City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 1 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
*
City of Lafayette
City Council
Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall June 23, 2025 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 6:00 p.m.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, City Council/Board meetings will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing (Zoom) option. To participate virtually in the City of Lafayette’s public meetings and provide public comment, please follow these steps:
1. Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube.
2. Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public can provide public comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] for City Council meetings no later than noon the day of the meeting. Those e-mails will be distributed to City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3. Live Remote Public Comments: Technology permitting, members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing by using the link below. You must download the Zoom app or software. Zoom meetings can be accessed by telephone, computer, or smart device. When the Mayor invites public comment for the item on which you would like to comment, please use the "raise hand" feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) to alert staff you have a public comment to provide. Each speaker is allowed three (3) minutes to speak.
4. At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89008805648?pwd=ODQxRGxzaGNHSWVITUVFalFuUHBIZz09 Passcode: 426199 Or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128
Webinar ID: 890 0880 5648 Passcode: 426199
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 2 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER – 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Candell called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Mayor Candell; Vice Mayor Anduri; Councilmembers Cervantes, and McCormick
Planning Commission: Chair Stephen LaBonge; Vice Chair Roger Deming; Commissioners Carl Di Giorgio, Anna Radonich; Absent: Gregory Mason and Kristina Sturm
Design Review Commission: Chair Glenn Cass; Vice Chair Richard Stanton; and Commissioner Jon Gray; Absent: Arman Hadilou and Travis Kauzer Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Assistant City Manager; Stefanie Cervantes, Senior Planner; Lt. Jamie Williams; Dana Poplin, Human Resource Analyst; 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/Cervantes) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Closed Session Items only) - None.
6. CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Government Code section 54956.9
Housing Action Coalition v. City of Lafayette
REPORT OUT ON CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Candell announced that there was no reportable action from the Closed Session.
7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 7:00 p.m. – Mayor Candell led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 3 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
TELI THAYER thanked the City Council for promoting inclusivity, such as raising the Pride Flag, but expressed deep frustration over ongoing protests targeting Lafayette Elementary School. As a teaching assistant, she and many students face this disruption daily, which she feels borders on harassment. While some consider it free speech, its impact is a harmful and persistent disruption to the school environment, even affecting high school students. She questioned why the City tolerates such behavior at this specific school.
Ms. Thayer praised the school staff for maintaining a positive culture despite the protests but emphasized that the responsibility to protect children should be shared by the entire community. She urged the Council to continue addressing the issue, centering the needs of the children affected, and called for innovative, compassionate action in response.
PAM SWARTS, representing a group of concerned neighbors, criticized Lafayette’s Planning Commission appeal fee structure, which charges appellants 75% of the original application fee—in one case totaling $5,850. She argued this high cost discourages public participation and appears to favor property owners.
An attorney advised her group that such a fee might be illegal and excessive. In comparing fees from nearby cities—ranging from $138 to $2,000—Lafayette’s fee stood out as disproportionately high.
Ms. Swarts asked the Council to review the legality and fairness of the fee, and to require detailed justification and documentation of staff time before appeal deadlines. She referenced Ordinance 656, which encourages community involvement in land use decisions, and urged the City to align its practices with that goal.
DAVID BERTI spoke out against the City’s decision to raise the LGBTQ+ Progress Pride Flag, arguing that it reflects and promotes political and sexual ideologies aligned with queer theory. He criticized the City Council for raising the flag without a formal agenda item or public discussion, and pointed out that the flag used is not the original rainbow design but the more recent Progress Pride Flag, created in 2018 to include the transgender community. He linked the ongoing protests near schools to the curriculum and values being taught and celebrated, suggesting the flag represents these teachings. He urged the Council to reconsider flying this flag in the future.
9. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Srivatsa provided the following update:
• From the Public Works and Engineering Department:
➢ It is construction season. Work will continue on St. Mary’s Road for the next few weeks and the Pathway Project on Pleasant Hill Road near Springhill School. ➢ In addition to the City of Lafayette, Central Sanitary District and EBMUD also have various projects around City schools so the message from the Police Chief is to please drive carefully. ➢ As a special project, the City’s maintenance crew will be washing and vacuuming the concrete path that connects Village Center and the Lafayette Reservoir. This is a porous concrete; a special kind of walkway that was built to connect downtown to the Reservoir. • From the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Department:
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 4 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
➢ Staff has begun working with the Commission and user groups on updates to the athletic field rental rates. The Park Subcommittee will have its first meeting this Wednesday. Those interested in commenting should attend.
• From the Police Department:
➢ On the 17th of June, the CVS was robbed of cash. There was no report of a weapon or injuries.
The next day on June 18th after an initial investigation, the PD was able to identify the suspect’s license plate and San Francisco located the subject’s vehicle, stopped it, and the driver was detained. The police officers responded and took the driver into custody. This is great teamwork by Lafayette PD and by the SF Police Department. ➢ On the 25th of June, Sharon Lloyd, who has been the City’s Parking Enforcement Officer for more than 22 years will be retiring. The PD will be hosting Coffee with the Cops at Papillion from 9-10 a.m. Everybody is invited to come because Sharon will be there, and it will be a great chance to say thank-you and good-bye.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
10. PRESENTATIONS – None.
11. JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION A. Stephanie Cervantes, Senior Planner; Lisa Wise Consulting Joint Study Session to Initiate Housing Element Program 9.1.a Objective Design Standards for multi-family, commercial, and mixed-use residential development.
Recommendation: Receive presentation and provide direction to staff.
Senior Planner Stefanie Cervantes said this is the kickoff of the Phase 2 of the Objective Design Standards that has been long-awaited. Phase 1 was completed in 2019, and they are excited with starting work on Phase 2. She stated Lisa Wise Consulting has helped the City with Objective Design Standards not long ago, and she will give a presentation tonight, and staff will be available for questions, as well.
David Bergman of Lisa Wise Consulting reintroduced his team’s work with Lafayette, focusing on implementing the Housing Element program through objective design standards and new zoning. He introduced Monica Sydlik, who would outline project goals, the 2024–25 work plan, current design standards, procedural reviews, and potential revisions.
Mr. Bergman emphasized that the project aims to create a ministerial approval pathway for housing— required by state law—for projects meeting objective design standards. However, this pathway is not exclusive; a discretionary pathway remains available for applicants who choose a different route. He clarified that these standards are not meant to limit future development but to comply with State requirements like SB 330 while still incorporating community and city input. He then handed the presentation to Ms. Sydlik.
Monica Sydlik, Lisa Wise Consulting, said they know the City has experience already in developing objective design standards because the City is not starting from scratch, which she described. They are picking up on the design standards in place with the checklist and rolling that altogether forward with a more robust set of design standards for this ministerial path.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 5 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
She stated they want the new standards to anticipate the intensity, height, and densities now allowed, thinking about the work prepared last year, they introduced new densities and new heights that were not allowed by right in the City previously. They want to acknowledge the existing patterns and character of development, listen to the community, and ultimately the design standards describe development they all support. The standards will address items on the checklist and some other design elements in greater detail.
Ms. Sydlik said the intention is to add a new chapter to the City’s development code which would fit in at the end under 639. These would be the objective design standards for all multi-family and residential mixed use throughout the City. It would also require cross references, minor amendments to the zones that describe and establish the development standards for such development.
This is the kickoff, and they are beginning this project in late June. They will continue with community input, develop some recommendations, work with staff, and the intent to complete these design standards by the end of the year. As with any community planning project, community input is essential.
This is a study session tonight. They will have an on-line questionnaire or survey that is easy to take and with a link. They will be presenting the draft standards at an open house. They have a website individuals can refer to for project information or to submit comments, and then they hope to see everybody involved in the project at the adoption hearings at the end of the process.
Because this is a continuation of the work done before, she provided a brief overview of the efforts done then, current objective design standards, and work to be done for this current project.
Ms. Cervantes said staff would like to receive feedback from the Council and Commissions, and the staff report outlines questions to think about. The four main questions include:
1. What existing development and design standards are good, working well, should be preserved? Staff wants to hear whether it is zoning text, design guidelines, the checklist, etc. that are working and that should be preserved.
2. Considering the scale and density of multi-family development that is allowed now, what are existing development and design standards should they re-examine, revise, removed, and as mentioned by Ms. Sydlik, there are certain things that are current Phase 1 objective design standards which were not considered when thinking about 60-foot buildings at 68 du/acre. So, she asked what are some things they should be revising, should be removing because they are not applicable any longer because of higher buildings and higher densities.
3. Where should they be prescriptive and where should they allow flexibility? Are there any design topics that the City really wants to ensure every development has versus allowing other design elements to be more flexible and allow for creative design. And what should the team keep in mind to achieve that balance?
4. What are the most crucial design elements to ensure a high-quality built environment and ensure the City has good, designed projects in the future? They want to be sure parking is what they are looking at to make sure that will give a good structure or, are they wanting to make sure all windows are of high quality and good design, or others to ensure they get things right.
Mayor Candell thanked the team and asked if they could send out the PowerPoint presentation to the Council. She opened the floor to questions to both Commissions and the Council.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 6 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Councilmember McCormick asked about the project timeline, expressing concern about the urgency and the City’s potential exposure until the objective design standards are finalized. In response, Ms. Cervantes explained that public hearings and adoption of the standards are expected to occur during upcoming Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The goal is to have the standards approved by the end of the year, with implementation beginning in January of the following year.
Mayor Candell asked whether this meeting would be the only opportunity for the Council Planning Commission (PC), and Design Review Commission (DRC) to provide input. Ms. Cervantes confirmed that, according to the current timeline and scope, this is the only planned opportunity. However, she noted that if the Council wants additional input sessions, it is possible, though doing so could delay the project timeline.
Vice Mayor Anduri referred to the schedule and commented that he was not sure it works.
DRC Vice Chair Richard Stanton raised a concern about differing requirements between purely residential and mixed-use projects, particularly regarding landscaping and streetscape standards. He questioned why mixed-use projects seem to have reduced requirements.
Ms. Sydlik explained that in the RB 60 and SRB 60 zones, ground-floor commercial uses are allowed a zerofront setback, while residential or parking uses require a front setback—reflecting existing zoning standards.
David Bergman added that allowing commercial uses to front directly onto the street provides a practical and aesthetic advantage and aligns with established zoning practices. Ms. Sydlik noted that this approach is consistent with RB and RB-60 zones, although it's different from C and C-1 zones, where front setback standards don’t vary based on ground-floor use.
Commissioner Radonich asked how AB 2097, which eliminates parking requirements within a half-mile of transit (like BART), would interact with the City’s objective design standards for parking—particularly since much of downtown Lafayette falls within that zone.
Ms. Sydlik clarified that AB 2097 takes precedence, meaning the City cannot require parking in those areas. However, if a developer chooses to include parking in their project, the City’s objective design standards for parking would still apply to guide its design and layout.
Ms. Cervantes clarified that the objective design standards will not set parking ratios, as those are determined by the Lafayette Municipal Code (LMC) or AB 2097. Instead, the standards will focus on how parking is designed if a project includes it—such as pedestrian access, location of entries, and overall layout—ensuring it supports safe and thoughtful integration with the surrounding environment.
PC Vice Chair Deming asked if the project deliverables will include an overview explaining what the City can and cannot regulate—clarifying confusion around State versus local rules and objective standards— and whether alternative proposals considered but rejected will be shared.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 7 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Ms. Sydlik responded that tonight’s presentation serves as the educational component about the project’s scope and legal framework. At the upcoming Community Open House, staff will address questions about the proposals, their origins, and scope. She clarified that the project focuses solely on building design standards, not altering basic development standards like density, height, or setbacks, which remain established in the code. The effort is to ensure new design standards align with existing regulations.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked whether the fifth bullet point about public meetings referred only to the Design Review Commission (DRC), Planning Commission (PC), and City Council hearings, or if additional public meetings beyond the Community Open House were planned.
Ms. Cervantes clarified that the public meetings mentioned refer specifically to the formal hearings before the DRC, PC, and City Council.
Councilmember Cervantes expressed concern that development under the new 2025 design standards might lead to buildings looking too similar over time, asking how much flexibility there is for variety.
Ms. Sydlik responded that deciding how prescriptive or flexible the standards should be is part of the process. The ministerial pathway uses these standards to streamline approvals, but applicants can still choose a discretionary route for more flexibility. The goal is to identify key design priorities in advance while allowing the community to decide how detailed or open the standards should be.
Mr. Bergman added that more detailed, restrictive standards might result in developments reflecting current trends too strongly, so it’s wise to keep standards less prescriptive to allow for variety and adaptability over time.
PC Chair LaBonge asked about the feedback loop mentioned earlier and whether other cities had become too prescriptive with design standards and then rolled back. He also inquired if there could be separate versions of objective standards for multi-family projects that use density bonuses versus those that don’t, given that concessions and waivers can sometimes override standards.
Ms. Cervantes explained that while waivers are generally allowed—even for separate standards related to density bonus projects—concessions and incentives are more limited and linked to affordable housing requirements. Staff is open to exploring separate standards for density bonus projects but is unsure of its benefits.
Regarding examples from other jurisdictions, staff decided not to include links or detailed examples in the report. They wanted to avoid the Council, Commissions, or public focusing on or trying to replicate other communities’ standards, preferring Lafayette to develop its own unique approach rather than copying others.
Mr. Bergman emphasized the importance of considering the long-term effectiveness of the design standards, noting that the development cycle is too short (only four years) to fully gauge the impact on a state-wide level. He cautioned against creating overly restrictive standards that could unintentionally make projects infeasible, warning communities to be careful not to use these standards as a backdoor way of imposing additional development constraints. His advice was to avoid creating unnecessary hurdles for applicants.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 8 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
He clarified that there is no single "best example" to follow since the new objective design standards only started impacting developments after 2020. He again emphasized the importance of avoiding any approach that might create additional hurdles for applicants, recommending against adopting measures that could unintentionally make projects more difficult to execute.
Ms. Sydlik agreed with Mr. Bergman’s point, emphasizing that the design standards should reflect the existing character and quality of each neighborhood. She explained that by identifying key design features, they can preserve the unique feel of different areas. The standards incorporate best practices from the history of development codes, along with community input about local neighborhoods and downtown areas. She noted that the standards can vary in complexity, ranging from a simple set of key guidelines to more detailed, elaborate design documents, depending on the needs and goals of the community.
Chair LaBonge expressed his desire to allow development while being cautious about "bad actors" who might try to exploit the system. He appreciated the ability for applicants to request discretionary exceptions to the standards, believing that if an element is disliked, it could be pulled back and adjusted to fit the objective standards. He asked if the system is set up to allow flexibility, ensuring that people can return to objective standards if their discretionary requests are not well-received.
Ms. Sydlik acknowledged that while she wasn't fully familiar with the procedural details of the City’s code, there are mechanisms like variances and minor modifications to allow flexibility. She suggested they could review the code for more specific answers.
Chair LaBonge concluded that applicants should be able to ask for what they want, but if it is rejected, they should still be able to rely on the objective standards for approval.
Councilmember Di Giorgio raised concerns about addressing critical issues quickly to avoid exploitation, asking if the City could implement important aspects of the objective design standards (ODS) immediately and refine them later.
Ms. Cervantes confirmed that this could be done, calling it Phase 3 of the ODS, which would involve identifying key topics to address by the end of the year, with the possibility of revisiting and modifying them later.
He also suggested involving the DRC earlier in the process due to their design expertise and asked if the Planning Department evaluates discrepancies between applications and staff reviews to identify areas that may need clearer definitions.
Ms. Cervantes noted that while the DRC could be involved in additional hearings, this wasn't on the timeline initially but had been discussed as a possible joint session with the PC. She also acknowledged that evaluating application discrepancies hasn't been a standard procedure, but it could be useful for staff and Lisa Wise Consulting to explore this moving forward.
Councilmember McCormick asked if the objective design standards (ODS) could include elements that improve walkability and bike-ability, such as bike racks, bike storage rooms, benches, and wayfinding signs. Ms. Sydlik confirmed that these are design elements that could indeed be integrated into the ODS.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 9 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Vice Chair Deming asked if the team could provide alternatives they considered but rejected, along with explanations for why they were not appropriate. This would help commissioners, especially those without design expertise, understand the options they evaluated.
Ms. Sydlik responded that this would not be part of the process or presentation materials. Instead, they are developing a community questionnaire to gather input on preferences, including visual choices and design elements. The idea is to provide options and understand what is most important to the community.
However, they would not present alternatives they rejected; rather, the process will involve discussions with the PC, DRC, and Council, drawing on existing City policies like the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) to guide the development of the standards.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if the community questionnaire has been useful in other communities, or if it would be better to directly involve design bodies and then open the proposal for public comment.
Mr. Bergman explained that the effectiveness of the questionnaire depends on the political environment of the community. In some places, officials look for direction from consultants, while in others, there is a lot of pushback. Their preference is an inductive approach, where they listen to the community, reflect their perspectives, and allow officials to weigh the options based on community tolerance and feedback.
Ms. Sydlik added that the questionnaires are indeed useful, with staff carefully selecting images and questions tailored to the community. They also incorporate open-ended questions to capture additional ideas. After gathering input from open houses, they often refine the materials based on feedback, ensuring that they don't need to restart the process but can introduce new ideas in a structured manner.
Councilmember Cervantes expressed frustration with the abstract nature of the discussion, feeling it’s difficult to pin down specifics. He suggested that having a clearer, more concrete sense of the design “palette” might be helpful to make the discussion more tangible.
Mayor Candell agreed, acknowledging that the lack of concrete examples is causing some difficulty. She noted that the Council, Planning Commission (PC), and Design Review Commission (DRC) are more accustomed to analyzing concrete proposals rather than abstract ones. Despite this, she emphasized that they can still try to work through the discussion and suggested moving forward with public comments to gain more insight.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period.
ELIOT HUDSON emphasized that the discussion on design standards seems to miss the main point. He reminded the Council that Lafayette’s mission statement, created through a community survey three years ago, clearly reflects the community’s priorities, which have been consistent for over 20 years. The mission statement aims to make Lafayette a "highly desirable small-town community with a semi-rural ambience." He argued that the mission statement should guide all planning decisions and that the community has already spoken about what it wants. He expressed frustration that the mission statement is often overlooked in staff reports.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 10 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
He opposed the idea of conducting another community survey, arguing it would be vague and cause delays. He pointed out that the "semi-rural" character should apply to the entire town, not just certain neighborhoods, as some Council members had suggested but rejected in the past. He also stressed that the term “make” (rather than “preserve”) in the mission statement was intended to be proactive, focusing on promoting Lafayette’s community character, and echoed Councilmember McCormick and a Planning Commissioner’s concern that this process should move quickly, stating that every application that comes in before the standards are finalized could result in a building that will stand for generations. He urged the Council to focus on specific visual details of buildings, such as window area, stucco usage, siding, and concrete, and to create standards that address exactly what the façades of buildings will look like.
CHERYL MACDONALD echoed comments about the mission statement as being something very important.
She thinks the more visual, the better, and emphasized to rely on the mission statement.
Mayor Candell reflected on the four questions proposed by staff and the overall schedule. She mentioned the ongoing discussion about whether to focus on 100% residential or mixed-use projects, noting that there are many other topics the consultant had suggested exploring, and expressed her uncertainty about whether to keep the conversation abstract, sticking to the four questions staff had raised, or whether to move towards more concrete design elements. She deferred to the DRC members to determine what would be most helpful for advancing the discussion.
DRC Chair Cass expressed frustration with the current numerical checklist for evaluating projects. He believes that while the individual elements (bike racks, benches, etc.) are important, the point-based system is ineffective because it fails to distinguish between good design and basic, mandatory features.
For example, he pointed out that iteration one of a project, which the DRC hated, ended up with nearly as many points as the final iteration, despite significant design improvements. He emphasized that he does not want to use a numerical scoring system again and instead supports a simpler approach with just a few key criteria (such as one, two, or three). This would force the City to focus on the most essential elements, without overloading with unnecessary, point-based requirements.
In response to concerns about learning from other communities, Chair Cass disagreed with the idea that it would not be helpful. While he acknowledged that some cities may not be applicable (e.g., Dublin's large subdivisions vs. Lafayette's infill projects), he suggested that looking at small, built-out communities like Burlingame could provide valuable insights. He noted that it would be helpful if the City could reduce the number of waivers applicants request, as these often complicate the process and make it difficult for the DRC to fully evaluate projects. When waivers are applied, the DRC is often left with limited options, especially if applicants are not following objective standards.
Regarding community input, Chair Cass proposed that the City ask residents to evaluate and rank 5-story buildings in Lafayette, focusing on elements like materials, color, window placement, balconies, landscaping, and community functions. This could give the DRC a clearer idea of what the community likes or dislikes about different design features. However, he cautioned that community responses might be biased against taller buildings like 5-story projects due to historical opposition, such as the early backlash to the 1000 Dewing project. He recommended framing the question around the design elements that people liked in existing 5-story buildings, not just their height.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 11 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
He also pointed out that certain issues keep arising in specific projects, such as the Huff Avenue project, where people are questioning the setbacks and the close proximity of buildings to the street. Despite these concerns, Chair Cass acknowledged that there are elements of the building that look better from certain perspectives, though overall, it still feels too large and linear. His primary request is to move away from the point system and adopt a more flexible, qualitative approach to evaluating projects.
Vice Chair Stanton emphasized that the most crucial aspect of design is how a building relates to the streetscape. He noted that buildings that are successful in Lafayette typically respect the site they are built on, which means that they fit in with the existing environment. For example, he pointed out that most buildings in Lafayette are not six stories tall right on Mt. Diablo Boulevard. He mentioned the Oak Hill project, noting that despite its size, it is set back from the street, which helps it blend in with the surrounding streetscape of one- and two-story buildings.
The landscaping also plays an important role in mitigating the bulk of the building, and this combination of setback and landscaping is key to its success. For him, the relationship of the building to the street and its contribution to the streetscape are critical design principles. He stressed that buildings should have a low frontage on the street, with the taller elements stepping back behind it. He also suggested the possibility of creating small plaza areas or other public spaces that could contribute to the street’s walkability and community feel.
He raised concerns about the mixed-use approach in some of the recent projects, especially when it involves developers adding small commercial spaces (e.g., 1,000 square feet) as a way to waive certain design requirements. He viewed this as a potential loophole that allows developers to bypass important design elements, such as landscaping or setback requirements, in exchange for the token addition of commercial space. He questioned whether this strategy truly serves the city or whether it simply provides an easy “out” for developers to gain benefits without delivering on the full potential of the design.
Ultimately, he stressed that how a building interacts with its surroundings — including its pedestrian experience, its frontage, and how the landscaping integrates with it — should be the primary focus. He warned against being too prescriptive with specific elements like window types, as this could detract from the holistic relationship the building should have with the street and the surrounding environment.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he is grappling with the challenge of translating the abstract design goals into objective standards that are clear, measurable, and enforceable under the new system. Essentially, he’s asking how to codify principles like respecting the streetscape and ensuring buildings don't feel out of place, without resorting to subjective decision-making, which is no longer allowed.
Vice Chair Stanton highlighted a key issue which is the relationship between the building and the street, particularly focusing on setbacks, landscaping, and the general massing of buildings. He advocated for specific objective standards to ensure that new developments, especially taller buildings, do not negatively impact the community’s sense of place or the streetscape.
Chair LaBonge said he appreciates the Oak Hill development's responsiveness to feedback, but this raises a concern about applicants using waivers to bypass certain design standards, particularly for monolithic designs. He asks if there are objective standards that could be applied to these types of projects, not to stop development but to ensure good design, without resorting to costly waivers. His goal is to find a less invasive, more affordable solution that still achieves quality design outcomes.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 12 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
DRC Commissioner Gray agreed with Vice Chair Stanton’s points but reframed the issue by emphasizing the importance of public space coherence. He suggests that while variety in design is important, the buildings should contribute to a unified, coherent streetscape. He proposes setting uniform setbacks for the street and upper stories to maintain consistency, without forcing identical designs. He stresses the importance of shaping the public space, as seen in past mistakes like Park Avenue in the 1950s, where the buildings didn't fit together well.
Gray refers to the Lennar project (Brandt) as an example of a design that he finds chaotic on the streetscape. He suggests that the consultant team should find a balance between encouraging varied, interesting buildings (with features like real windows) and ensuring that the designs fit together to create a cohesive public environment that reflects the town’s character.
Vice Mayor Anduri emphasized that while they've added 2,000 new units, mostly downtown, they want to avoid a random, disconnected development as they expand eastward. He envisioned college towns with clustered apartment buildings but stressed the importance of creating an inviting streetscape with cohesive public spaces to tie everything together.
Commissioner Gray said he would not want to legislate a color palette but asked if a range could be created that starts to have a character that feels comfortable. If there is a brightly colored apartment building next to an earth tone apartment building, they would not seem to be part of the same vocabulary.
Councilmember McCormick referred back to the timeline slide and said the DRC and PC are the groups that hear all of the applications that come through. They work with the architects, deal with public feedback, have standards in place, and figure out what works well and does not work well, and he feels the DRC and PC are being drastically short-changed in this process. This meeting is going on two hours already and from the Gant chart he reads, 80% is set for public input and 15% to 20% for elected and appointed officials providing some “final gloss on the thing that is already baked.” It should be more like 50/50 so he does not think they will get the best result by doing it this way and then having a survey where most people hate the fact there are 5- or 6-story buildings. They will not be thinking about making it the best they can, which is what the DRC, PC, and Council are thinking about, so he suggested relooking at the structure.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he agrees completely, agrees with Mr. Hudson for different reasons, and thinks the expertise is here. The team asked about what the community was like. It is not fraught, but the DRC knows what the community thinks and can articulate it better than the Council, as well as the PC. So, he would recommend a special stand-alone meeting with the DRC, a special stand-along meeting with the PC, and then come back and talk with the Council. It would be more valuable based on those initial discussions to come up with recommendations and then have the community session and input that way and then bring it back to the Commissions.
Mayor Candell said she thinks that would be most helpful for the community to understand what they are talking about. She knows they will get some good comments from the community but wondered if it will be what they want. So, she highly recommended changing this process and going to the DRC first before going to the community.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 13 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Councilmember Cervantes echoed comments and agrees there is expertise here and some wisdom through hard-earned experience, and he thinks it is worth listening to.
Vice Mayor Anduri expressed difficulty in evaluating designs abstractly and suggested focusing on specific elements to compare them. He made it clear that he didn’t want any of the buildings shown in the staff report to be built in town, except for the corner example, which he liked. He emphasized the importance of articulation in design, arguing that some designs took it to an extreme. He also recommended gathering feedback from the DRC and PC to understand what the community wants and suggested referring to the Downtown Design Guidelines for insights. He asked for specific proposals to respond to by the community meeting and inquired about the critical elements to consider for high-quality buildings.
Additionally, he fully agreed with Mr. Hudson’s point about the importance of materials, sharing that the materials of buildings, like the library, should be matched in new developments. He mentioned that the DRC and other parties should review materials to ensure they meet a high standard.
Commissioner Radonich said she appreciates the Council’s input on the timeline. As a Planning Commissioner, she is supportive of the DRC’s input. It does not mean if other Planning Commissioners feel they need to see it. She thinks they add more value so if there is going to be any order, she recommends the DRC reviews it before if it even comes to the Planning Commission.
Also, as a few of them were on the GPAC during the Housing Element in dozens and dozens of meetings, she guessed less than 1% of Lafayette’s population provided feedback across all of those dozens of meetings they all attended. She would hate for this process to first rely on community meetings to then receive final feedback from the DRC. So, she supports flip-flopping the order.
Chair LaBonge said the PC is mainly land use based and not design based and, while they all have great opinions, the DRC are the experts, and he would defer to them. The one point is he hopes the concession and waivers gets tied in there because that will go to the DRC. He thinks if they have only so many meetings, they are the City’s best hope.
Mayor Candell said assuming they are switching the order, and the DRC will help do this first, she asked how is the best way to get the team organized around it because there were key topics and subtopics.
She asked if these are the things that will help the team decide how to organize this, and she wants to be sure this is helpful. She heard the team was more focused on streetscapes and facades and these could be built in but wondered if the DRC wants to make comments if these are the right categories or not.
Possibly there could be a meeting or the team could submit their comments to them directly. Or, if these are not the right sections, the team could somehow get feedback.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said they would need to have a meeting in order for them to submit their comments.
Chair Cass said their next regular DRC meeting, they could put on the agenda their ability to discuss internally the priorities and how to help organize the items in order to get things to the team. The team does not need to attend the meeting with the DRC. They can get the minutes of the meeting afterwards and they will put something together.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 14 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Councilmember McCormick said as long as there is time for the entire DRC to get everything on the table in one meeting, that is a great idea.
Chair Cass said they can put it on the agenda for one meeting and, if they do not accomplish it in a reasonable amount of time, they can restructure a second one. He noted it was 8:30 p.m. and they have to start their own DRC meeting.
Mayor Candell, Councilmembers and staff thanked the DRC and PC members for their comments.
12. PRESENTATION
A. Lt. James Williams
Annual Police Report
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Lt. James Williams said he is here to present the 2024 Annual Report for the Lafayette Police Department.
He gave a PowerPoint presentation and said the Council has these items in the staff report. He provided statistics on a 30% increase in calls for service, a 47% increase in traffic citations, increased crime levels but they are still 17% below pandemic levels. They are still at 17 sworn officers, 5 professional, and 3 parttime parking enforcement staff. Calls for service increased with a total for 2024 at 15,609. These could be a variety of different types of calls for officers. These are 13% below the pre-pandemic.
He then described persons crimes including criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The violent crime rates of robbery, there were 10 in 2024 and 10 assaults. The UCR is 77 per 100,000 in Lafayette. There were 61 burglaries and 228 larcenies, which he described which is below the national average and definitely below the California average.
There was an increase in traffic citations of 47% which reduces traffic fatalities and accidents. In 2024, there were 41 hit and runs, 57 property collisions and 27 injury collisions. They provide many services beyond law enforcement, such as parking enforcement. They are engaged with the Crime Prevention Commission and Emergency Preparedness Commission. They also engage in licensing programs through solicitors, massage parlors, tobacco retailers, do community events with National Night Out, Art and Wine, host a Citizens Academy which will ramp up after the Art and Wine Festival, and they do vacation home checks.
They also engage in emergency services and have attended and hosted meetings about emergency services, interaction with the Fire Department, and the community-at-large, the CWS employee readiness, mutual aid, and State level involvement, as well. The Slow Down Lafayette campaign in 2024 was successful in making the streets safer via education, traffic measurement and analysis, speed display and enforcement through traffic engineering changes. Accomplishments were traffic engineers changed roads and speed limits to improve safety, increased speed displays and enforcement actions. There was public education on school safety and focus on E-bikes and scooters.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 15 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
In summary, they have increased their presence in the community, improved safety, and helped solve crimes through calls for service, traffic citations, and community events. Goals for 2025 include continuing to focus on proactive policing and solving crimes, increased education and enforcement of E-bike riders, continuing to grow Lafayette’s preparedness to respond to a disaster, and to continue to increase their collaboration with Lamorinda agencies.
Councilmember McCormick thanked Chief Williams, and said it was great to see the work of the Police Department. There was a 30% increase in call volume, 47% increase in traffic enforcement, and the same level of officers. He asked about workload with the current staffing and asked if it is sufficient.
Chief Williams said typically their ratio is one officer per every thousand people. For Lafayette, there are about 25,000 people and they are set for 17 people including himself. It brings them to a .68 per thousand.
They are the lowest in the county and so, in general, they would like more staffing. He has not given it any further thought as to how they could do this. He then described their previous and current three beat system.
He credited the previous Chief Alldritt and what he did with the team in 2024, and he hopes to have similar standards for 2025, and would like to address some potential staffing change if trends continue. This is pre-emptive in June to see how property crimes will go, but with the BART system and having their floor to ceiling plastic barriers, there has been a decrease in the amount of people coming off of BART stealing and being able to jump back on BART. So, this stops them before they come into the City.
Councilmember McCormick referred to the E-bike enforcement, and said the schools have done a good job within the boundaries of the school with consequences and rules about E-bikes. He wondered if there could be a separate time how the police deal with enforcement of E-bikes when they leave the school property.
Chief Williams said in June they had the three-city collaboration with motor officers going out and doing a lot of traffic enforcement. When they come back in August, there will be an E-bike stop presence, and it will likely be on a Wednesday.
Councilmember Cervantes said he was trying to figure out trends and the only thing he could pick out in some respects was in the big picture the downturn during the pandemic period and moving up a bit now.
Beyond that, it is hard to discern things. He asked if the Chief could see any other trends from the current data we have, or he asked if it is random and small numbers.
Chief Williams said he would say the latter. It is tough to discern that information right now, and he is still trying to understand trends happening now and wondered if it was just because more people were home and did not experience the opportunity for break-ins or they were more aware of their property and what was happening if they were doing remote learning or remote work, so he was not sure.
Mayor Candell thanked Chief Williams and said thus far he has been very present. She thinks people feel him around a lot and she appreciates that. Chief Williams thanked Mayor Candell and the Council as well as the City Manager.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 16 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Councilmember Cervantes echoed the Mayor’s comments and being active in the community, efforts in joining organizations, which is great. He also commented on the response on the CVS break-in which was great police work.
Chief Williams said his mantra is that if you come to Lafayette and commit a crime, they will go to their neighborhood wearing their Lafayette police uniforms, driving their Lafayette cars, and neighbors will hear people screaming why are Lafayette Police Officers here from out of town. They identified the vehicle leaving that day and San Francisco found it, pulled him over and Lafayette officers went out and got him.
Vice Mayor Anduri thanked the Chief for the increased level of traffic enforcement. It comes at a time when the Chronicle ran a story last week about how the Civil Grand Jury in San Francisco was criticizing the Police Department for undermining Vision Zero by not doing enough traffic enforcement. So, obviously engineering, education, and enforcement is such an important part. Secondly, he expressed his gratitude for the way the Police Department monitored and handled the huge demonstration the City had on Saturday, June 14th. It was great and he saw there was a presence, but it was very well done and handled.
Councilmember McCormick echoed Councilmember Cervantes’ comments and CVS and also the use of social media. Chief Williams communicated to the Council nicely, and he did a great job on the Facebook page which he is a big fan about. People will sometimes not hear about subsequent activities in followup but know the police force is on it. It shows off what police do, which is great.
Chief Williams said they are trying to be more active on social media and Cathy Surges-Moscato has been great in her assistance with this.
13. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Candell asked and confirmed Vice Mayor Anduri wished to remove Item 12.b. There were no other requests from the Council or the public and no public comments.
A. June 9th City Council Minutes
Recommendation: Adopt.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/McCormick) to adopt the Consent Calendar Item A. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes:
Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
14. OLD BUSINESS – None.
15. STAFF REPORTS – None.
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Dana Poplin, Human Resources Analyst
AB2561 Vacancy Report for FY24/25
Recommendation: Receive and file.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 17 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Human Resources Analyst Dana Poplin presented the City’s annual Vacancy Report in compliance with AB2561. The report highlights the City’s current workforce vacancies, recruitment efforts, and strategies for improving hiring and retention. She noted all information is reflective of FY 2024/25 through June 11th and the bargaining unit. They decided not to pull a separate data set for this role since the inclusion of one additional staff member, which would have minimal impact on the data.
The total number of approved positions is 49.35 FTE, number of posted jobs was 9, at present they have 6 open positions across 3 departments, and have a 12.15% organization-wide vacancy rate falling in line with data showing vacancy rates typically above 10% and lower than the highlighted 20% in the new AB2561.
Over the past fiscal year, the City has received 607 applications and interviewed 47 candidates, successfully on-boarded for 2 positions; HR Analyst (Code Enforcement), 2 positions to begin next month of an Administrative Analyst (City Manager), Police Services Assistant (Police), are at the final stages of recruitment for one position, part-time Administrative Assistant, and will soon be recruiting for the remaining open positions. The average time to hire has been 83 days from the date posted to first day on staff, which they anticipate reducing through the next year. For the part-time Administrative Assistant position, as an example, having been posted 33 days from the date of the report and already at the final stages.
This year, the City’s turnover rate was 13.19%, lower than the 18% average for the Government Sector in 2023 and their retention rate was 87.23%. Though these are generally successful rates, the City is still proactively working on improving these rates and employee engagement through reiterating their current success in onboarding, training, employee engagement, and implementing new initiatives. It is important to note that employee feedback surveys, both qualitative and quantitative, should and will be used in this new iteration of initiatives as they garner feedback by one, both continuing their processes like bi-annual performance reviews, and various staff meetings while two, and also implementing new processes like creating poll surveys.
Nonetheless, recruitment challenges remain including having limited candidate pools particularly affecting highly technical/specialty positions being compared to conventional CalPERS benefits packages, while the public sector over the private sector, and the slow transition back from the previous hiring freeze. Despite this, they pride themselves on being competitive in this current market by having competitive salaries, high quality benefit packages, both conventional and non-conventional, and keeping their application process short improving ability to apply, reflective in the data presented today.
Though their rates are generally successful, they still seek to implement new strategies and initiatives, particularly with the new HR Analyst on board to continue the success of these rates and continue raising employee satisfaction.
Tonight’s presentation fulfills the City’s obligation under AB2561 to provide a transparent update on vacancies and hiring efforts. She welcomed feedback from Councilmembers, employee representatives and the public, as collaboration is key to strengthening the City of Lafayette and delivering excellent public services.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 18 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Councilmember Cervantes said Lafayette is one of the very few non-CalPERS cities. He asked how much of a competitive disadvantage does that place them relative to other cities. He asked if this is a big factor in the hiring process.
Ms. Poplin deferred to Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson.
Ms. Robinson said Ms. Poplin has done a great job and has been with the City for about one month. She is amazed at how much she has done in the month here, as it is quite busy in HR. She pointed out that this is a new requirement which is unfunded by the State. The City does not have empirical evidence about whether or not it impacts the City or not. Over her tenure, she thinks it definitely in the specialized municipal positions like Senior Planners, particularly Senior Engineers are very specific to municipalities, so there is a competitive problem there but cannot quantify it. The City got 180 applications for the Administrative Assistant position, so some of those positions which are transferable between the private and public sector that do not need specific specialized skills, she does not believe it makes any difference at all.
Councilmember McCormick said he heard that with federal downsizing and programs being cut, he asked if this has resulted in an increase in high quality applications and applicants here. Ms. Robinson said they did get a few for the Administrative Analyst type positions. So far, they have not seen that again. The Civil Engineering position they have open have garnered a very slow number of applications and she has seen nothing from the federal workforce. She did not see many for the part-time Administrative Assistant.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
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: Conduct public hearing and adopt 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.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson stated the budget before the Council does include the budget requests the Council considered and approved at the last meeting, those being the staging of school buses at schools on Red Flag Days, Public Works assistance for evacuation work clearing, reclassifying a temporary position to a regular position, and replenishing the traffic calming sinking fund.
All requests have been included in the budget in the packet, and once the Council adopts the Resolution, she will print a hard bound copy for all Councilmembers.
Councilmember Cervantes asked what is the timeline for the Measure H Oversight Committee, and Ms.
Robinson said the City will go out for an advertisement to get applicants mid-summer and have the Council seek those in the fall. The City has nothing for them to look at quite yet, and staff wants to ensure people are back from vacations after the summer.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 19 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Cervantes) to adopt 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. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
17. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
B. Resolution 2025-30 Re-appointing various members to commissions, committees and task forces.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-30.
Vice Mayor Anduri said he removed this item because Christy Mack is no longer on the Public Art Committee and asked to delete her name.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/McCormick) to adopt Resolution 2025-30 re-appointing various members to commissions, committees and task forces. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
18. COUNCIL / COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Vice Mayor Anduri said if someone was the alternate to a Commission where former Councilmember Dawson was the primary, they would step up and serve until there is a new Councilmember. There is also the situation with the ARPA Ad-Hoc Committee where he and Councilmember Dawson were serving.
There are still some things that need to be decided with respect to ARPA, so he suggested the Council appoint John McCormick to work with him on remaining issues.
Mayor Candell asked and confirmed that the Council could do so at a future meeting and Ms. Subramanian suggested it be made a standing committee given its timeframe, and staff can bring this back.
Ms. Robinson said the City will likely end it and she could make some decisions with the remaining funds with Councilmember Anduri. If they appoint a new person, they will need to make it a standing committee which would require noticing and public meetings.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if it would be a problem if he consulted with Councilmember McCormick with the members of the business community, and Ms. Subramanian said it will not be an official committee, and she thinks they should probably close the ARPA Ad-Hoc Committee at this point. If Councilmembers work on their own, this could be at their pleasure, but it would not be a formal committee.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if they worked informally and come back with a recommendation for outdoor dining with a proposal.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 20 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Ms. Subramanian said they could, but it would not be the ARPA Committee but two Councilmembers going off on their own without direction from the Council. But, if there is a desire to form a committee, it could return to the Council for discussion and consideration, and she suggested working with Vice Mayor Anduri and then be done with this item, but she did not think there should be another Councilmember involved; however, she confirmed if Councilmembers came back with a suggestion, this could be placed on a future agenda.
Councilmember Cervantes said Stephanie Bontemps of the Emergency Preparedness Commission has been very active in Firewise. They met with Greg Wolff and in California’s Fair Plan, you can get a 10% discount on your premium if you are in a Firewise neighborhood, but the problem is figuring out where the Firewise neighborhoods are because there are no maps of them. He noted Greg Wolff stepped into the brief to say the City can do this. If he is given addresses, he can create a map of Lafayette showing the 20 odd current Firewise neighborhoods which is about 1600 homes with another 1000 in progress.
This is underway, and he acknowledged the work of Mr. Wolff and Stephanie Bontemps.
Councilmember McCormick said he graduated from Central Sanitary Academy following in Councilmember Cervantes’ footsteps. It is amazing what they do and the service they receive from them is staller. He encouraged anyone wanting to know more about wastewater treatment to attend.
Secondly, he and the Mayor toured Sunflower Hill’s Irby Ranch in Pleasanton last week and this is another phenomenal resident community. It bodes so well in what they will do for Lafayette. All learnings they are taking will benefit Lafayette, and it was a terrific tour.
Mayor Candell agreed it was an inspirational trip. Interesting was the learnings and how it changed the layout of the building in Lafayette versus what they did. The process was very thoughtful. She reported attending the ABAG meeting. They approved the budget, and they will be increasing dues next year a bit.
She noted 72% of their funding to ABAG is to fund old pension liability. They have about $18 million, and they have no employees since MTC took over staff. There is no way to capture this, and they are thinking of selling the interest in the building.
They also had some bylaw changes in how they vote for President and Vice President for ABAG which was through all Councils. They will now only pick from what the Executive Committee chooses and this passed.
She and Councilmember Cervantes will be going to Sacramento on Wednesday with the City Manager to do some advocating for Lafayette.
B. Mayor Candell and Vice Mayor Anduri
Council Appointment Procedures for July 15th and July 16th (if necessary) Recommendation: Confirm the Appointment Procedures as outlined in the report.
Vice Mayor Anduri said this item grew out of the discussion the Council held last time. He thanked Jennifer Paul for getting together and explaining what she had in mind which is incorporated in here. There is one change under 2.A and 4.B which talks about providing the set of interview questions to other Councilmembers. He wanted to change, “Provide them to the other Councilmembers” to “…will make them available at the beginning of the meeting.” This is meant to guide the Council for the next appointment.
After that, they can review it, see how it works, and determine whether they want to formally adopt it or have it for the next time.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 21 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Councilmember Cervantes said he thought this was great, appreciates the work done on it, and he thinks once they go through this, they could revisit it and see what worked and what did not, doing at the time so it is fresh in their minds, and he thanked both the Mayor and Vice Mayor.
City Attorney Subramanian said in looking at Item 5, it talks about the procedures can be revised in any manner at any time during the process upon a motion supported by 3 Councilmembers, so it would be most applicable for the day or days you are doing the interview and selection. She spoke with the City Clerk, as well, and they would suggest placing pre-emptively an item on the agenda regarding potential amendment of this policy in case they need to change anything on the spot.
Vice Mayor Anduri said based on their discussion this morning, he asked if they could access that agenda item at any time because what this contemplates is that 30 minutes in they realize this is not working and then they could now go to the item.
Mayor Candell said therefore, they will open it up only if needed.
Ms. Subramanian said they could pre-emptively have it opened and not closed so they have the flexibility to adjust on the fly, or they could open it up only as needed, but never close it so if they need to come back to it, they can. She thinks they would like to have it on the agenda in case adjustments need to be made based on however the process is or is not working for the Council.
Vice Mayor Anduri said the other hypothetical is, what if 20 people apply, and he asked how early could Councilmembers come to a meeting on July 15th.
Mayor Candell said she can make herself available, and Councilmembers said they could, as well.
Councilmember McCormick said the obvious question would be how fresh they would be after interviewing so many candidates.
City Clerk Robbins said if the Council could wait until they see how many applicants, she could provide an estimate on how long this will take.
Vice Mayor Anduri said the problem is they would need to have a special meeting to change the time, but this has always been an issue, and someone would need to make a decision as to how it is scheduled.
Ms. Subramanian also said if 20 people applied, the Council may think about how much time to give all candidates.
Vice Mayor Anduri asked if they would have a special meeting on the 9th, and City Clerk Robbins said the Council will not know how many applicants they will have until 5 p.m. on July 8 th, which is the deadline.
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 22 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Vice Mayor Anduri said he did not think they are going to adopt this, but just guidance. Ms. Subramanian said she did think the Council would adopt it so they have a guideline to use, and they could modify it as needed.
Mayor Candell said if they have to start before 5 p.m., she suggested the Mayor and Vice Mayor make a decision on how to change the format of the interviews to be more appropriate.
Councilmember McCormick said if he envisioned how that would work, he is not sure the timing would change that much. He thinks if they had 20 candidates, everyone would get 15 or 20 minutes, and the Council can cut it down to a number of finalist and then come back on day two given it is not practical.
Vice Mayor Anduri summarized the change; that “If there are 7 applicants, they would be starting at 5 p.m. to interview 30 minutes. If there are more than 7 applicants, the Mayor and Vice Mayor may alter the procedures to accommodate the number of applicants.”
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Cervantes) to confirm the Appointment Procedures as suggested by the City Attorney and Vice Mayor Anduri. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
C. Vice Mayor Anduri
1. Resolution 2025-35 Appointing members to the Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-35.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Cervantes) to adopt Resolution 2025-35 appointing K.C. Donovan and Geoff Bellenger to the Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
2. Resolution 2025-31 Appointing members to the Public Art Committee Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-31.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Cervantes) to adopt Resolution 2025-31 appointing David Dondero, Yukie Fujimoto, Pamela Fletcher and Carly Sitko to the Public Art Committee. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
3. Resolution 2025-36 Appointing members to the Environmental Task Force Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-36.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Cervantes) to adopt Resolution 2025-36 appointing Maria Gastelumendi and Allie Jones to the Environmental Task Force. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
D. Councilmember McCormick and Mayor Candell
City Council, Planning Commission, and Page 23 of 23 June 23, 2025 Design Review Commission Minutes
Resolution 2025-37 Appointing members to the Transportation and Circulation Commission Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-37.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Cervantes) to adopt Resolution 2025-37 appointing Mark Dreger and Anthony Ratner to the Transportation and Circulation Commission. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
19. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. E-mail from Gary Huisingh resigning from the Capital Projects Assessment Committee and the Planning Commission effective immediately.
Recommendation: Accept the resignation of Gary Huisingh and extend sincere appreciation for his 17 years of dedicated volunteer service on the Capital Projects Assessment Committee and 9 years of service on the Planning Commission.
Mayor Candell and Councilmembers thanked Gary Huisingh for his service on the CPAC and the Planning Commission for his 17 years of service, stating he was the rock/anchor when they had turnover on the Commissions.
Mayor Candell opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/McCormick) to accept with regret the resignation of Gary Huisingh and extend sincere appreciation for his 17 years of dedicated volunteer service on the Capital Projects Assessment Committee and 9 years of service on the Planning Commission. Vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Candell, Anduri, Cervantes, and McCormick; Noes: None).
ADJOURNMENT – 9:42 p.m.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Susan Candell, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk