
City Council Minutes Page 14 of 36 June 9, 2025
Councilmember McCormick said also, there is a bit of a sense of urgency because right now the building is sitting there and not getting any younger, so it is their responsibility to make a decision on it as quickly as possible and listing it at the price to see what happens.
Councilmember Cervantes said therefore, they have this asset. It is a stranded asset at this point. If they wanted to further housing, they would have to tear down the building, but it would not be connected to anything except an isolated parking lot.
Councilmember McCormick agreed and said they should also note that the realtor will market it aggressively it hopefully to a purchaser who would maybe be an owner/operator of some sort and there would be a vibrant business in that spot which they all want, and this is a path towards that.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/McCormick) to engage John Cumbelich & Associates to list the Campana property for sale at a price of $3.8M with other conditions including potential easements to be discussed with the City Manager; and authorize the City Manager to enter into a listing agreement with the broker.
Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Jean Eisberg, Contract Planner
1) Design Review, 2) Category II Tree Permit, 3) Grading Permit, 4) Major Subdivision to redevelop four parcels containing three existing office/retail buildings (3-story 4,700 sq. ft.; 2- story 2,725 sq. ft.; 1-story 1,645 sq. ft.) and construct a 7-story mixed-use development totaling 172,399 gross sq. ft. in area with 90 for-sale units (79 market rate, 5 very low income, and 6 moderate-income units), including 2,000 sq. ft. commercial area, 178 parking spaces and 52 bicycle spaces, and removing approximately 23 trees at 1001, 1007, 1009, and unaddressed parcel Oak Hill Rd, APNs 243-030-033-1, 243-030-020-8, 243-030-041-4, and 243-030-038-0. The project qualifies for an infill exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and includes a State Density Bonus with concession and waiver requests.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-33 finding the project exempt from CEQA and approving the project.
Contract Planner Jean Eisberg gave the staff report and overview of the request for: 1) Design Review, 2) Category II Tree Permit, 3) Grading Permit, 4) Major Subdivision to redevelop four parcels containing three existing office/retail buildings (3-story 4,700 sq. ft.; 2-story 2,725 sq. ft.; 1-story 1,645 sq. ft.) and construct a 7-story mixed-use development totaling 172,399 gross sq. ft. in area with 90 for-sale units (79 market rate, 5 very low income, and 6 moderate-income units), including 2,000 sq. ft. commercial area, 178 parking spaces and 52 bicycle spaces, and removing approximately 23 trees at 1001, 1007, 1009, and unaddressed parcel Oak Hill Road.
A previous project was reviewed and approved by the City Council last May 2024 for a 53-unit project. At that time, the applicant indicated they were interested in doing a larger project once the City’s Housing Element was approved and certified and rezoning was completed. An SB 330 preliminary application was filed in the fall and then once the rezoning went into place, the rezoning to SRB-60, the applicant submitted this full application once that rezoning was effective.
City Council Minutes Page 15 of 36 June 9, 2025
Whereas the previous project proposed demolition of two of the three buildings on the site, this project proposes to demolish all three commercial retail buildings, remove approximately 23 trees and merge all four lots on the site. She then described the total units, commercial space at the corner, 7 stories, 178 parking spaces, and 52 bike parking spaces in the building and along the sidewalk, steep slopes, residential lobby, pedestrian bike entrance from Oak Hill Road, two separate garages on the first and second levels because of the grade change, and garage entrance accessed from an easement along Terrace Way. She presented examples of the landscape plan, elevation views, compliance with local policies, context under State law, waivers and one concession, affordable housing requirements, and the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance.
The project was reviewed at a joint meeting of the Design Review Commission and Planning Commission in January before the application was complete which does not count towards the 5-meeting limit.
Subsequently, the project was reviewed by the DRC who made a recommendation for approval, reviewed by the Planning Commission in April who also recommended approval. The project is before the Council because the LMC requires that City Council is the body that takes action on the State density bonus law including waivers and concession.
She then reviewed notable conditions of approval and suggested a correction in COA #7. This condition is about protected trees, and inadvertently she was referring to the trees that are proposed for removal.
She would include a recommendation that there are 36 protected off-site trees and those would be required to have protections during construction to the extent the drip lines extend into the project area.
Public comments were received, which she described, both with concerns and support. Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 2025-33 finding the project exempt from CEQA and approving the project, with conditions.
Mayor Candell asked and confirmed this is meeting number 3 in the SB 330 process.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he sent an email earlier to Ms. Eisberg and he asked if the City’s relatively new EV charging station ordinance apply to this project. Ms. Eisberg said yes; the EV charging regulations listed in the off-street parking apply to the project and the applicant is proposing to meet the EV charging as part of this project. If they were not meeting those, they would need to request a waiver from off-street parking regulations.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked for the width of the sidewalk along Oak Hill Road from north to south. Ms.
Eisberg said it is at least 10 feet, and it does vary. Because of the flat work on the private property, the effective sidewalk width can be up to 20 feet, but generally it is 10 feet on the public right-of-way.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked what is the closest distance from the edge of the building and the sidewalk and asked if it is 3’6.” Ms. Eisberg said yes; the minimum setback proposed is 3 ½ feet in the southeast part of the building.
City Council Minutes Page 16 of 36 June 9, 2025
Vice Mayor Anduri asked what is the Council approving tonight in terms of landscaping, and he asked if there is a complete landscape plan. Ms. Eisberg explained the landscape plan is conceptual at this point.
The applicant is required to mitigate the trees that they are removing and generally that mitigation needs to be done on the site. That does not mean a one-for-one replacement of tree, as it depends on the size of the tree. What the applicant has proposed is a number of trees to meet that mitigation of the loss of the 23 trees proposed to be removed. They have proposed a plant palette but still need to come back with the specific number and the particular tree proposed in each location, the size, the soil volume. She pointed to a referral letter from the City’s consulting landscape architect that probes around these issues demonstrating appropriate soil volumes for the upper levels, the size, species, and number of trees.
Generally, the number of trees shown on the plan is what is proposed, which includes the 5 street trees on Oak Hill Road. But overall, it is conceptual, and COA #35 tracks the detailed landscape plans, including species, soil volume, and size.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he was not sure how COA #35 gives the City much authority and asked who decides the final proposal is satisfactory or not. He read the condition and said the letter does not include anything about street trees or number of street trees. The plan calls for 5 street wells, but he asked how definite is that and whether it is up for revision later. If so, he asked who approves the revision.
Ms. Eisberg said this is what is shown on the plan which is staff’s expectation. When the building permit plans come in, staff is looking for it to match what the Council has approved. They would want to see those 5 street trees. If the Council is interested in adding more, that can be difficult with utilities, etc., but they will look for those 5 trees when the plans come back in. In practice, the City’s consulting arborist is looking at both the plans that were approved, the new building permit plans, and making sure they are consistent.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if there has been discussion on the type of tree on Oak Hill Road. Ms. Eisberg said notes on the plans state “species and consultation with the consulting arborist.” They are on the City’s right-of-way, and this is typically how it is done.
Councilmember McCormick said this is the 3rd meeting today, and he asked if there are further iterations.
Ms. Eisberg said this is the proposal. If the Council wishes to make comments or recommendations on plant palette or other issues, the Council can discuss this and there can be conditions on the project.
Councilmember McCormick said he said there is a waiver on the setback for the front of the building to go to 3’6” from 10’ and then the side setback is zero because it is vertical without terracing for multiple stories.
Ms. Eisberg said the setback is typically 10’ on all sides. In this case, the project is meeting the interior and rear setbacks but is requesting a waiver to reduce the front setback. It is just in the areas that are less than 10 feet. Regarding the “wedding caking” of a building, in this case, this is a taller building than what was anticipated in the Downtown Objective Standards, so it was looking at building design that starts to push in from the first level to the second level to the third level. In this case, the project is proposing to go up 4 stories before making those step backs, so they are not meeting the second and third level step back until they get to level 5.
City Council Minutes Page 17 of 36 June 9, 2025
Councilmember McCormick referred to the traffic flow coming in and out of the building and voiced concern because of getting into the building with the right turn from Oak Hill seems okay but coming out of the building. Ms. Eisberg said there is a traffic study as part of the packet, and she would have to look back at the number of anticipated trips going left versus right. There is no traffic signal warrant that was triggered nor other warrants for stop signs, so that is not proposed here. Traffic will increase from the residential project, but the traffic analysis also accounts for the loss of existing office trips. So, the net change and change in trips is not as much as staff would anticipate because it is a different type of use.
Office trips tend to generate more peak hour trips than residential. So, it is a different type of trip, but the traffic study did not identify any signal warrants or other significant impacts.
Councilmember Cervantes thanked Ms. Eisberg for the very thorough staff report. His understanding is that the Council has no latitude for the public art concession. Their hands are tied by State law, and if they ask for the concession, he asked if the Council must grant it.
Vice Mayor Anduri interjected and noted that on page 8 is the list of concessions and waivers. He asked what latitude does the Council has to reject any of those.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said the City does not have latitude, but this may be one of the first times the Council has discussed the public art so for the record, public art is considered an architectural or development standard so it would be subject to a concession, and therefore, the Council is limited in its ability to decline.
Councilmember Cervantes said there was some back and forth in the packet regarding discussions with the adjacent property owner, the Lombardo’s. He infers that there have been steps taken to address their issues, and he asked if those have been addressed or what progress has been made to deal with concerns of the adjacent property owner. Ms. Eisberg deferred to the applicant.
Councilmember Cervantes said this is a dense project and the staff report notes the opportunity sites have an 88% minimum density requirement. His hunch is that they are a good deal above that. He asked if there is any calculation as to what they are looking at here, and he would think it is north of 100%. Ms. Eisberg said the Housing Element identified 51 units for this site and 90 are proposed so it is almost twice as many units, or 1.8 times.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he thinks it is 125% of allowable density, but he could check his math later.
Mayor Candell said there was a walkway on Figure A-3.8 and there was a concession or waiver to have a walkway on one side of the building on the south side where parking goes in and out. There was some back and forth as to why the applicant could not do it, and she asked for an explanation.
Ms. Eisberg said there is an objective design standard about pedestrian, circulation, and parking garages.
Her interpretation is there is supposed to be a 5-foot-wide pedestrian route that connects parking spaces to a building entrance. She believes this is to have safe passage for pedestrians, so they are separated from a vehicle. Inside the garage, that is not shown here, so there is not a separate 5-foot pedestrian walkway within the garage. She clarified that it applies inside the garage, but she deferred to Greg Wolff.
Mayor Candell called on the applicant for a presentation.
City Council Minutes Page 18 of 36 June 9, 2025
BRIAN GRIGGS, Oak Hill, LLC, applicant, said Jeff Stone is his primary partner and David Marshall is here in Mr. Stone’s absence. Staff did a great job with the thorough staff report and said this project was always desired to be a gateway project into Lafayette to come up with a medium density housing development that would help address a significant number of the units that Lafayette needs to provide. The 53 units did not encompass the whole site. They had a 3-story office building that was remaining, and the thought was to come back and get additional units, but with the Housing Element and some delays, they waited, and this is what the Council sees tonight as the project with 90 units.
The project actually could have been 99 units because they are merging four lots and greater than one acre that gives a 10% bonus on the base density, so keeping with 22.5% the base density would have been 80 units versus 73. They wanted to deliver a project they felt was right for the City, are both residents and proud developers. They know it is a lot of units and know the City may or may not be ready for it, but someone must do it. They have intentionally designed it to set back and minimize impacts as much as possible, and they are proud of the project.
As far as large issues which are the collaboration with the neighbors, initially it was Brian Moore who was to the left of Terrace Way who owns two buildings that had concerns about a retaining wall and how Terrace Way in its current configuration serves a little bit of an intentional bottleneck to keep cut-through traffic from going up over to South Thompson and back down through some of the retail.
Subsequent to that, they met with the Lombardo’s, tried to be as collaborative as they can, and they will continue to do so. They identified some constraints that come up in development, a sewer line they will remove at their expense, overflow drainage from their property onto this property that they will collect to make sure it is routed properly into the stormwater system, and will assure them they have access to their tuck under parking. It is a strange way to get in and out, but they are confident that once they figure out all of the grades, they will be able to provide that access unimpeded.
They have staked in the last couple of days where the property lines are, but at this point, having a legally binding agreement without knowing all of the nuances is very difficult so there is a certain element of trust, but at the same time, they have shown continued collaboration to make sure it works. Jeff Heaton, the neighbor on the back where the pool is going has worked primarily with Jeff Stone. He has had no interactions with him but traded a text last week in the hopes they could get together beforehand, but he has voiced his concern with how close his home is to where the back of their property will be, so they had that staked in the last couple of days.
As far as minor issues that have come up, they are providing 10% of the EV requirement, so about 19 will be ready to go, and the other 65% will be EV-ready. So, it will be 140 out of 178 parking stalls, so roughly ¾ will be for EVs. The landscaping COA can be modified to make sure this would be subject to staff or staff’s consultant. They intend to provide a lot of landscaping up on the decks as they terrace back because with any dense site it is difficult to provide landscaping at grade. They have two separate terraces that will have heavy landscaping. These will be condos, so they are heavily incentivized to make it as attractive as possible. Beyond that, the specifics of soil volume and treatment, they will have an HOA running it and for 10 years they will have some responsibilities to make sure it all works.
City Council Minutes Page 19 of 36 June 9, 2025
He thinks as far as other questions, the Con Fire District questions come up as far as how to access it. They have had two or three meetings with them since the Planning Commission on how they will access it with their ladder trucks, how they will provide some standing ladders to ensure the firefighters can go up the various stair steps to go back. The height of the building at 87 feet is measured from the very lowest point of the property to the highest part of the back roof. That property now has about 60 feet of grade elevation between those same two points, so it will terrace up. It will be big, but the matter of the fact is, over the existing grade and one of the drawings it is A-3.4 might be a good plan to look at if the Council has further questions that provides an idea of setbacks and height at various points in that existing grade.
So, it will not be 87 feet. He was available for any other questions.
He also acknowledged Mr. Baird, who is here, who owns two buildings behind the Lombardo’s, and they were able to meet on site. He does not think they could ever address concerns in his business, but at least they can try to be collaborative as best they can.
Councilmember McCormick said Mr. Griggs has asked for a public art waiver and normally the City assumes 1% and he asked if they plan on doing any public art without being compelled to on the site.
Mr. Griggs said he will say yes to the extent it is a tight site. A large impactful piece of art would be really difficult running it off the freeway. He thinks there is a lot of trust that goes into making it a project worthy of being one of the gateways into Lafayette, and as local developers, they stand behind that. They will do something that is right for the project, whether it is a piece of art, or landscaping, and they are willing to work with the City if they can get through Caltrans to redo the sign and they are happy to be a part of that.
Councilmember McCormick asked if there are any businesses currently operating in the buildings that will be demolished, and he asked what is the timeframe for them. Mr. Griggs said Indigo Poppy is still there.
They have given them a firm term through the end of the year, and they are hoping if they are able to obtain entitlements this evening, they could go into working drawings. They will probably be 3-6 months to get those done, and then another 2-4 months to the County to get permits. So, the ideal scenario is they would start next Spring on the project. They are the only larger occupant. They do have some small tenants -- Lafayette Care Collective and they have given them their space because they believe in their mission. He thinks they made a commitment to try and find them a new home when the project moves forward.
Councilmember McCormick asked what should the City expect from a construction perspective and impacts on motorists during construction. Mr. Griggs said they learned from Lafayette Circle on impacts, and it should take about 24 months. This is a bigger project than 950 Hough. Much of it is weatherdependent but if they could start in the spring and get some foundations, retaining walls, and structures done with rains hitting in the following winter, they would hold well to that 24 months. There will be some closure of lanes. They will ensure impacts are minimized with flaggers and times of day.
City Council Minutes Page 20 of 36 June 9, 2025
Councilmember McCormick said there is 2,000 square feet of commercial space and asked if there is a vision for that. Mr. Griggs said this is a hedge right now and they do not know how well retail will work in that location. The last thing they want at the gateway to town is a vacant retail spot. So, they have looked whether that is a coffee shop kind of morning, evening, afternoon function. They have looked at an amenity for the building in part of that space and possibly making that a little smaller too and bringing in some electrical infrastructure required where they could put it inside the building as opposed to outside like transformers.
Councilmember McCormick said it would be nice to have some commercial and asked if there is parking for guests or customers. Mr. Griggs said that is the challenge. They think it is a great location in town to minimize the crosstown traffic for people coming and going from their homes. The flipside of that is not having a lot of public parking there. So, they did not want to under park. People will not live there with zero parking, so they are just under 2 parking stalls at 178 for 90 units and some will be dedicated for visitors, but as far as retail, they have not refined that and are not contemplating people would pull in and those would be vacant at nights and weekends when retail is not open.
Councilmember McCormick asked and confirmed the vast majority of parking is stacked and these are a little different from the stackers they used at 950 Hough. They are a puzzle stacker which is what they used at 210 Lafayette Circle. They go up and down. When you pull into one, they move like a puzzle whereas the ones at 950 Hough are independent for one party that has both lifts.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred back to the EV requirements. He did not look at the ordinance before this meeting, and he asked if the applicant is providing 10% fully equipped for spaces, and 65% will be wired for the EV charger. Mr. Griggs said they are called EV-ready. At 950 Hough they decided to bring it to 100% because electric vehicles is where the future is going. This is the minimum, but staff could provide the requirements.
Vice Mayor Anduri said as the developer, he asked if Mr. Griggs sees any issues with traffic flow out of the development. Mr. Griggs said they do not. Generally, residential traffic is off-peak, and they had this discussion for 949 Moraga. There are times during the day when people come back who do not work in Lafayette off of the freeway. He did not think there would be any issues getting in. Getting out in the morning and turning left there could be some queuing, but in looking at the impacts versus that office building when it was fully functional with retail, he did not know how dramatically different it will be. As a developer, it could be an issue but not a dramatic issue where people will not live there.
Vice Mayor Anduri said as a developer, when looking at the economics of the project, he asked how that southeast corner, retail, coffee shop space is considered. Mr. Griggs said they subsidize it, meaning in a vibrant retail location they could give someone a vanilla shell with 4 walls and they would put in hundreds of thousands of dollars if not upwards of that to prepare the space and operate it to ensure it makes money to not only pay for those improvements but to pay rent, pay employees, and the biggest challenge is can that type of a business go in that location and underwrite.
Vice Mayor Anduri said it would be a great art gallery space, and Mr. Griggs said there are many possibilities, and they are not counting on it as a revenue producer in their proforma.
City Council Minutes Page 21 of 36 June 9, 2025
Councilmember McCormick said with parking they will have the stacker, and he asked how charging works for moving cars around. Mr. Griggs said there are the puzzle lifts and then the independent lifts like at 950 Hough and those are much easier. On the puzzle lifts, they will likely do them in some of the visitor stalls but have not worked through logistics of that. He thinks the technology will have to get there. For anything urban infill, this is the way you can actually get the densities that people want and not have to get rid of all the parking, but they will solve this.
Councilmember Cervantes said this is likely the largest and densest project Lafayette will see. They are moving ahead with financing for this, and he asked what kind of a market does the applicant see for this kind of a project.
Mr. Griggs said these units are going to be a little smaller than those at Lafayette Circle, so they are hoping to deliver condos without going over the million-dollar mark and those are not the restricted ones. As far as the depth of the market, everything you hear about Lafayette is true. It is a vibrant place where people want to live, and the problem is you cannot get a starter house for less than $1 million to $1.5 million. So, they do not envision families per se in these. They will have some 3-bedroom units, but most will be firsttime buyers or step-up buyers. As far as whether BART comes around and people can actually utilize that for what it used to be, 10-15 years ago if they were selling these condos and BART was a 4-minute walk and everyone was working in San Francisco, they would be phenomenal. But there is different demand than the units at the west end of town because this is First and Main Street where people want to be.
They want to walk to the market, walk to food, amenities, parks and schools. They do not have financing lined up and this is part of the reason why they requested the public art waiver because underwriting these projects is challenging. These subsidized units will be deeply subsidized which is great because he thinks everyone should have the opportunity to live in a fantastic community despite their economic circumstances.
Mayor Candell said in talking about the parking for the Lombardo’s, she asked if the applicant will provide them an actual easement on the property, and Mr. Griggs confirmed. She asked if there is any chance there could be a walkway across Oak Hill to Safeway. She knows it is not part of this, but she asked who controls the off-ramp from Hwy 24 which would be the natural spot. There is just a stop sign there now.
She asked if there is a vision for the City to imagine a crosswalk there, so people do not have to walk all the way down to Mt. Diablo or back up to Deer Hill to get across. Otherwise, she thinks there will be many jay walkers.
Vice Mayor Anduri added that the Aqueduct pathway and how that fits into this.
Director of Planning Greg Wolff said he would have to defer to the Public Works Director. He knows the City has jurisdiction over Oak Hill south of where Mayor Candell is describing and Caltrans has some involvement and jurisdiction where their highway right-of-way is, and where the two intersect. He was not sure where the boundary is nor what would be involved with potentially putting in a pathway at the off-ramp.
Mayor Candell suggested this just be on their vision to be watching for this. Regarding affordable housing, they will work on the terms. She asked what is the number of years for affordable housing, and Mr. Griggs stated the City’s requirement is 55 years.
City Council Minutes Page 22 of 36 June 9, 2025
Mayor Candell said it is great to hear that these stackers are moveable. If they have a 3-stacker she was wondering if they needed to be assigned to the 3-bedroom unit, but Mr. Griggs said not necessarily, and they go sideways too.
Mayor Candell said all of the railings on the terraces are just metal pickets, so there is a view to the unit terraces. In driving around town and seeing what people put on their terraces, it is not always highly aesthetic, and they use them more for storage. She asked if there is any thought that they be slightly opaque or somehow hide some of the items on the terraces. Mr. Griggs said they just went through this at 950 Hough and the CC&Rs will contain requirements that the HOA will enforce to ensure people do not bring out BBQs, bikes, storage, etc.
Mayor Candell referred to the roof and said there will be solar, but she did not see any on the drawings.
Mr. Griggs said they think they are solar-ready, but he did not know if they fined-tuned that. Part of the challenge with 90 different owners and who owns the solar system and where the credit goes if you actually produce it, how it goes back into the building. They are doing the same thing at 950 Hough and trying to work that out. PG&E does not like people to make money on solar power and use it within the building so there are some complexities to it, so he will get back to the City on this and they will do it if feasible. There are many things they can do that are becoming more commonplace as solar is getting much more refined, especially with battery storage.
Mayor Candell thanked Mr. Griggs for addressing some of the things from Con Fire, and Mr. Griggs said they were measuring the building to the top as opposed to the floor at the top level or 7th floor. They will have to hose pull and stationary ladders will be on each of the decks as they go up, so they will only have to get to the first deck which is about 42 feet high. There will be standpipes installed to get water there.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period.
RAMON AMARAL, Field Representative, Nor Cal Carpenter’s Union Local 152, asked the Council if this project will hold labor standards and, if not, he asked why not. He shared the importance of holding responsible contractors that can potentially exploit workers and cause costly delays. On the contrary, while having labor standards will promote a skill trained workforce acknowledged by a State-certified apprenticeship program, fair wages, health and retirement benefits for the worker and their families, local hire, and stated Diamond Construction has had communication with the Carpenter’s Union. Their further concerns are potential additional subcontractors that will not be held to these standards.
SAL LOMBARDO ceded his time to Tony Lombardo.
TONY LOMBARDO said he is one of three owners of 3572 Terrace Way property owners which is up the hill from the Oak Hill project. As background, they attended the April 21st Planning Commission meeting and the reason they did so was because they received a notification the week prior to that. At that meeting, they told the PC that this was the first notification they had received. Since the project has been going on since 2022, there has been a lot of notice out there, but they never reached them. They checked the address at the meeting, and it was correct, but they only got the April 21st notice. Also, the builder did not notify them either because they had some type of arrangement with one of the people who was selling the property to them to somehow not be able to tell them what was going on. So, the bottom line, since they are the ones most affected by the project since they are 15 feet from the rear of the project, they never got notified.
City Council Minutes Page 23 of 36 June 9, 2025
They also have talked and discussed things with the builder, and it is the builder’s idea that they will actually be improving the value of his property. In looking at their property right now for those living when they look out of their balconies, they can see Mt. Diablo, oak trees, and they really do not know they are in a town there. All this will be replaced by a 50-foot wall that will go up, and they are only 20 feet away.
So, this will take all of the views away and he personally have not seen any real estate value go up where their view has been diminished. They also have tenants there, some of which work from home, some who have night jobs and sleep during the day so according to what they heard, the project will be underway for two years and it will create a lot of noise. He anticipates tenants will move out so they addressed some type of compensation from the builder, and they said they do not directly contribute to improvements to the building, but they may have some say as far as good will. One comment they received talks states, “We are not in a position to make a commitment at this time but continue to have mutual benefits to make the area of the project the best for both parties.” In essence, when he sees the June 6th memo, it states, “The Lombardo’s also requested compensation. As you will note in the attached correspondence, we will not do so.” When reading their answer, they did not say they would not do so but not do so in certain regards. But the only reason he is bringing this up is just because they write things does not mean it is necessarily true.
In regard to the driveway access, in the PC meeting he showed the planner his slide that there was absolutely no way they were getting into their driveway. It was completely blocked off with planters. So, it surprised them, and they told him to get together and try to do something about it. They did so, and then he saw in the update that they have now for the plans that instead of shrubs there, they will have two big transformers to go in there. Again, they do not have the same access they have had for the last 61 years they have been using there. The change would take away two parking spaces as well. They have not come to a conclusion about that either as far as mutual understanding and how things are going to go.
Lastly, they are addressing the sewer system they have there. The sewer itself is crossing over into their property underground and they just replaced that sewer about one year ago with Contra Costa permits and now they are finding out there might be a good possibility that all of this will have to be dug up. As far as where it will be located and where it will be placed, and who will incur costs has not been decided either. So, in his mind, there have been many things that have not been decided and agreed upon and they seem to be going through this process for approval.
Mayor Candell referred to the sewer and said she did not see if would have to be moved, and she questioned why Mr. Lombardo thinks it has to be moved.
Mr. Lombardo said in reviewing the DRC and PC meetings there was a document there from the Sanitation Department which mentions there is an underground sewer, and it might have to be moved. Mr. Griggs wrote them a memo a couple of days ago saying it might have to be moved, but they do not know yet.
Councilmember McCormick asked Mr. Lombardo to identify the buildings he is representing. Mr.
Lombardo replied 3572 Terrace Way which is a 6-plex and right above the Oak Hill project.
Mayor Candell said Mr. Lombardo said it will remove two parking spaces. From the drawings she saw and from walking the site, it seemed like the new configuration was going to allow access to the open spots and the covered spots. She asked which ones would be lost.
City Council Minutes Page 24 of 36 June 9, 2025
Mr. Lombardo said there is an apartment, parking, and then two levels of parking on top of it. Underneath is parking for the residents, and they are two deep. So, each apartment gets two there. By the staircase behind the hedge there are two spaces there used for overflow or as a quick turnaround for people to go in or for guests. He was looking at this today because Mr. Griggs said they were putting markers there as to where the transformers would be going, and those spaces will be gone.
MAX HENINGER, Boardmember, Inclusive Lafayette, said he is thrilled this project is before the Council and with a higher density. He thinks the developer did a nice job tailoring the design in a way that adds additional units but adds a lot to the streetscape. He thinks it will be a big improvement when driving off of the central Lafayette off-ramp. The additional BMR units are great, and they are very supportive of whatever can be done to deliver more units, especially BMR units. They love 100% affordable housing, but they know how difficult and how many years those projects come together. Lastly, the project is in an ideal location from the perspective of lower VMT, its proximity to BART, lower fire risk than adding a lot of density far from the downtown, and they urged the Council’s support.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to the EV ordinance and what the current ordinance requires.
Mr. Wolff said he has not committed this to memory and his understanding is that 5% must have chargers installed at Level 2 which is 240 20-amp, and an additional 25% would be either low power Level 2 or it could be upgraded. 10% of the total need to be capable, meaning the conduit is there but the wire does not need to be pulled, and the charger does not need to be installed. There is a range, but his understanding is that they would meet or exceed the City’s ordinance.
Vice Mayor Anduri said in any event, the City does not need these in the COAs because the City has an ordinance, and Mr. Wolff confirmed.
Councilmember McCormick said they probably should relook at the ordinance. With the evolution of stackers and more multi-unit housing coming into Lafayette, he thinks the EV ordinance is outdated. It is envisioned for standard asphalt-based parking, and he thinks parking has changed a lot. That said, in selling condos, the parking spaces better be EV ready or the developer will not be able to sell them.
Vice Mayor Anduri noted that stackers were considered in this ordinance.
Mayor Candell recognized a speaker, and she re-opened the public comment period.
IAN BAIRD said he lives at 3574 Terrace Way just two buildings up from the project. There is a retaining wall he thinks should be removed because it makes it very narrow on Terrace Way. He understands that wall is owned by the owner of the apartment buildings opposite it. So, he asked if it can be removed.
Mayor Candell said she was going to bring that up too. She thinks it is on the way up to where the new parking comes in, and that is the retaining wall that really shrinks the road there even with the upper parking entrance from what she saw from the drawings. Mr. Griggs (from the audience) said the retaining wall needs to be removed, but it is not on their property.
Mayor Candell said she believes Mr. Griggs is saying they are going to try to address it.
City Council Minutes Page 25 of 36 June 9, 2025
Mr. Baird asked if it could be removed, and Mayor Candell said they cannot force that to happen because it does not belong on the applicant’s property.
KENT GRIGG thanked the Council and staff for their work, said he has seen the town grow, proposed the City do something that would help the creation of public benches as many places as possible where every two blocks there could be benches under shade.
Mayor Candell closed public comments.
Rebuttal – Applicant
Mr. Griggs referred to the retaining wall and said it is owned by Brian Moore who owns the two buildings to the left of Terrace Way. Initially, when they showed him the plan that showed a new wall that was to go 2 feet onto their property and take that 2 ½ feet of his property to make Terrace Way go straight up, initially he was open to it and thought it would look better, but then he changed thinking he could possibly stop the project. So, Mr. Griggs indicated to him they could just construct their wall here and they will get it entitled and once done they will come back and meet with him. His experience with Mr. Moore is that he will be collaborative and he is optimistic that it will improve his entry, Mr. Baird’s entry, Mr. Lombardo’s entry, and the only concern is putting a speed hump there to try to cut the cut through traffic because it does serve as a buffer and a narrowing point for people going up Terrace Way. He said it is tricky because for the lower apartment, they actually pull a U-turn to park at an angled parking space downhill there. So, the concern is when they are backing out and people are going faster up and down Terrace Way there could be conflict.
Regarding the sewer access, he reiterated that they will pay for any sort of modifications necessary for the Lombardo’s sewer. There is not an easement for that sewer. The Lombardo family has owned it for a long time, and he is sure it was a handshake agreement, and they will do their best to honor that agreement in a documented way much like they talked about the access to their carports underneath.
They have not put anything formal together because they are now just getting it surveyed. They are pretty optimistic they can keep those two parking stalls in front of their building because the area you pull into the garage should not impact at all those two stalls. It is not a guarantee, and they will do everything they can because two additional parking stalls means two less people trying to find parking elsewhere.
His colleague, David, said the puzzle stackers do actually have the ability to provide EV charging. Somehow when they move around that technology already exists. To reiterate a Councilmember comment, they will meet if not exceed the required EV charging standards because it is where the future is going and for marketing.
Councilmember Cervantes said there is some discussion from the Lombardo’s about the transformer structure that might affect the flow. He asked if this relates to the loss of the two parking spaces.
Mr. Griggs said the two parking spaces, when facing the building, the transformer is on the right. They see the access to their garage being next to the transformers and on the left will be their two parking spaces.
There is a chance that bollards that the prior owner of their property put in and a hedge. The hedge provides delineation of those two parking spaces. They may have to pull that hedge back a little bit, but he thinks the majority of the hedge can stay in which case those two parking spaces should be able to stay.
City Council Minutes Page 26 of 36 June 9, 2025
Mayor Candell referred to the labor agreements and the subcontractors and asked if the City has purview over that. City Attorney Wolff said this is purely between the private parties. Mr. Griggs said he would be happy to talk about it. They have used union labor on their current project, and he will be happy to make sure it works out.
Mayor Candell said she is proposing they go through the staff report and see if Councilmembers agree with staff’s conclusions on various subjects, or they can go directly to the resolution and see if there are any changes to be made, or to the COAs.
Vice Mayor Anduri recommended going to the resolution.
Mayor Candell referred to the resolution and asked to go through the zoning ordinance first, and there were no questions.
Vice Mayor Anduri noticed the frequency of the phrase “The City is required by law to grant the waiver.” Mayor Candell referred to downtown design review.
Vice Mayor Anduri said under “c” it states, “At the ground level landscaping will be provided on through including street trees, bio retention basins, and additional landscaping.” Vice Mayor Anduri asked if “bio retention basins” are in flux or he asked if the City knew where they would be located.
Mr. Wolff stated this is on the civil plans at the southeast corner of the project. Terrace Way intersects the Boulevard, and it will be just north of that between the curb and existing white fog line which delineates the area for neither travel lane or parking. In an area currently unused paving, that would come out and bio-infiltration would be put in. Half the capacity will serve the project, and half the capacity will serve the City and meet some or all obligations imposed on the City by the Regional Water Control Board and the Clean Water Program from the County. They have green infrastructure requirements, and this is helping on that.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked how many square feet the bio-retention is, and Mr. Wolff was unsure. He confirmed half is going towards the building and half is going towards the City’s additional requirement to treat municipal water running down the curb.
Councilmember McCormick referred to “d” and commented on the fact that the building is broken up with balconies and terraces and plants and is a massive building. However, he appreciates that a massive building can look utilitarian, and this one is well stated in breaking up visual impact.
Mayor Candell agreed and said they were not required to do these things, and they did them, so it is appreciated. She then asked for comments on the demolition permit and there were none, as well as for tree permits, grading permit, major subdivision, and government code findings required for approval.
Regarding COAs, Mayor Candell said there was one change on COA #7 regarding protected trees; that there be up to 36 protected off-site trees shown on Sheet L-0.02, and those would be required to have protections during construction to the extent the drip lines extend into the project area.
City Council Minutes Page 27 of 36 June 9, 2025
Mayor Candell said there is a proposed change in the resolution itself and one for COA #7, and she asked for a motion.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Cervantes) to adopt Resolution 2025-33 finding the project exempt from CEQA and approving the project, with conditions of approval with amendment to COA #7 as stated above; and changes to Item “c” in the resolution to state, “At the ground level landscaping will be provided on through including street trees, bio retention basins, and additional landscaping.” Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
BREAK
Mayor Candell called for a break at 8:55 p.m. and, thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting at 9:01 p.m.
B. Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager and Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director Resolution 2025-34 Adopting the Proposed Budget/Workplan; Appropriating Revenue and Expenses; Confirming the City’s Investment Policy; Determining the Appropriate Limit for Fiscal Year 2025-26; Determining Fees for All City Services and Authorizing Transfers and Expenditures Including the 2025 Capital Improvement Program and Related CEQA Findings Recommendation: Discuss and continue to June 23rd for adoption of Resolution 2025-34.
City Manager Srivatsa said she wanted to sincerely thank the community for their support in passing Measure H; the half-cent sales tax measure last November. The community’s trust and commitment to the future of the City is truly appreciated and the passage of Measure H has helped the City to alleviate the budget challenges they faced last year, providing much needed stability to their financial outlook. As they committed during the campaign, this year’s budget reflects a disciplined approach. It does not introduce any new programs or projects but rather concentrates on maintaining current service levels with only some minor adjustments. The primary focus remains on advancing the Council’s priorities and the table outlining the key tasks and timelines is included at the end of the staff report. Ms. Robinson will walk the Council through the details of the proposed budget and budget requests and both she and Ms.
Robinson are available to answer any questions.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson provided a presentation on budget highlights which include for FY 2024-25 General Fund expenses are expected to be about $2 million less than budgeted due primarily to projects that were deferred, and which have been re-budgeted in FY 2026 budget. There were a number of staff vacancies because they had a hiring freeze, and this contributed towards the savings in this FY. Overall, for FY 2025-26, the General Fund expenditures are only slightly higher than they were last fiscal year, and it includes full year costs for all authorized staffing.
Staff still does not have a good accounting of what they expect Measure H is going to bring in. For this budget, they are still using the amount their sales tax consultants used, which was $2.4 million for the year. Since the tax began in April, the City will have about 3 months’ worth or $450,000. They should be getting some information on that revenue in the next several weeks and then as soon as they have additional information, she will have the sales tax consultant come in who can talk in more detail about that.
City Council Minutes Page 28 of 36 June 9, 2025
As the City Manager said, this budget is pretty much a status quo budget. There are no new programs or projects. The bottom line is that the 5-year model shows that at current spending levels which are increased for inflation, the City will be able to maintain a relatively balanced budget and maintain the 60% reserve through FY 2030. However, the model shows there is little extra money and that the City will need to continue to exercise fiscal restraint and live within its means. In that 5-year model, in the out years, the City shows some increasing deficits; however, she cautioned that is no cause for alarm. Just because they are estimates, they become less reliable than this year and next year which is what they should be looking at.
While there is a projected $4.7 million remaining above the 60% budget reserve, staff recommends the Council first consider funding future infrastructure maintenance before committing any of those funds to other projects or programs. Staff will receive the results of that infrastructure assessment over the next few months and will be making some recommendations with the final budget in January.
There are 6 budget requests and staff recommends the Council consider those tonight. They include:
• Staging school buses at schools on Red Flag Days of $22,500; • Public Works assistance for evacuation route clearing of $30,000; • Reclassifying a current temporary position to a regular position of $20,000; • Replenishing the Traffic Calming Sinking Fund which would be $50,000 to fund programs the City has had come in; and
• The School Board request that the City take full responsibility and full cost for the crossing guard program. The City has already budgeted half as was their agreement for $120,000. If the Council moves forward, this would be another $120,000 for this year and taking on full responsibility going forward.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he wanted to confirm that the second bullet under “Budget Highlights” – “full year costs for all authorized staff” and asked if this includes the Senior Engineering position. Ms. Robinson said yes; the City is actively recruiting now for all positions that were frozen.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he noted that the compensation increase year over year budgeted is 5% from last fiscal year to this year. He asked what is staff’s estimate for the next fiscal year. He asked if 5% was unusual. Ms. Robinson said it is not unusual, and it is about standard, but overall, with other expenses, these are increasing about 3%. There is turnover as well, so this was a year where they made budget adjustments because they did the salary survey for all positions which they do in odd years. It might have been a little higher as they reset, so going forward it will probably be less than 5%.
Vice Mayor Anduri said on the next page, the first bullet the third check down, when the Council approves this budget he asked if they are approving the title change for the Administrative Services Director or is special action needed.
Ms. Robinson said the title change will be made when approving the budget and noted that she forgot to put in money for new business cards, but this is de minimis.
Councilmember McCormick referred to the sales tax revenue estimate. He was trying to understand the $450,000 which is three months of April, May and June. They estimate $2.4 million next year, and he asked why is it not $600,000 this year.
City Council Minutes Page 29 of 36 June 9, 2025
Ms. Robinson said she talked with the sales tax consultants about that, and sales tax does not come in equal chunks, so it is a timing issue. If she is not mistaken, the City receives money up front and then it is trued up later once the final figures come in. So, this is what the City would receive in advance. It does not reflect an actual receipt -- just an estimate
Councilmember Cervantes thanked Ms. Robinson for walking him through the budget noting it was helpful to get background on some of the details. Regarding Councilmember McCormick’s question with respect to sales tax and Measure H. He asked if the consultant has any sense as to when they get a pretty good read on what those figures might be. He asked if it is after the 4th quarter of this calendar year.
Ms. Robinson said when she spoke to the consultant, she indicated that the City might have some preliminary numbers in July, but again, that will only be for that particular quarter so she thinks the Council would have a very good idea of Measure H funds this time next year or a better idea by the time they do the budget update in January.
Councilmember Cervantes said he gathers the wildcard in the budget for this fiscal year is the capital piece which they will get clarity on during the mid-year adjustment.
Ms. Robinson said the capital assessment is for deferred maintenance on the City’s aging infrastructure.
The City hired a firm to assess how much money the City should be saving each year towards deferred maintenance. Her suspicion is that the City is under-reserving, and they might need to catch up, which would be her recommendation for using any money over the reserve standard.
Vice Mayor Anduri said they have talked about the infrastructure assessment. They approved the work plans, and the work plans have two items that impact the budget. One is the City Manager looking for additional revenues, which is noted, and this will impact the budget discussion in January and the other item in the work plan is a concerted effort to look for additional efficiencies and this is anticipated to be reflected in the budget update or the final budget in January.
Ms. Robinson said staff will have more concrete ideas at that time, and she will say that managers are always looking for efficiencies. But they can put them on paper and let the Council know what the City has been doing.
Vice Mayor Anduri agreed the City is always looking for efficiencies. He thinks they are just looking for that little bit extra this time as they promised in Measure H materials.
Mayor Candell said they are suspending GPAC. She asked if they were going to disband GPAC or suspend them and asked how that will happen.
Councilmember McCormick said it says there are no plans for GPAC for the next 12 months, but he was going to follow up and thinks it makes more sense to reframe it when it comes back in as something different, and he also had questions about this.
City Council Minutes Page 30 of 36 June 9, 2025
Ms. Robinson said logistically, it would probably be best to suspend it for at least a year, so staff is not having to send out notices. They just re-assigned staff back to other General Fund programs which is why the Council sees some differences. For example, staff was re-assigned back to the Planning Department budget and Design Review to get the Housing Element done. The bulk of expenses in GPAC were for staff and for certain consultants which have also moved back to the Planning Department. This is another reason why there is an increase in the Planning Department budget. Logistically, she assumes they would suspend for at least a year and then reconsider.
Vice Mayor Anduri said to confirm that the City’s obligations to enact or approve Elements of the General Plan, the City has met those obligations. Ms. Subramanian confirmed.
Vice Mayor Anduri said there are still two vacancies on the organization chart in Planning. If they are not able to fill those vacancies, he asked if staff will re-adjust the work plan. Mr. Wolff said he thinks each year the work plan is realistic but optimistic. They largely go in order of the priorities that the Council has set. They would not be able to achieve everything on the work plan with the current staffing, but they could revise and evaluate in December, return to the Council and identify things which will not get done.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period.
ROB STURM expressed his appreciation again for the on-going partnership that the Lafayette School District has had with the City, its staff, City Council, and they really appreciate that, particularly in matters of community safety and common concern. With that in mind, he would respectfully urge the Council to fully fund the City’s crossing guard program and take steps to evaluate its scope, to make sure it remains well-aligned with current traffic patterns, student safety needs, and community expectations. School crossings, especially at key intersections near their campuses, present real safety risks to young children.
The presence of trained crossing guards makes a measurable difference. These guards are not simply helping the students cross the street but are helping keep families safe on the City roads, easing congestion, and reinforcing a culture of care and safety in their city.
To avoid leaving the City in the lurch, their School Board is preparing to vote on a new contract for crossing guard services later this week following a full and fair RFP process. But again, while the district is stepping up to ensure contractual continuity in the short-term, this in their view ultimately is a municipal responsibility. He would respectfully ask the City Council, consistent with the Board resolution, to reclaim financial responsibility for this essential public safety service and provide the requisite funding for the year ahead.
On behalf of the full Board, they greatly value their shared commitment to the Lafayette community and look forward to continued collaboration on this and other important matters.
City Council Minutes Page 31 of 36 June 9, 2025
PETER LINGANE said he wants to talk tonight about the allocation of Measure H revenues. He thinks Ms.
Robinson and he have a philosophical difference and would like to explain his point of view. What the current budget does is it says they are going to spend $1 million of Measure H revenues on pavement maintenance, spend $500,000 on police, and $900,000 on other important priorities. His question is, is that really how the City is spending the money? It turns out that one year ago they had a budget before Measure H for FY 2025-26 and now they have a proposed budget for FY 2025-26. What he thinks the City should do is compare those two budgets and the difference between those two budgets will tell people where they are spending Measure H funds. There were no Measure H funds in the first budget and there is not $2.4 million in the second budget. What he finds is that spending on police and roads is unchanged.
They are spending $2.4 million more on public works, administration, planning, and engineering, and on reducing the deficit.
He is not arguing against those expenditures but is just saying the City is not spending Measure H on police but on public works, administration, planning and engineering and reducing the deficit. He suggested the City tailor what they say about how they are allocating Measure H funds to the way the City is actually spending the money.
Councilmember Cervantes said in discussing the budget requests, they can assume the baseline and asked if this is where the City wants to be. Then, there are the specifics of the requests. On the baseline, the thing he is conscious about is a 5-year projection. He totally agrees with Ms. Robinson’s comment that when getting to the out-years, there is a lot of noise in the numbers. They are looking at something where they are marginally off, but you get a change in assumption, and it could go away, and it could be positive or negative and they just do not know. What he is struck by is that Mr. Lingane’s comment of how you allocate Measure H. Some of it is a cost accounting question but if you pulled out Measure H from the equation here, the City would be in a world of hurt. He remembers looking at this in October or November and it would have meant taking out likely a good chunk of the road improvement program. It might be losing a police officer, positions that the Council froze last year would have stayed frozen. So, the baseline works because they had Measure H and thanks to the voters for making that a reality. They could at least talk through what they are thinking of going forward.
What he is very conscious of is that this all works especially if you look at one-time budget expenses and the infrastructure or capital update coming up will be significant. It may be a big wildcard, and he is conscious of adding on new on-going programs. He thinks the Council needs to try to respect what they said to the voters in November and hold the line or the baseline, which is critical, and be very conscious of any new commitments they will be making, as they could have long-lasting impacts that could go beyond the 7 years for Measure H.
Vice Mayor Anduri agreed but before going forward, he thinks it would be useful to address Mr. Lingane’s comments in case anyone is wondering about that. On one level the only way to address that is if you could have a counter-factual situation and Measure H had failed and the Council adopted a new budget.
Then, you would know where the City would spend the money, but they do not have that counter-factual.
What they have is what they said one year ago. He brought last year’s budget, and they budgeted as if it would pass because they wanted to show what the deficit would be and interestingly enough, the deficit was at $2.4 million – almost exactly the amount projected to be raised by Measure H.
City Council Minutes Page 32 of 36 June 9, 2025
Ms. Robinson said one important point is that the reason that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison is the City used $2 million in ARPA funds last year to make the City whole. Had they not had that $2 million, they would have had to make cuts. Their road funding probably would have been $1 million less and the baseline would have been less. They would have had to make 10% cuts across the board. The Council never got to that point. They had some options for the Council which were never adopted but considering that police is one of the largest expenditures, a 10% cut would have been around two police officers.
So, again, she did not think it was fair to compare the budget last year versus the budget this year because the City had extra funds. This is what they told residents and holding last year as the baseline is probably not the place you want to peg it. She went through in more detail in the budget memo as to how they allocated these funds. Mr. Lingane is correct—General Funds are “fungible.” They can spend the money on anything. In tracking the funds when funds are “ fungible” is difficult. One of her criteria for when she proposed the Measure H budget is that they are funds that actually get transferred from the General Fund to other funds. Pavement management goes to the CIP Fund 14. Stormwater goes to Fund 53, and so on.
So, it makes it easy for the auditors, staff, and the oversight committee to know actually how much money is going towards those items because they are being transferred from the General Fund so there is a finite amount of money they can see going. These transfers also align directly with what were identified as the main drivers behind the structural deficit. So, there are two things in line there that she felt made it easier for people to see where the money was going and was in line with where the structural deficit was coming from.
Mayor Candell said she believes the Council is committed to be honest with voters and to do what they said they would do.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he is happy with the budget presented and knows they will talk about the budget requests. Mayor Candell and Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember McCormick said he is interested in exploring how they accelerate the Community Center roof and HVAC project. He knows this is a big issue and he was not sure they want to wait to get the infrastructure report done. Ms. Robinson agreed and said they will get better information on that, and she believes the Council was going to consider all infrastructure needs together.
Mayor Candell asked if they also want to consider their known sinking funds that are not in balance as part of that. Ms. Robinson said the City has no more sinking funds for stormwater because it is exhausted, so that is going to be an on-going deficit as will be the downtown. Again, they can consider whether or not they could get more money as part of their revenue-raising, but when talking about the infrastructure assessment it is literally physical infrastructure.
Mayor Candell asked and confirmed the Council can consider these deficits and not just infrastructure.
Mayor Candell stated the Council can discuss the budget requests:
• Staging school buses at schools on Red Flag Days of $22,500: Councilmembers voiced full support.
City Manager Srivatsa clarified the City is paying for actual days and this is an estimate of Red Flag Days and the amount that will be included in their agreement. If there are more Red Flag Days, the City will have to spend more money, but they do not anticipate that based upon the last few years.
City Council Minutes Page 33 of 36 June 9, 2025
• Public Works assistance for evacuation route clearing of $30,000: Councilmembers voiced support and voice support of improvements next year and including it in the budget. Vice Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed that this task is in the Police budget work plan and not in Public Works, that the money will go to the Public Works account, that Andy Comly has worked with Engineering and has identified new routes, that the public works portion is for police to provide traffic control while the crew is doing pruning and vegetation mitigation. Overall, the program is well-liked, keeps evacuation routes free and safer during an evacuation, and there is better health of trees, maintenance of roads, better shoulders, etc.
City Manager Srivatsa said the item is not part of the regular budget because last year staff took money out of the Public Works budget and had not accounted for this task. She agrees in the foreseeable future the City will have to make sure routes are cleared and allocating a fixed amount per year as a routine matter would be best. Andy Comly identified three routes this year; the western end of Spring Hill from Goyack to Spring Hill Lane, Mountain View Drive and a small piece of Mariposa closer to the downtown, and Glenside; the northern section closest to Stanley Middle School. Councilmembers agreed this is annual maintenance and critical. Con Fire has agreed to do it this next year, and Ms. Srivatsa noted staff must submit requests on an annual basis, and Mr.
Comly has submitted that this year and they will continue to keep that going in subsequent years. • Reclassifying a current temporary position to a regular position of $20,000: Councilmembers voiced support and commented that the City gets enormous value from this employee and making it a permanent position is money well spent.
• Replenishing the Traffic Calming Sinking Fund, which would be $50,000 to fund programs the City has had come in: Councilmembers asked if there were any requests coming in for projects.
City Council Minutes Page 34 of 36 June 9, 2025
Mr. Moran explained that traffic calming projects, like speed humps, follow an annual process with applications received in the fall and reviewed by spring. This year, two projects on Glenside and Glen Road are planned for summer, with about $10,000 possibly remaining afterward.
Demand for speed humps is decreasing, as many key locations have already been addressed.
Vice Mayor Anduri noted that future funding may be limited, possibly requiring another request next year. Moran agreed and said they could treat it as an annual operating cost with a spending cap. The traffic calming program was recently updated, and while residents once paid for speed humps, that model has changed, and some years may require little or no funding.
Councilmembers voiced support for this request, then determine what applications are received in September/October and, if appropriate, staff could address it with a more long-term plan for the final budget.
• The School Board request that the City take full responsibility and full cost for the crossing guard program: Councilmembers said staff has recommended keeping the status quo due to budget impacts and also it has been this way for many years, and it is a fair split between the two.
Councilmember Cervantes said this is an extra program with an on-going commitment. Over the life of Measure H, it is $800,000 out of Measure H and on-going so he is somewhat leery about making this commitment because the City does not have a clear idea of what Measure H is going to be.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he does not think the City should take over the contract and does not have the staff to administer it but would be in favor of the City paying an additional $100,000 with the school district administering the contract for one year, as the City needs to get a better picture of Measure H funds.
Councilmember McCormick said he prefers the current model, and it feels like a joint responsibility operation, and it would be hard to roll back which would be his concern.
Mayor Candell said she was thinking of increasing the amount some but not to the full amount, and this is tough. She was glad the City Attorney pulled up the code that said it is not required.
For most cities, splitting with the School District is the norm and Lafayette is not an outlier.
Managing it would also not be something the City could take on. She hopes the best for the schools with the parcel tax next year.
Vice Mayor Anduri noted the City paid $140,000 one year and it was originally $100,000. He said rolling it back to $100,000 would be next to impossible, however for this next year he could support an additional $100,000. Councilmember McCormick said the $120,000 makes sense and does not feel comfortable turning over the money and having someone else managing it.
Councilmember Cervantes said he likes it as a shared responsibility. If they increase it by $100,000 he wondered how they could go back down again.
Vice Mayor Anduri agreed and confirmed the Mayor was on the City/School Committee and that they could talk about and ask if there are alternative ways to provide this service at a lower cost.
Mayor Candell said they could but was unsure there was a way.
City Council Minutes Page 35 of 36 June 9, 2025
Vice Mayor Anduri said if the school district could find a less expensive way to provide the service, the City could still pay $120,000 a year and the school gets the savings. Councilmembers agreed with this but commented this might cut crossing guards but suggested revisiting this with the City/Schools Committee and making it broader.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Cervantes) to continue to June 23rd for adoption of Resolution 2025-34.
Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
In response to Mayor Candell’s question regarding the change in position name for Ms. Robinson, and Ms.
Robinson said the Council clarified earlier that the position renaming was already in the budget. When approved, it is zero cost, so the Council does not need to take action.
15. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
A. May 27th City Council Minutes
Recommendation: Adopt.
Mayor Candell called on the public commenter to provide comments on the minutes.
SARAH LIND referred to page 11 and asked to delete “21% to 23%” and replace it with “2021 to 2023.” Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and City Clerk Robbins stated she had an email from David Berti with a request to change on page 16 to change “nae” to “nigh.” ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Cervantes) to approve the May 27th City Council Minutes, as amended.
Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
16. COUNCIL / COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Councilmember McCormick asked for an item for discussion of SB 79 which is the bill that is sponsored by Scott Wiener which the Council already opposed. It passed the Senate last week by a one vote margin.
The Council sent a letter of opposition, but Lafayette is now a Tier 3 stop, and he explained that properties one-quarter to one-half mile from BART will be upzoned. It also allows BART to have complete control over their BART lot. He requested sending an additional letter to Rebecca Bauer-Kahan asking her to oppose this. He also requested working with Orinda and Moraga. The Assembly votes in three weeks, and Councilmembers agreed to agendize the matter for the June 23, 2025, Council meeting.
Councilmember McCormick reported on his attendance to the Wildfire Roundtable last week in Orinda, sponsored by Senator Grayson for the Mayor, which was a phenomenal event. His staff will be sending out information from the meeting to City Managers.
Mayor Candell said she was able to do the Mayor for the Day last Friday and she thanked Chief Williams and staff for participating. They had a great day with interesting and engaging people. She also asked for a firm process around future Council appointments in the future.
City Council Minutes Page 36 of 36 June 9, 2025
17. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None.
ADJOURNMENT – 10:10 p.m. in celebration of Lynn Hiden’s 90th Birthday.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Susan Candell, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk