City Council Minutes Page 1 of 36 January 12, 2026
*
City of Lafayette
City Council Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall January 12, 2026 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 6:15 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 January 12, 2026
1. CALL TO ORDER – 6:15 P.M.
Mayor Anduri the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Anduri, Vice Mayor McCormick; Councilmembers Candell, Cervantes, and Wotherspoon
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tim Przybyla, Financial Services Manager; Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director; Senior Planner, Arly Cassidy; 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
Mayor Anduri said he would like to chang the order of Item 14.B.3 and 14.B.2 and reverse them.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell//McCormick) to adopt the agenda, as amended. Roll Call Vote: Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Closed Session Items) – None.
6. CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Anduri adjourned to Closed Session to discuss the following matters:
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Gov. Code section 54956.9 (d)(1)
Housing Action Coalition vs. City of Lafayette
Contra Costa Superior Court, Case No. C25-0512
Reconvene /Report of Closed Session
Mayor Anduri reconvened the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. and announced that no reportable action was taken in Closed Session.
7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 7:00 p.m. - Mayor Anduri led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
8. MAYOR ANDURI - 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.
City Council Minutes Page 3 of 36 January 12, 2026
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items not on the agenda)
KIRK WANDY introduced Vibrant Lafayette, a parent-led group working to better understand the city and collaborate with Council to bring more vitality to downtown. Representing young families, they aim to increase foot traffic, improve walkability and bike safety, and encourage thoughtful economic development. They emphasized families’ desire for welcoming public spaces, safe access for kids, and a downtown that feels more social and inviting rather than purely transactional, suggesting ideas like temporary use of parking areas to create places where families can gather and linger.
Mayor Anduri thanked the group for getting involved in the community.
LIBBY HENRY warned of upcoming Sacramento legislation following SB 79, noting that similar provisions have returned in new bills (SB 677 and SB 722). She urged the Council to prepare and submit letters of opposition, expressing concern that the State is seeking greater control over local land and communities and she called on the Council to actively oppose these efforts.
10. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa gave the following update:
• From Parks, Trails, and Recreation:
➢ Tickets are available for the Lafayette Youth Commission’s Middle School Tri-City Dance. It will be held at the Community Center on January 23rd. Families will also want to get their tickets to the Sweetheart Dance on February 6th at the Community Center, and tickets can be purchased for both dances on the City’s website.
➢ Director Katayanagi informed her that PTR hosted a group trip to the Warriors vs. Kings game and children from the attending families got to visit the court during the National Anthem. ➢ The Public Art Committee invites the community to the official unveiling of the first mural in the Downtown Mural Program on Monday, January 26th at 5:00 p.m. at 3578 Mt. Diablo Boulevard. They will be recognizing the artist, Rachael Pearls and all others for their support in bringing this vibrant new artwork to the downtown.
➢ The City has been made aware of scam emails impersonating City departments and requesting fraudulent payments. These messages look very official. They use City logos, familiar language and publicly available information to look authentic and they demand payment, but they are not from the City. The City of Lafayette will never request payment by wire transfer or crypto currency or gift cards. Legitimate City invoices and payment requests are only sent through the official City email address or via U.S. Postal Service, and staff is always available by phone to help people if they are in doubt. On-line payments are offered by the City and they process these through secure platforms such as Square. While this scam is currently targeting applicants to the City Planning Department, similar tactics are used in other departments as well and in other cities. She just learned that Pleasant Hill has been subject to this scam, as well. So, if people are unsure, please contact City offices and staff will be happy to help.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
11. PRESENTATIONS
City Council Minutes Page 4 of 36 January 12, 2026
A. Janice Peacock, Chair of the Public Art Committee
Lafayette Civic Values: Lifelong Learning and the Arts
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Mayor Anduri introduced the item, stating Lafayette’s Mission Statement calls out the City’s commitment to lifelong learning. Through the City’s Public Art Committee and newly expanded focus, the City seeks to embed the arts in their civic life and in the fabric of the community. During the next two years, they will help strengthen these civic values through presentations at the beginning of the first Council meeting of each month by an arts organization or an organization that offers lifelong learning opportunities. Tonight is the first presentation and he introduced Janice Peacock, Chair of the Public Art Committee, who will provide an overview of works of public art in Lafayette.
Janice Peacock, Chair of the Public Art Committee, said she is happy to be here as an artist herself and a lover of art and a lifelong learner and happy to be kicking off this new set of presentations. She presented some members of the 9-member Lafayette Public Art Committee. The Committee are stewards of art for Lafayette, promote public art within Lafayette, support artistic and cultural diversity, and enrich Lafayette through programming. They have a large variety of different kinds of art in their community that belongs to the City of Lafayette. They have an extensive collection of wall art and sculptures in the Library and are doing some work on it right now. They have temporary exhibitions they are responsible for, and each quarter they have new artists displaying their work in the Don Tatzin Community Hall in the Library and also in the Town Hall Theater. Plus, they have sculptures and a mural which she will display in a minute as well as a utility box program with vintage pictures on them. They have not just the sculptures in the downtown area but throughout the community. For such a small town, they have a robust and valuable collection she is very proud of.
Chair Peacock then presented their mural and said she is so happy to have their first mural in the Downtown Mural Program by Rachael Pearls who grew up in Lafayette. She is an Oakland artist and this is on the side of Zahra Boutique on Mt. Diablo Boulevard. They are working on the second mural and if someone is a business owner, a building owner, or you know of a building owner, they are looking for their next wall. She asked to please be in touch with someone from the Public Art Committee through the Lafayette website if they know of a wall where they can put a gorgeous next mural on.
The other exciting new art they have in Lafayette is at the Brant development across the street from Diamond K. There is a wonderful piece that is an inverted metal cone that is hollow, created by an artist group called Wow House, and Brant is a kind of goose. When there is a light inside of the cone, you can see the geese flying around the outside of the cone. They also have some spectacular tile work done by artist Eileen Barr. The pictures do not do it justice but it is beautiful, vibrant art that really goes well in this development. This was done with Lafayette’s 1% for the arts program in which developers use 1% of their development budget towards art in Lafayette.
She then presented some well-known pieces in Lafayette: “Speechless” by Brian Goggin, made of cast bronze. This is a huge sculpture which is right outside the window. This piece was put in when the Library was built. Inside the Library, there are quite a few stunning pieces here.
She presented a newer piece called “Friendly Gathering and Bird Row” by local artist Joe Bologna. It is at the Mill which is on the corner of Brown and Mt. Diablo. This piece makes her happy and thinks it is whimsical and it really takes advantage of not using very much space to place public art, which is sometimes a problem they come up against when working with developers.
City Council Minutes Page 5 of 36 January 12, 2026
She then presented “Blossoms” by Gordon Heuther. This is one of their first pieces that went in in the Public Art Program and it is like a bouquet of flowers, with dichroic glass disks which at different times of day they radiate different colors which are fun and magical.
In the roundabout away from the downtown they have Resolve by David Mudgett who is a Pleasant Hill artist. This is one of their larger sculptures along with the Goggin piece out front of the Library. This is a set of stacked pierced dodecahedrons that are all stacked up which can be seen at the roundabout at Olympic and Pleasant Hill Road which she passes all the time.
If you make it up to the Community Center Jennifer Russell Building in the foyer, stand there and look up, there is an amazing sculpture by Oakland artist Elin Christopherson. She is a glass artist but she made this mixed media piece which is aluminum which has been painted along with glass red buds seen in the lower picture. This is a neat piece because when driving by at night, you can see it in the window at the top of the building.
Chair Peacock said this is some of the public art and she has just scratched the surface. She then presented a few pieces of the Lafayette art collection in the Library. One piece that gets overlooked a lot is “Sun Painting” by Peter Erskine which is in the back quiet area corner of the Library, and people think it is just a skylight, but it is an interesting piece that has prisms in it that breaks apart the sunlight into all of its component colors.
She then presented a piece that was a fairly recent addition by the former City Manager Steven Falk, called “Seeing Red.” There are massive almost photo-realistic paintings that he created for this piece. This was a donation he made to the City of Lafayette. All pieces in the Library were purchased and part of the budget for when the Library was built.
She presented a piece by Thomas Tannyhill who lives in Pleasant Hill and who is a former Public Art Committee member called “Dancing Oak” which is in the Library as well. She presented “String of Pearls” by Ann Weber which is a fun piece that sits at the bottom of the stairwell and is made of cardboard. Ms.
Weber was here last year repairing it after someone had thrown a bottle at it. You can see where the repair is, which has become part of the history of this piece. “Dandelion Seeds” from Kinetic Labs is an amazingly large piece which is a sculpture of large dandelion seeks that will sit over a quad at the entrance to the City of Lafayette’s downtown area as you leave BART.
It has been on the back burner for a few years due to some budget constraints, but thanks to the Council the budget constraints have been relieved and they will be able to go forward with these large metallic sculptures that move around when there is wind. That will be coming this summer. The other great new project coming is called ‘Binary Wall Datum Line” and it is by Lafayette artist Clay Jensen who is creating these tall 8’ panels that have texture on them. This is going in at 950 Huff. These are neat panels in that they have a lot of texture in them and they will also over time take on a patina that will make them interesting to look at up-close. They are also happy to be able to add Mr. Jensen to their collection and this is his latest development which she knows will be done very soon for installation. The piece echoes what is going on in the architecture of the building and it will be a great fit for this development.
She thanked the Council for allowing her to present and more information can be learned on the City’s website on the Public Art Committee.
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 36 January 12, 2026
Vice Mayor McCormick thanked Chair Peacock and confirmed that people are welcome to join the committee meetings, participate, and share ideas. Chair Peacock said the public art is accessible to everyone for free out in the community and is a way to add vibrancy to the community and bring art into everyday living.
Councilmember Wotherspoon thanked Chair Peacock and the committee for their work, given the numerous accomplishments over the decades. Art adds wonderful spark, color and texture to the City.
She asked when the unveiling will be held, and Chair Peacock said the unveiling will be on January 26th right before the Council meeting at 5:00 p.m. at 3578 Mt. Diablo Boulevard and the public is welcome.
Mayor Anduri thanked Chair Peacock and committee members, as well as Jenny Rosen, staff liaison to the Committee for all of their great work.
B. Tim Przybyla, Financial Services Manager
Fiscal Year 2024/25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Recommendation: Receive and file.
Financial Services Manager Tim Przybyla presented the FY 2024/25 ACFR, which received a clean audit opinion from Badawi and Associates. He reported an exceptional fiscal year, highlighted by a $5.35 million General Fund balance increase, largely driven by one-time ARPA funds and lower-than-budgeted expenditures due to delayed projects. Revenues exceeded expectations even excluding ARPA, and the City continued to strengthen its financial position. Minor accounting changes from GASB 101 had minimal impact. The report has been submitted to the GFOA, with staff expecting the City to receive its financial reporting award for the 11th consecutive year.
Councilmember Cervantes explained that Lafayette’s strong fiscal surplus in 2025 was largely due to onetime ARPA federal funds and delayed project spending. He emphasized that these funds will not recur and that planned projects will still move forward, so the surplus should be viewed as positive but not indicative of future ongoing revenues.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
Councilmember Cervantes commented that it is terrific the City received a clean opinion, loves the GFOA certification and good financial controls are at the heart of a well-run City. He gave kudos to Mr. Przybyla and staff for the work done on maintaining good strong financial controls. Part of this is honoring the voters for voting for Measure H and that the City is being good stewards of their trust, and he voiced appreciation to staff for their work. Mr. Przybyla also credited Jennifer Wakeman for her work of 10 years and for receiving the award which he hopes to continue.
Vice Mayor McCormick said the City’s budget is conservative which is where they need to be, given its size. There are cities around the Bay Area and State that are really suffering, whether it is CalPERS obligations or other budget management issues, and also noted Lafayette has a healthy reserve. He thanked Mr. Przybyla for his good stewardship and said this is an excellent report.
Mayor Anduri thanked staff and noted there is a little more background information than in the budget and he recommended reviewing this which is useful.
12. CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes Page 7 of 36 January 12, 2026
Mayor Anduri asked if Councilmembers wished to remove any items. He said he received one request to remove Item G from the public, and there were no further requests and no public comments.
A. City Council Minutes
December 8, 2025
Recommendation: Approve.
B. Request for Construction within the Creek Setback at 490 St. Mary’s Road Recommendation: Approve request for construction within the creek setback at 490 St. Mary’s Road.
C. Resolution 2026-01 Fiscal Year 2024/25 Development Impact Fee Annual Report Recommendation: Adopted Resolution 2026-01.
D. Resolution 2026-02 Authorizing the Engineering and Public Works Director to Execute Right-ofWay Certifications in Connection with State and Federally Funded Transportation Projects Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-02.
E. Resolution 2026-03 Update to AB 1234 and SB 827 – Ethics and Financial Training Requirements for City Council, Staff, Commissioners and Consultants
Recommendation: Adopted Resolution 2026-03.
F. Resolution 2026-04 Appointing City Council Standby Officers for 2026 Recommendation: Adopted Resolution 2026-04
H. Adopting the 2026 City Council Assignments
Recommendation: Adopt the 2026 City Council Assignments.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Wotherspoon/Cervantes) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A, B, C, D, E, F, and H.
Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
13. OLD BUSINESS – None.
14. STAFF REPORTS
A. Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director and Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner Objective Design Standards (Phase 2) – Housing Element Implementation Recommendation: Provide feedback on the draft ODS document.
Senior Planner Arly Cassidy gave a brief introduction of the item and turned over the presentation to Lisa Wise Consulting to discuss Objective Design Standards (ODS) that help implement the Housing Element.
She gave a background on what ODSs are and how they are used, actions taken in Phase 1, work done and meetings held in Phase 2 to expand functionality of the existing standards and comply with State law, the Open House for comments, changes made by the DRC to the document during its review, forward of the document to the PC with a recommendation of approval, minor changes made by the PC and forward of the revised document to the Council. Staff is requested feedback tonight on the draft ODS document and no formal action is proposed tonight.
City Council Minutes Page 8 of 36 January 12, 2026
Regarding next steps, after the Council and public provide feedback to staff, staff will make updates as directed and return to the Council with an adoptable draft. No CEQA action is required to adopt the ODS draft as it is an implementation step of the Housing Element.
Once adopted, the Phase 1 ODS checklist will be replaced with a new checklist, and the Phase 2 ODS code section will be adopted into the LMC. The City will no longer use a point system for implementing this program and instead provide a ministerial checklist for review of projects. She noted that the DRC Chair Glenn Cass and Vice Chair Richard Stanton are members of the DRC Working Group and are present tonight and available for questions. She then turned over the presentation to Monica Szydlik and Cal Kurtz from Lisa Wise Consulting.
Monica Szydlik, Lisa Wise Consulting, said she and the Director, Cal Kurtz, along with Greg Wolff and Arly Cassidy have been working on the standards for over a year and are happy to discuss the draft in its current form and receive feedback. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and an overview of the staff report on the project background, the process, standards, topics included, and generally what they are doing with each section of the document. At the conclusion of the presentation, Ms. Cassidy asked for Council comments and questions.
Mayor Anduri thanked staff and the Lisa Wise Consulting group for the presentation and work on the ODS.
He especially thanked DRC Commissioners Cass and Stanton for their work and for being available tonight.
Vice Mayor McCormick said he thinks there will be public comment discussions regarding rooflines and pitched roofs, and he can appreciate there is a lack of penalty and he asked if there were considerations to encourage pitched roofs, or making it after a number of stories.
Ms. Cassidy explained the original draft of the document that went to the DRC coming out of the working group had the broad outline of restrictions and regulations required for roofs with no change in how the City views height. It called attention that this would penalize anyone that built a pitched roof because of the way the city defines height in Lafayette which takes an average of the tallest roof forms. A flat roof would be judged as a lower roof that one with a pitched roof. When this point was brought up during public comment at the PC meeting, the PC felt that penalization should not take place and had the consultant and staff reword how height is considered within this document only and not broadly across the entire zoning code. What is before the Council is the answer to the PC’s request. No discussion was made by the PC to further support pitched roofs by providing an incentive of any kind for that type of roof or no decision was discussed for completely removing flat roofs which was also presented by the commentor.
Mayor Anduri said if the Council was to revise the standards to require a pitched roof on buildings more than two stories, he asked what are the pitfalls of doing that or possible unintended consequences. Ms.
Szydlik explained that their primary concern with that is limiting the allowed roof forms would likely be considered an onerous constraint. They want to make sure these standards support and facilitate development of up to 60 du/acre and by doing so, it is an obligation on the part of the applicant that they would likely be considered as a constraint, and they are not inclined to make the standards so onerous.
City Council Minutes Page 9 of 36 January 12, 2026
Mayor Anduri asked if Town Center III is about 75 du/acre and it has a pitched roof. This has been done in Lafayette so if they decide that Lafayette retains its character more with pitched roofs which all larger buildings have, when it is possible to do, he asked how that could be considered a constraint. They are limiting style, but this is what ODSs are meant to be unless they are completely misunderstanding the assignment.
Ms. Szydlik said it is certainly possible and there are projects with a variety of roof forms, but when they look at projects that have been considered feasible in the region, there are many flat roofs out there. Ms.
Kurtz added that pitched roofs can offer a significant cost increase because they are trusses. Of course, the developer may elect to do that for design reviews and architectural style. But, just with modern construction, quite frequently a developer will say that being forced to put up a pitched roof would add a significant cost to the design of the building and, as Ms. Szydlik mentioned, their intent with these designs standards is to be accommodating so a developer will elect to do the ODSs instead of saying they want to use design review for a longer process or have to go and use density bonus, avoiding all standards.
Mayor Anduri asked the City Attorney if there is any case law on this particular question. City Attorney Mala Subramanian said she can look into that, but did not have an answer now.
Vice Mayor McCormick said to him there is the true pitched roof where they come to a point but for very large buildings this will not make sense because these buildings will be multi-stories. He assumes architecturally you could still have a characteristic that looks like a roof but, in fact, behind it is flat for the most efficient construction, especially on large buildings. He asked if they would want to say every building must have a pitched roof, or encourage and give options.
Ms. Szydlik said if it were the type of building that is flat with a pitched roof form on the edge, then that portion of the form that is above the flat roof would be excluded from how height is measured for that building. In that sense, there is no penalty for doing that. In fact, the developer might consider it to be an incentive in that the community would be more welcoming of that design and one could assume there is more goodwill among the community. So, in that sense, there is an incentive. But, they are trying to get away from points, so saying you get more points for this versus that, they are trying to make it simpler and to not penalize pitched roofs. That said, they do know it is more expensive, more complicated, and they are weary of requiring something that is more difficult for the developer.
Ms. Cassidy said in adding a few considerations, what is being described is very similar to a mansard roof where there is a flat roof and then a wrapping of a roof with a pitched element. That would potentially provide some benefits. One downside to a pitched roof is that these days, larger buildings tend to put a lot of equipment on the roof. A flat roof makes that very easy—a pitched roof, near impossible. So, if that equipment is not on the roof, it is somewhere on the ground floor and it often is making a lot of noise next to someone’s window. So, this is something that would add difficulty to site planning, especially when looking at more and more buildings next to each other and going vertical.
One other thing to think about is that as the City does increase in height especially along the freeway, these taller buildings are going to have views of each other’s roofs. So, if the main concern is the view from Mt. Diablo Boulevard, this might hide most of the equipment. If they want to be more concerned about what people see from each other’s apartments and roof decks then it might be less attractive to have a mansard roof. So, there are pros and cons to all types. It is just something to keep in mind as they progress.
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 36 January 12, 2026
Ms. Szydlik added that the zones that support higher density residential projects of 60 du/acre, none of them are on Mt. Diablo Boulevard. They are behind between the highway and halfway up that block. So, this effect staff is concerned about would not be visible from Mt. Diablo Boulevard or the first half of the block going north.
Mayor Anduri said to clarify, between Mt. Diablo Boulevard and that 60 du/acre zone which is now 35 du/acre, it is possible to come in with a bonus project, but if you come in with the density bonus, he asked if developers are not subject to the ODS anyway.
Planning and Building Director Greg Wolff said they are still subject to the zoning; however, density bonus allows for the developer to seek concessions and waivers. Those waivers could be used to waive one or more of the ODS currently being developed.
Vice Mayor McCormick said pitched roofs have a more charming feel than flat roofs which can be more urban looking. He asked if the idea was to eliminate any negative consequence but not do any sort of positive description. However, staff is saying the Council could potentially add language and still meet the spirit of ODSs if they could describe mansard roofs or buildings over 3 or 4 stories. He does not want to do something that is unenforceable. Ms. Cassidy said in the end, that will be a question for the City Attorney as to what litigious possibilities are of being more specific about what kind of roof, especially as some roofs cost more to build. So, if they were to say only pitched roofs are allowed under this document and nothing else, that is a lot harder of a line than perhaps to offer some smaller incentive. But again, this is a question for the City Attorney and her answer will help inform that.
Councilmember Cervantes said in stepping back, the ODSs are the ‘opening bid’ so if a developer comes in and they want an expedited processing, they follow this, go ahead of the line, and this is how it works.
If a developer had an issue with the mansard roof or gabled roof, and it was an onerous issue for them, they could say they will not do that and go through design review, and maybe through that process they could work their way to a solution that might work better for them. He asked if he was thinking about this the right way.
Ms. Cassidy said yes, it is great to make that extra clear here. What they are describing with the ODS document is a pathway they must have under State law which is an objective review. Under applications such as SB 35 where you are not allowed to have a discretionary hearing the pathway must be a “yes” or “no” checklist. Planners will review projects. She believes the City’s ordinance does require that the applicant would come to a body but would not be able to have discretionary review, so they would have to review these projects with a check box and must be able to answer every question, every design standard with a “yes” or “no” answer. This is what the full weight of objectivity means here. So, if they have that pathway, staff is allowed to enforce those standards but any developer can say, “I don’t want to go through that pathway” and go back to the City’s normal discretionary review. This pathway is still open if they opt out of this faster review process.
In addition, if they do not like the City’s normal zoning code requirements, they can apply for a variance.
That would be additional discretionary review for that. It does not mean the City grants it, but they can apply for it.
Ms. Szydlik said she would add that they also have to be able to say that the discretionary path does facilitate the allowed development scale and density by right. So, the City needs to say with confidence that they are not creating a narrow path that would lead applicants to not use that path.
City Council Minutes Page 11 of 36 January 12, 2026
Councilmember Cervantes said so they are tilting the playing field, so to speak, in a direction where they want them to play. Let’s say it is gabled roofs. The City could do that. They say they would rather have a BBQ pit on the top floor with a view of Mt. Diablo, and if they cannot do that with a mansard roof, then they may go through design review and get what they want that way. The City would be offering them an easy path if they said for a gabled roof they go to the front of the line, but they could opt not to do that.
Ms. Cassidy said yes, they can choose which of those pathway they want to go through. The City has to offer the objective pathway. They do not require it and it is an option for the developer who can choose the normal discretionary review should they choose. The additional wrinkle is that across all of these pathways any application can also do a density bonus application and, if they are providing those density bonus units, they are allowed to request a certain number of incentives or concessions and additional waivers. Those waivers would apply to the City’s normal zoning as well as the ODSs. Should they opt to submit an additional density bonus application on top of their normal application, many of these can be waived away.
Mayor Anduri asked if the developer can submit a density bonus application under the objective pathway but say they will use their concessions to strike “X, Y and Z.” Ms. Cassidy said yes, and she and Director Wolff were speaking about this. In the past, some applicants have submitted density bonus applications simply for the concessions and waivers without even using the additional bonus of density granted by State law. Staff does not think that will occur much in the future. The development playing field is changing but the concessions and waivers are powerful enough to be their own incentive for applying.
Again, the goal of this document is to avoid bad design, encourage good design, but not be so onerous that every applicant immediately automatically does a density bonus application and be able to avoid a lot of these standards.
Councilmember Wotherspoon thanked the team, stating this is excellent work and interesting. She referred to the need for utility materials, boxes, functions, HVAC on the top of buildings. She was looking at Town Center III at 1001 Dewing’s aerial view and she had no idea that it has a flat roof that cloaks utilities. This building has been described as favorably by many public commenters and many people think it is attractive and well-built.
Ms. Cassidy said this is a mansard roof which is structurally a flat roof and then along the edge of the façade of the building there is a section of a pitched room. This one is between 5 and 10 feet long at an angle, so from the ground floor or from the outside looking up, you see the edge of the pitched roof but you typically do not have a good angle to see it does not continue.
Councilmember Candell said 85% to 95% of the roof is flat, and Ms. Cassidy confirmed and said there is equipment up there. There could be solar for a useable roof for many things, but someone standing on the ground will see a pitched roof.
Vice Mayor McCormick said it is looking at Lafayette Mercantile which also has a mansard.
City Council Minutes Page 12 of 36 January 12, 2026
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked if this is generally the form for most of the buildings they are speaking of as having pitched roofs in Lafayette; the larger ones that might be mansard. Ms. Cassidy said staff has not surveyed them but it is quite possible. She happened to zoom in on the Mercantile and did not know there was a flat roof behind the mansard but it clearly has a benefit. She would venture to guess that many developers want that equipment on the roof.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked if these standards apply to the duplex and faith-based organizations in multi-family zones. Ms. Szydlik said yes they do; they apply everywhere where multi-family or mixed use is permitted by right. There were a few like the MRO, the MRA and a few scattered sites, and the faith-based sites.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said for the duplex ones, she asked if these would be smaller scale buildings with smaller lots. She asked if these standards work for them. Ms. Szydlik said this is something they talked a lot about with the DRC working group. They determined that they wanted to be silent on the smaller scale townhome configurations of buildings. The preference was for these standards to try to address the larger scale buildings with the understanding that staff is anticipating that generally, new multi-family development will not take that form and that there has been a concern with the design of those mid-scale and small-scale buildings.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked if there is only one secondary material and color permitted with these standards. Ms. Szydlik said they do not have anything with accent colors and there is not a limit of one. The intent is to prevent a building that is all one material and color which is why they reference primary and secondary but they do not limit the number so there could be multiple secondaries.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said in the privacy section there was a diagram in one of the earlier versions described a 30-degree angle minimum. It was removed and she asked why. Ms. Kurtz said that was removed she believed after the PC hearing. They felt it would not adequately provide privacy.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked on the diagram how to interpret it to see where that 30-degree was.
Ms. Kurtz said it was the plan view of a bay window. She suggested thinking of a bay window being shallow versus deep, and it had to be deep enough so the windows on the side were at enough of an angle that they were not directly looking at the neighbors.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked what the standard is now. She asked if the diagram is accurate any more. Ms. Kurtz said there must be a minimum sill height or translucent or frosted glazing. They just took that out as an option and took the third option out at the recommendation of the PC. Bay windows are allowed, but that alone would not satisfy the privacy requirement.
Councilmember Candell referred back to the map and the question on the duplex, and said when staff commented on the map and where these would be applied it was only shown the colored ones which were circled in red. She asked to go back to that picture. Councilmember Candell said she wants to be sure the BART lots, Deer Hill and DeSilva are in it. She sees DeSilva, but is not seeing the others and asked to make sure these are included. Or, she asked if there was a reason why those were excluded.
Ms. Cassidy said on the map all of the bright colors where the ODS would apply are within the downtown which is south of the freeway. So, Deer Hill and the BART lots on this zoning map are in a single-family residential district which means these standards would not apply.
City Council Minutes Page 13 of 36 January 12, 2026
Councilmember Candell said that is not true at least for the BART lot.
Mayor Anduri said he thought these apply to multi-family development throughout the City no matter what the zoning is. Ms. Cassidy said these apply to zones where multi-family is permitted by right which would be a multi-family district, so she wondered if this map is incorrect.
Councilmember Candell noted that if the City gets roped into SB 79, they want to be sure this is right. Mr.
Wolff said rather than limiting it to a geography, staff can state they are applicable to multi-family projects irrespectively.
Councilmember Candell said under the massing under C-2, the 50 feet minimum dimension. It seems like all of these dimensions should have a width and a depth and not just one. This applies to a couple of the other ones too. She asked if there is a reason it is not included. Ms. Szydlik said they can certainly require width of the public accessible locations.
Councilmember Candell said she did not see anything about bike spaces in terms of parking. She asked if this is intention or asked if it is covered elsewhere or she asked if this needs to be included here. Ms.
Szydlik said required bike parking and off-street parking spaces and facilities are addressed in Chapter 6-
6. It is the code’s off-street parking chapter. There is a section on bike parking there. She said they could add them if desired, but they need to look back at the design of the secured spaces, the location, and see if there is a need. In working group meetings, they determined there was no need for design standards beyond what is already in the code.
Mayor Anduri referred back to the comment section, noting the City is hoping to design a downtown in which many people will be riding their bikes and coming down to the Park Theater, parking, going to lunch, and they were going to have to have multiples of bike parking spaces versus what they have now. He thinks this should be revisited.
Ms. Szydlik corrected herself on something she said earlier. In looking at Chapter 6-3902; Applicability.
When they developed these, they looked at the zones where multi-family mixed use is allowed by right, but as they say on page 1, the design standards in this chapter apply to all multi-family and mixed-use development in this way, regardless of where it is. If it ends up on an R10 zone, yes they apply.
Councilmember Candell said between the PC meeting and this one, the sill and the apron one went away and she asked why. Ms. Kurtz said she does not have the previous copy of it so she does not recall the sill and apron being on the previous copy, but she will say they had discussions with the DRC working group about this and they elected based on their advice and knowledge of construction in Lafayette to not include those. So, just to be clear, that does not mean a sill and an apron are prohibited. Of course, a developer could use those and often will include those just for good window design and longevity of the window. It is just not a requirement to meet the window design standards.
Councilmember Candell said under the entry design, on the prior revision it states, “We took out the center entry. It is centered within a symmetric overall feature.” But when looking at many of the ones where there are new building entrances with little cut-outs, the way the pictures are shown, the entry would be in a recess. She thinks maybe they do need to put that one back in, or she asked if there was another reason that was taken out and asked if staff is sure this should be taken out.
City Council Minutes Page 14 of 36 January 12, 2026
Ms. Szydlik said they did take it out. The concern was and it is sort of an interim review of the working document and it was that the wording was insufficiently objective; that maybe there was a measure of subjectivity. As it is now, that is one of a list of options so yes, a building entry could be located in a recess but that would never be a requirement based on the way these are spelled out and listed as options.
Councilmember Candell referred to the non-residential ground floor design, you say “…any façade between 2 and 7 feet…” She asked for an example of what a façade 2 feet is. Ms. Szydlik referred to the next page and there is an illustration that describes the intent of that standard. We are saying that nonresidential ground floor spaces have to have a measure of transparency so you know what you are walking past. It does not have to be transparent way down by your feet or up above where you can see, but between the area of 2 and 7 feet, a certain percentage of that should be legible. Councilmember Candell suggested rewording this a bit.
Councilmember Candell referred to building materials and colors and 2C, it states “natural and cultured stone” but then there is a comment that the building base only. She asked why this is the building base only for that one. Ms. Szydlik said they would delete those lines so it is not repeated. On 2H, they would delete that and keep 2C but remove the building because at some point they determined to allow natural and cultured stone to be a primary building material and in that case it would not only be for the building base, so they would remove that parenthetical.
Councilmember Candell asked if this would also remove 2H because concrete is in there twice, and Ms.
Szydlik confirmed.
Councilmember Cervantes asked to understand better “publicly accessible open space.” If it is up to 3 stories, it is 800 square feet which is like an 8x10 room or a kid’s bedroom which is not a lot. If it is 4 stories or more, he asked where that goes. He is trying to understand what the purpose of this is because it is not much space.
Ms. Kurtz said all those hour dimensions for the publicly accessible open space, also for the common open space were all items they actually measured various open spaces the City has. So, the reason for the 600 square feet is specifically because they see a pattern within the downtown of these terraces and open spaces outside of a restaurant there are terraces, so they wanted to include those as forms of publicly accessible open space that are allowed and that they are accounting for. So, that is why that square footage is so small, but there are others as well. The common open space and having a minimum dimension of 50 square feet, they want to make sure they are not allowing for common open space that may be called that but is not functional and cannot be used by the residents. So, all dimensions that they included were all specific to those used.
Councilmember Cervantes said so it could be bench outside a restaurant which is public open space. Ms.
Szydlik said yes, in thinking about required open space for smaller buildings up to 3 stories, they wanted them to be used and built out. They do not want to cut in too much into the buildable area on the site and they want the space to be used. For that scale of building, having a vast open space is less likely to be used. If it feels more crowded it will look cozier. It enhances the continuity of the pedestrian activity so it is very intentional. Then when it comes to the larger spaces like the one where the open space is elevated, it could be larger, does not necessarily have to be the ground level common open space, and it is a little bit more flexible. It is the building at 1001 Oak Avenue which they looked at as an example for common open space.
City Council Minutes Page 15 of 36 January 12, 2026
Councilmember Cervantes said the idea here is the streetscape experience and trying to enhance that.
Ms. Szydlik confirmed.
Councilmember Cervantes said later on, there is different design features about landscaping and having a certain percentage, such as 50% of wall space, etc. He was thinking about this in the context of fire safety and Zone Zero. He asked if what this means is putting plantings right up against a building because they are conscious of fire safety and Zone Zero and this could cut against that.
Ms. Szydlik asked if there is a specific standard or section Councilmember Cervantes is referring to.
Councilmember Cervantes said this is page 11 under 6-3910.c.2.c which is one. There is another one 6- 3914; fencing and screening, e and subpart b. Anything in the 0- to 5-foot space could be problematic in the future. Ms. Szydlik said she would also add that beyond streetscape in the front of buildings; required landscaping; this does not necessarily need to be in the ground and there could be movable pots and planters.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed with Ms. Szydlik that it is possible to have different standards for different districts, referring to the DDGs such that the City could require pitched roofs only on Brown Avenue and not elsewhere. He also asked and confirmed there could be a requirement that if a property is on one of the major streets and also on another street, that the entrance to the garage or curb cut can only be on the secondary street.
Mayor Anduri said one of the things that will be more important as the City moves forward with its downtown design is providing space between the front of the building and the curb. He asked if anything can be done in the ODSs to require a building to be a certain number of feet from one of their main street curbs.
Ms. Szydlik said it sounds like this is the setback from the front property line or any street-facing property line curb. Typically, when talking about design standards, these pick up where development standards leave off so the development standards are the basics of height, density, and setback. The setback is counted from the property lines and when talking about a property line along a right-of-way, this is typically at the back of sidewalk. So, what they are not doing with ODSs is going into the development standards by zone in the code and modifying those. They are keeping those as is.
She clarified that she understands the question. Based on the width of the sidewalk, the distance from the curb is unknown because it is not a function of where the property line is. So, if the City were to do that, they would have to be careful in terms of whether it gets in the way of that setback requirement.
That is not something she knows off-hand, and Mayor Anduri said he will leave this as a question.
Vice Mayor McCormick said when talking about the public open space, he would be more interested in having a broader façade which may equate to wider sidewalks in the front versus some sort of carve-out.
This was his question as well and thinking about square footage that way versus with a broader walking/biking area in the entire front which is much more interesting and conducive to semi-rural character.
Mayor Anduri said he believes this is a critical item for their downtown. He referred to the copy of the updated boards and the handout. He asked if there will be no appendix to this code section.
City Council Minutes Page 16 of 36 January 12, 2026
Ms. Cassidy said it was staff’s understanding that at the special DRC meeting that had the Open House, the DRC was instructing staff to append the digital copy of these boards to the staff report as the ODS went through the approval process so these future meetings could see and understand what the boards held because they are a very succinct and visual summary of what the document has. Staff did not understand them to mean that the digital copy of the boards should be adopted as part of the code which is what the ODS document will do in the future.
Mayor Anduri said they have gotten fairly extensive public comment from Eliot Hudson who will be speaking tonight. He has added a number of new language in the draft ordinance under the Purpose; that grounds these objective standards in the City’s mission statement, particularly the part of the mission statement that refers to small-town downtown and semi-rural character. Then, at the beginning of each section, he has put in a rationale for why the City is doing it.
For example, under 6-3904; Building Massing, adding an introduction that says “A key attribute of semirural ambience is avoiding a feeling of being crowded by buildings and maintaining a broad open sky.” He asked for comment about that sort of approach because just as a general matter, he can understand providing more context. He wonders though in the context of ODSs if it is not a good idea to provide that subjective background.
Ms. Szydlik said in general, they want to make purpose statements concise and to the point and they want to say what they want. In terms of the purpose statements, leaving that largely up to staff, they are focused on objective language and objective standards. So, staff is focusing its attention on the design standards themselves and making sure they are in the spirit of a concise set of purpose statements.
Councilmember Cervantes referred to fenestration. They have windows and there is a nice graphic on the Town Center III’s 25%-fenestration okay, 718 Lafayette Circle-35% okay, and the other building possibly in Walnut Creek-60% or more not okay. He asked how is that derived and why is 25% okay and 60% not okay. Ms. Szydlik said that exploration came out of discussions with the DRC working group. They looked at many images, different buildings, and the idea was to look at a couple of buildings to draw the polygons and calculate it and see what is there and talk about it. Then, just for the purposes of the presentation they inserted a couple to demonstrate what they are looking at and what they are thinking. Then, they drafted a standard that learns from that. There is no right answer and every community will have a different threshold for how much fenestration is really right for a building in the mixed-use multi-family parts of that city, and that is what they recommended at that time.
Councilmember Cervantes said this is like “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and they back into the percentage. On the commercial side, it is very different because there is a certain view you want to have inside a commercial operation. Ms. Szydlik said ground floor residential would be different from that.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
ELIOT HUDSON said the Council spent a lot of time talking about the “trees.” In stepping back, he wants to talk about the “forest” again. The reality is, this is it. He began working on Lafayette’s character back in 2008 concerning the DSP and then there was the Housing Element, and now the new General Plan. It all comes down to this tonight. If the Council does not make Lafayette what the mission statement says and what Lafayette residents want it to be tonight, this small-town community with semi-rural ambience will never come back. Before giving that away, he asked to look hard at whether that is the only alternative and the only thing that the Council can do.
City Council Minutes Page 17 of 36 January 12, 2026
The other reality is, these proposed standards were not drafted with semi-rural ambience in mind. What is up on the “Purpose” slide as the first bullet point was not written by the DRC. That did not get in until three days before the DRC meeting, but it was pointed out that it was at the bottom. The pictures in these standards with the nice pitched roofs, this is not what they wrote. The ones they wrote had one pitched roof at the very end. So, there has been some massaging here to make this sound like the semi-rural ambience and allegiance to the mission standards was part of this drafting process, but that is not true.
What is true is what these boards tell you about the process they went through and the goals they had with each one of the elements they designed and there is not one word about the mission statement, small-town, semi-rural character in any of them. The reality is exactly what he said in the video and he thanked the Council for watching it.
These standards are a design handbook for Walnut Creek, for flat roofs, for urban glass, for materials of stucco, concrete and cinderblock that have nothing to do with what this town wants to be. Lafayette residents have worked for decades to protect the character of this town and they have been consistent.
The Town took a horrible wrong turn in 2019 with the design standards it has had since then, and every single residential building in the downtown since then is a flat roof with urban glass that has nothing to do with what residents want this town to be. Tonight, he asked the Council to either stand with Lafayette or turn your back on it. He does not want to hear about what developers say they want. They will say whatever gives the extra 5% or 3% on their profit margin. They act like a pitched roof is unheard of.
Everything built in Walnut Creek until they abandoned their own design standards had pitched roofs. They say developers might not want to build them because they are more expensive, but the City needs to challenge those builders and stand with the residents of Lafayette. He asked not to give the town away without a fight and asked to make them go through the elements. If they ask for a waiver, deal with it, but if the Council does not require standards that will protect Lafayette in roofs, glass area, and materials, this is all a farce and you will get Walnut Creek. Nobody here wants that. He asked to make this town what the mission statement says it is supposed to be.
Mayor Anduri said Mr. Hudson provided the Council with a mark-up of the ordinance. He asked if he is saying that if the mark-up was enacted he would consider the City to be protected. Mr. Hudson said he would consider the City has done what it can do. In both the video and the mark-up, he concentrated on making the standards clearer, integrating the appendix that got slapped on in a way that is not ambiguous, outline flat roofs, reduce the glass area, on materials 70% stucco cement and cinderblock is way too much, and these are most important.
ROB LAVOIE said he is here to support Mr. Hudson’s detailed edits to the ODSs. He hopes the Council will make them and completely focus on the unique mission the City has in its semi-rural and small-town ambience. They have been forced to allow excessively large buildings by State law, but they should require them to meet standards which make the town unique. They need to tell the builders up front what they want and the consultant said, make it unambiguous. Developers can use waivers to get out of things, so it is not like they are forced into this, and almost every one of them will take advantage of those waivers. The City needs to define very clearly what it wants. Residents came here for the unique characteristics of the town and they do not want to give that up. People say Lafayette is no longer semirural anymore, but they still are and can still be different even with these big buildings. He asked not to make them ugly ones.
City Council Minutes Page 18 of 36 January 12, 2026
He thinks the no flat roofs should be included in the standard as there are ways to get around that. He would be interested in hearing from the City Attorney if there are any court cases where that has been determined to be too difficult or onerous. They could see from examples of the Mercantile building and the Dewing building that they have flat roofs, but you cannot tell from the outside. Even if they want a rooftop deck or something, as long as the flat roof is on the street side, they can have their view from the other sides. He would also challenge architects and contractors to demonstrate that the roof requirement is too difficult. Otherwise, I would ban flat roofs. The other comments on fenestration and others have been dealt with already.
LINDA RIEBEL said the staff report is certainly impressive and it shows the complexity of planning and she acknowledged those staff that work in planning. She assumes the Council is getting ready to request adjustments. As a Lafayette resident for 20 years, she has seen many changes, not all of them good and the citizens here have been very dedicated in sharing views about what they like and do not like. So, she encouraged the Council to defend the mission statement. This is a legal document as far as she knows, and she believes Mr. Hudson proposed some modest changes, and she asked not to turn Lafayette into Walnut Creek. They remind her of Soviet apartment blocks which she has seen in person. Lafayette is such a wonderful town and she thanked the Council for their time and consideration of changes.
LAURA LAMOTTE said she wrote a letter but was not included in the packet and read it: “The new modern aesthetic is the friend of the builder. It is easier, cheaper, and faster to build a box. There are a lot of very exciting examples of modern architecture in the world that have been designed and built but they are not being built in Walnut Creek where ugly boxes abound. This new trend toward modernism gives builders the easy way out. Let’s keep the junkie stuff out of Lafayette. They should build new structures that fit in with the more rural character of Lafayette. We can think of careful design of new buildings as an opportunity to make our town continue to look good. Just because modern is “in” is no excuse to settle for ugliness.” She added that in regards to the comment made previously that pitched roofs cost more to build, she feels the City should not be so concerned that the builder is making their maximum amount of money. She thinks builders generally make plenty of money and she also supports everything Eliot Hudson presented to the Council.
BRIAN PARSONS said he wanted to speak on two things that came up in discussion—bike parking, which is a big part for Vibrant Lafayette, and they would love to see it included. They did an analysis where they walked all around to find bike parking. There is actually a lot of infrastructure for bike parking on the street of Mt. Diablo, but it is totally unusable because it is not in front of Trader Joe’s and Diablo Foods. So, having it built into the destinations that they want to get into would be amazing. He recommends the Crow standards for biking parking, which is about $260. The other item was what Mayor Anduri referred to as setback and distance. He walks with his kids all over and they are usually pushing a bike as they get on the sidewalk because you cannot have two people coming at each other on a four-foot-wide sidewalk.
The width on First Street is amazing and while he was not sure this is possible, it is something Vibrant Lafayette is very interested in—the ability not to just walk downtown, but walk and push their bikes around when getting into the denser areas.
City Council Minutes Page 19 of 36 January 12, 2026
GLENN CASS said he understands Mr. Hudson and others’ interests are, but there is no architectural style that is semi-rural when you go to six-story buildings. He sees there are designs they like that are better than others, but when he looks at Mr. Hudson’s amended concepts like eliminating flat roofs, it will not work. He will not have hardly any projects go through this criteria. There will all be waivers and concessions. The other thing is that it is easy to talk about what is the incremental cost of a truss for the roof, etc. No one is representing affordability. Lafayette has extremely expensive buildings in this City and they are excluding many people like teachers and public servants from living in this town because development is made more expensive and no one cares, but those people care. This document should not be cast in concrete and he asked not to wait 10 years to revise it. When there is something that says, let’s change this because this is more fire-safe, make an errata sheet every single year and change every single year until the City gets it right or gets it better. This is his main objective – do not cast this as a definite end product that will last for any duration.
CHERYL MACDONALD said she is happy the Council looked at Mr. Hudson’s video and there are many people who have not wanted to be Walnut Creek, which incorporate flat roofs and multiple colors that just seem to be prominent throughout that city. She thinks there are creative ways to get by that and possibly mansard roofs can be used so they look appealing but what accommodate equipment on the flat point. She also said she has grown up in Lafayette since the 1960’s and there were so many changes with much of it being very good. But, the Brown Avenue project is just a tall rectangle box, not overly appealing, and the multiple colors remind her of Walnut Creek. In summary, she supports much of what Mr. Hudson said.
DAWN EAMES said to add to her email sent in earlier today, she emphasized that having been raised in Lafayette with her parent’s family business and still owner of property on the East End of Mt. Diablo since 1950, she would love to see Lafayette retain its semi-rural character and small-town ambience as established and approved by the City Council and in the General Plan in its latest revision. Modern, urban, boxy-looking buildings with flat roofs, too many large windows, aesthetic bright and bold colors for facades, concrete, stucco and cinderblock are not a design. Materials are the look that maintains Lafayette’s warm, comfortable, safe feeling town that many residents have loved growing up here. She would implore the Council not to approve the ODSs as currently recommended. They will adversely forever and irreversibly change the direction and undeviating course of poor development of the town, not in keeping with its semi-rural character and small-town ambience.
Mayor Anduri closed the public comment period.
BREAK
Mayor Anduri called for a 5-minute break, and thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting.
Mayor Anduri asked if there were any additional questions and then a discussion can begin, going page by page with the ordinance, provide feedback, and then if things are not covered by the ODS, they the Council can discuss those things at the end.
City Council Minutes Page 20 of 36 January 12, 2026
Vice Mayor McCormick said the Council is not being asked to approve or deny anything today, and he asked for next steps. Ms. Cassidy said the goal of tonight’s meeting is to gather feedback, with no action proposed, and if the Council wanted to pass something the item could be continued and staff could bring additional documentation. However, staff is proposing to accept the Council’s feedback, go back and make changes, and then return at a future date with an adoptable draft. At that time, there will be a new public hearing newly noticed and that can be a single or multiple meetings. It is up to the Council once that next meeting takes place.
Councilmember Cervantes asked if this would go back to the DRC and PC, and Ms. Cassidy said it would likely return to the PC because it is a code amendment and then onto the Council.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked if the Council can have a preamble about semi-rural and asked what are best practices for this type of document.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said if the Council is talking about the preambles before each item that were suggested by Mr. Hudson, such as 6-3903 where there is a preamble after the roof form that the Mayor had discussed, her concern is that the preamble is a subjective standard and not an objective standard. She would not want anyone to think that if someone did not comply with that preamble that the City could deny it. The City is really only trying to adopt objective standards so she thinks the preamble could lead to confusion because the City would not be able to enforce it.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked how he would read A right now that states, “Integrate semi-rural character of design elements” and asked if this is acceptable. Councilmember Candell said she thinks the Purpose item is where they can put all of that.
City Attorney Subramanian said again, she agrees this is where you put it all and cautioned the public that this is not the section where you would say, ‘But you didn’t comply.’ But, she confirmed it could be put there to describe the City’s basic goals.
Mayor Anduri asked and confirmed the City Attorney would be comfortable with changes to the Purpose section along with the caveat she mentioned but not adding that language in each subsection.
Councilmember Candell referred to Mr. Cass’s comments, and asked if they can exempt 100% affordable projects like Sunflower Hill. Mayor Anduri said he would say they want good design on all projects and they are aiming for something that would not be prohibitive for an affordable project. Mr. Wolff said Sunflower Hill will be eligible for concessions and waivers so if it is an objective standard, it could be waived by a fully affordable project. Even if they are held to it, it is helpful to hold projects to them. He knows 949 Huff is reviewing the ODSs and trying to comply but they might be asking for one or two waivers in order to accomplish the project and they are fully entitled to that under State law.
Councilmember Cervantes confirmed that the ODSs are what the City wants, and they are putting them out to let the developers deal with them.
Mayor Anduri said the other benefit of these ODSs is even if they have developers using the density bonus, they know they will have to rely on negotiation and goodwill for getting good buildings. He thinks it will be a lot easier if they can point to this section of the LMC and say this is what we want. So, it will be very important.
City Council Minutes Page 21 of 36 January 12, 2026
He asked to discuss the issue of visual guidance the City will be giving people. The guidance is all the code section and once the ODSs are adopted, developers will have nothing else to look at other than the code sections to see what the City had in mind. He wonders if there is a best practice for this. He asked if other communities have a section on their website that is the illustrative section and asked how they convey to developers what they would like to see.
Ms. Cassidy said the document would be a code amendment. The boards in digital format would continue to be available and live in perpetuity on the City’s website. They currently have an ODS web page that mostly is listing the process, but all staff reports, minutes, and the boards are linked onto that page. So, she would imagine that page would evolve to become a page about what the standards are. They have the option to keep the board link and list the projects the City feels are best illustrative of what they want to see. In choosing projects there is subjectivity. There might be projects that were approved through the discretionary process that not all of the public loves.
One of the things the consultant did that she really values is clearly stating that when a figure or picture is used as an example, it is typically used as an example of a single thing so the City can say, this is what a good public space opening to the street looks like. It doesn’t mean they love everything about the building in the background because there is probably no building every single person loves. They can use a lot of the buildings they already have or the plans that are already approved and say this is a great example of “x.” This is what they want to see more of. They have heard from developers that come in with applications that they have driven around Lafayette and gotten the sense of what has been approved and what people are looking for. She thinks this will continue to happen, as well.
Mayor Anduri clarified that the City can, several months from now, develop part of the website to include examples. He likes the particular element for fenestration and good examples for the base of the building, and that they can show this on the website. He is sure professionals understand what the color schemes mean, as well. He asked if anyone attaches it as an appendix to their ordinance.
Ms. Szydlik said typically when they prepare presentations for workshops, open houses, for the community to understand what is in the document and see examples, this is not something they would not put in the code. It is not code language but illustrative. That said, visioning documents like the DSP and DDGs all add a lot of the same concepts and elements and those stand. To the extent the City is comfortable pointing to illustrations and descriptions in these documents, these standards go hand in hand with the intent of those documents.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said then they could create a booklet of multi-family ODSs that, as pictures but then actually has the code language so it is clear how they relate. The code itself will be in the LMC and available for the City and public, but she asked if this could be done in a booklet or brochure-like document. Ms. Cassidy said the next step after adoption is to develop a checklist similar to what the City has, but without the point system. Sometimes the code section needs to be written as code which is a specific style of language and so they will use those standards and make a checklist that they can distribute to the public and staff can use as they are reviewing the projects. This will probably be a stand-alone document. She thinks it would get too long to have a photo illustration of each standard, but they could have a separate supplement that provides those examples on the website.
Mayor Anduri confirmed they could then have a section on the website or part of a booklet that has someone would answer “yes” to these examples or “no” to another example.
City Council Minutes Page 22 of 36 January 12, 2026
Vice Mayor McCormick stressed the need for bike parking, and Mayor Anduri agreed this is important in terms of what the City wants to see in terms of design standards. Vice Mayor McCormick asked where it would go. Ms. Kurtz asked what is the specific question—if it is how many bike parking spaces should be required, the California Building Code was just updated January 2026 and that already regulates how many bike parking spaces are required per various measures. If the Council is asking about design, it would be good to know what the question is.
Mayor Anduri said all multi-family buildings the City has approved has had bikes and bike parking which has been within the interior of the building so it is not a design issue from the outside and this will continue. He is thinking of the Park Theater which is somewhere 30-40 people ride bikes to and there are no facilities there for bikes.
Vice Mayor McCormick said this might be beyond the scope of the ODSs, and Ms. Cassidy said they can think of this in three layers-one is what amount of parking is required for the development similar to the way car parking is required for residents, commercial uses, and the average user visiting the space, which goes typically on the sidewalk. This could potentially live in the ODSs similar to the requirement for landscaping and street trees. It is something that goes on the sidewalk in the public right-of-way the same way the City might require a developer to redo the sidewalk and plant “x” number of street trees per feet, and they might also require “x” number of a design of bike parking or racks to be on the sidewalk. The street design is starting to enter this document, but she did not think they should get too far into sidewalk design with it, but she thinks there is a place for some sidewalk bike parking here. The third element is the same way they have shared parking facilities, that is another way to think about bike parking. Park once and walk around, but this is not at this meeting.
Ms. Szydlik added that there is a part of the code where this is addressed under Chapter 6-6; Off-street parking. There is a section for bicycle parking requirements and bike parking design. So, before adding a separate bike parking design section into 6-39, they may consider whether a more appropriate spot is where existing design standards are published. Mayor Anduri agreed that they will leave this with the consulting team.
Mayor Anduri referred to the draft and asked to take each section and discuss any edits, additions, corrections, or clarifications:
6-3901 and Mr. Hudson’s suggested language: He asked if there is a sense to move towards a broader purpose statement or more directed purpose statement. Councilmember Candell asked if they want to say semi-rural character versus semi-rural ambience. She does not know if the difference in that wording helps. Mayor Anduri asked if they want to make a revision to include that kind of language.
Vice Mayor McCormick said it is the revision of the first paragraph and asked if they want an overall topic sentence which he would like that mirrors the mission statement a bit that says what they are looking for.
Councilmember Candell said in this current version, one item was removed from the purpose and the PC which says, “Avoid boxy massive and flat homogonous structures.” It is not in this one but it was in the prior one, which she likes because it actually says a lot. She asked why it was removed. Ms. Cassidy said she did not recall why that came out, but it is something that can be added back in.
Item F: It states “Limit the visibility of parking along Mt. Diablo Boulevard.” He asked if this should be limited to Mt. Diablo Boulevard because they also want Moraga Road covered. Councilmembers agreed, and suggested adding “Moraga Road, First Street, and Oakhill and Golden Gate Way.” City Council Minutes Page 23 of 36 January 12, 2026
Councilmember Wotherspoon said she would love to see a goal for a human scale interface between building faces and sidewalk or something about the scale at the human level. She explained that the experience a person has when they are walking are such that the buildings are not these giant monolith towering over them. Maybe some of the standards in here accomplish that, but it would be nice to describe this as a goal—that a human scale streetscape environment for pedestrians on the street is what they are after.
Vice Mayor McCormick said to confirm, the slide with the different zonings actually is not correct, given this paragraph. He confirmed that staff will remove this, and Ms. Cassidy said the zoning map slide was meant to indicate the focus; that it is anywhere they are seeing that development.
Roof Form-3903: Mayor Anduri said if they require some form of pitch, he did not think it should apply to anything two stories. It should only be above two stories because many buildings downtown have twostory buildings with flat roofs. Councilmembers agreed and said this is for the larger multi-story buildings.
Vice Mayor McCormick said all examples shown that people like were mansard roofs which were Town Centers I and III and the Mercantile, so it can be effective. He noted there are pros and cons because people do not like the points but there is a reason why there is some give and take.
Ms. Cassidy said the only way to respond to that desire of weighted-ness is to add, “if then” statements, but then caveats would need to be carved out which is then subjective. Mayor Anduri said personally, he would like to see a pitched roof requirement on buildings above two stories to say this is what the City wants as a design style. The developer can do something else, but they are making a statement about what they would like to see.
Councilmember Cervantes said his view on this is tilted a bit, but this is their opening position for developers. He thinks it is a more desirable look. He is thinking of what he would like aesthetically and then backing into something objective, but the buildings he likes are the Mercantile building which is a nice look and Town Center III.
Councilmember Candell agreed and said they look more expensive and it seems that is what developers are going for in Lafayette. They want them to look expensive because they are selling them at a high price.
To her, the argument it is costing a bit more is that they will get it back. This is the game they play. They put in all the parking spaces and cool stuff because then they get top dollar, so she is comfortable with trying to make it “a look for Lafayette.”
Vice Mayor McCormick said in playing the devil’s advocate, he hates to use the Brown Avenue building but there are plenty of developers say they have rooftop terraces and views of Mt. Diablo. Councilmember Candell said they could use a rooftop terrace and make it look beautiful.
Councilmember Cervantes said he goes to Merrill Gardens a great deal, and they have lovely rooftop patios with great views of Mt. Diablo with railings and he thinks a developer could design something with a roof that goes up to where the railing would be and they could look out over it. A good architect can make that work.
City Council Minutes Page 24 of 36 January 12, 2026
Councilmember Wotherspoon said for a multi-family building you will not need a huge amount of area for an upstairs rooftop deck. It is different for The Mill on Brown where they are individually owned townhomes. She agrees with Councilmember Cervantes that they should be able to have some kind of mansard covering that would serve the purpose of the safety railing. For buildings that were two stories and below, she asked if it is possible to stipulate some type of adornment of the cornice for a flat roof.
There is a picture in the document on Figure 6-3905-03 and there is the center diagram. This is a very plain cornice, and she asked if it is possible to require something more decorative.
Mayor Anduri asked if this is something beyond Section D, which says, “Parapets must be capped with precast treatments, continuous banding, projecting cornices or dentals. Councilmember Wotherspoon said there is a diagram on page 6 in the document where the picture is about base articulation but there is a particular building in the center that lacks adornment. It is minimally adorned, and “continuous banding” sounds like that center image. Mayor Anduri said that picture is an example of base articulation and not cornice ornamentation.
Ms. Kurtz said they certainly can remove the continuous banding if the Council would prefer. She will say from an objective standpoint, it is very difficult to objectively say what the difference is between a classical or traditional cornice compared to a more modern looking, blocky overhang from an objective standpoint.
She does not know how the City would regulate that to prevent it. The image in the center which sounds like the continuous banding does have an overhang which would qualify. Unfortunately, she could very well see someone making the argument that that is a cornice because how can you possibly objectively say what the difference is between a more contemporary approach to a cornice versus a more classical version of a cornice.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked if the overhang is the parapet. Ms. Kurtz said it is a part of a flat roof so that parapet is typically above that cornice and, in this case, it is just an overhang where you just have the overhang extending out and there is no additional parapet above that. So, both options do happen.
Ms. Szydlik added that these images describe three visual languages or three styles. So, that should be consistent with the standard in the earlier section, like an 18” overhang to go with that standard. But again, as they mentioned, the intent of this diagram is to point out the features of the building base.
Councilmember Wotherspoon acknowledged this, but she wondered if there is a way to steer away from the continuous banding part. Mayor Anduri said the middle one is not a parapet but an overhang. The one on the left is a parapet. He is happy with the language as is. Councilmember Wotherspoon said therefore, it will describe parapets as such and to leave overhangs as also allowed, and Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Candell referred to B in the roofline. It states “….a pitched roof line shall not extend more than 100 feet in length without a change in form or ridgeline as described below.” She said 100 feet seems like a long distance and she recommended shortening it. Councilmembers agreed.
Mayor Anduri asked if the figures will be in the code, and staff confirmed. On Mr. Hudson’s redline his comments say these figures have been replaced and asked if that is correct. Ms. Kurtz confirmed there are two figures that per the PC hearing, they were modified to add pitched roofs. Vice Mayor McCormick suggested that every picture should enforce that.
City Council Minutes Page 25 of 36 January 12, 2026
3904; Building Massing; Item B.1: “Buildings up to three stories must include a recess a minimum of 10 feet every 50 feet on all street-facing elevations.” Councilmember Candell said it seems like there should be a width there, as well, and she asked what width that should be for all of them. Ms. Szydlik said she would be happy to look at some building examples and make a recommendation for what width that should be.
Mayor Anduri said in 1, they are talking about a minimum dimension of 20 feet and 800 square feet so that one is taken care of and 2 needs to be 10 feet deep. 3905; Building Articulation: Vice Mayor McCormick said when they talk about vertical articulation and before it is all dimension. The a-f do not seem the same. A trellis does not seem as permanent or substantial as an actual protruding pier or bay window. He worries about a couple of decorative trellises that go up or even a railing that can be taken down. It feels like a, b and d are substantial things. Railings, trellises and changing the fenestration type could be a very small change. So, he would like to tighten that up. Councilmember Candell agreed and said they need to have dimensions added to them so they feel equal. Vice Mayor McCormick suggested stating “Tier 2’s are encouraged, but Tier 1’s are mandated.” It is definitely more so on the four stories where there is a 50-foot run they could have and suggested 25 feet, or where it would cover a certain percentage of it. But trellis is not a good example.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked for an example of what the change in fenestration type means or what that looks like. Ms. Kurtz said what they are trying to describe is sometimes to articulate a building an architect might decide that, for example, they have many 3050 windows that have a grid on them and then there is a change and it is a different window size, maybe without the grids. An architect might do that to make them seem like different buildings even if they are the same building. This is what they are trying to get at. When there is that significant change in the window type from one plane to another, it can read as two different buildings.
Councilmember Wotherspoon asked that this be revisited when getting to the fenestration section.
Councilmember Candell referred to building four or more stories, she thinks the Council needs to make sure to cover these and that they are substantial. She referred to the first one; “A pilaster appear protruding from the façade a minimum of 8 inches.” You cannot have it be 2 inches tall, so something that needs a minimum size or a percentage covering so developers do not get away with a tiny thing.
Councilmembers agreed.
Section B; Horizontal Articulation: Councilmember Candell referred to B-3.c and said on a prior version it said “need to add back that continues along the entire base” or something like that. A base must include a minimum of one of the following: arches, awnings, etc. She suggested it state coverage must be a certain percentage of the base or substantial and not just have one column or arch. She noted this was the problem with the point system where builders would put in one light fixture that was nice and that was not the intent.
Parking Configuration Design: Mayor Anduri referred to the parking entrance issue, and he asked where they can address it. They are fortunate now that each of their new big buildings have no curb cut on the major street. For the Brant, you go up Dolores and turn left into parking. With Merrill Gardens, you go up Second Street and turn right into parking. This is much, much better so he thinks if a project is front on a secondary street, the parking has to be entered from the secondary street. Ms. Szydlik asked if this is only if the primary frontage is along Mt. Diablo Boulevard, and Councilmembers said it would be the six streets.
City Council Minutes Page 26 of 36 January 12, 2026
Ms. Szydlik said they have a standard: “A maximum of one driveway to structured parking is permitted per street frontage.” Mayor Anduri said the Council would like to say that if they are on Mt. Diablo Boulevard or other six streets identified and also on another side street, they must enter from the other side street. Ms. Szydlik asked if they can have two on the other frontage that is not one of these six streets. Mayor Anduri said they have none with two.
3-B & 3-C; Surface Parking on page 8: Councilmember Candell asked for what percentage must be “applied materials.” For least one of the architectural features, it should be per 10 or 30 feet. There cannot be just one on the side of a huge building. Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Candell said 60% is a big percentage. Councilmember Wotherspoon said on one portion of the Brant in the western corner of Mt. Diablo on the upper story section, it looked like 50%, but when looking at the building it has big windows and they are dominant. If that 50% calculation is true then that is a lot of window. She would be inclined to dropping that back from 60% to maybe 40% or 50%. She would like to see examples and she was uncertain about the 210 Lafayette Circle and if it was really 35% because it looked like a lot of window. Councilmembers agreed with a smaller percentage.
Mayor Anduri said as an interim measure, he asked if they could have a meeting with the DRC liaisons as a next step to see that the comments have been incorporated before bringing them to the PC.
Councilmembers agreed with this direction. Vice Mayor McCormick said possibly percentages are not the right way to articulate that. Mayor Anduri said the percentage is the whole building and there few windows on the back, so they should have a percentage for the glass facing the main street.
Councilmember Candell said it states that but it is just for upper stories. She said it states, “any upper story façade or plane” and asked if they should limit that first floor if it is residential because they do not want solid windows. If it is commercial, there is a separate section. Councilmembers agreed, and noted 210 Lafayette Circle is a mixed building.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said when she asked about the change in fenestration type with respect to building articulation, for traditional styles they most commonly see consistent window alignment and distribution. Her personal preference is for “consistent alignment and distribution and limitation on size variation.” She asked how the Council felt about this.
Mayor Anduri said it works on the Brant to have the different sizes, but he sees what she is saying. It was managed well for different groupings of window at Town Center III. Councilmember Candell said sometimes it can be architecturally pretty. Councilmember Cervantes asked if they want to be that prescriptive.
Mayor Anduri commented that they have other items on the agenda like the work plans, the budget, and someone waiting to present those. He suggested moving those to the January 26th meeting or have an understanding they will be moving those when they get to them, and Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Wotherspoon referred to the graphic and said they are all pretty small and there are some big varieties of window placement, alignment, they are jogged around and sizes changing. This is what she is hoping for limitations on, and referred to a New York Times article where similar buildings are everywhere.
City Council Minutes Page 27 of 36 January 12, 2026
Mayor Anduri asked if they could leave it with staff to think about this. He agrees if they are looking for something more traditional and semi-rural, then the more regular patterns would be better and it should be referred to as more than just a percentage and limit size variations. Councilmember Wotherspoon said also including double hung or divided lights. Picture windows to some degree like they are in the Brant, but as part of a window block. There is a big picture window but it also has smaller panes around it. She thinks that is better than a single giant picture window with no breaks. There was a component about the square footage that was a question. It says 18 square feet which seems very big to her. She was not sure of the number, but possibly 9, 10 or 12 square feet.
She said under D; it states “Upper story windows must wrap building corners.” She did not understand that.
Mayor Anduri asked what it means to be a minimum of 3 feet from a corner. He asked if the window must wrap the corner and go 3 feet past the corner or if it cannot be within 3 feet from the edge. He noted there are four buildings in town that stand out that either are built or will be completed; the Brant, the building at Brown, 210 Lafayette Circle, 950 Huff, and each of those clearly is a modern building. He thinks they are fortunate they got an opportunity for the DRC to review and PC review those buildings. They did not get everything they wanted but those buildings are good looking buildings. But, he asked if they want to continue to have buildings like that. The answer for him is “no.” They want to have buildings more like Town Center III, Town Center I, the Mercantile and that is what they are looking for. While the buildings they have are acceptable, what they do not want is most of what is seen in Walnut Creek. For Walnut Creek, they are great, but it is not Lafayette. Councilmembers confirmed there was no change for D and they understood it now.
Councilmember Wotherspoon referred to upper story residential, no mirrored or reflective glass. There is a mention for ground floor commercial in the standards, but she asked that this also apply to the upper stories. Councilmembers agreed.
Privacy and Views: No comments.
Entry Design: Mayor Anduri referred to 2.C; “The entrance must be located in the center of the building façade.” He asked what is the reason or background for that. Ms. Szydlik explained many of these have gone through revisions and at some point the groups talked about centered into an entry feature with architectural features and it was not determined that was not sufficiently objective. It got watered down a bit, and it is an option and not a requirement.
Councilmember Candell noted it only has to apply to one of these, and she asked if there should be more than what is presented. She said the one in the center she thought clearly should be optional because it may not work. She asked if they are also allowing more than one entrance.
Councilmember McCormick said he thinks for security most places will have one main entrance.
Councilmember Cervantes said he likes giving flexibility and Councilmember Candell asked to have at least more than one of these, and Councilmembers Cervante and McCormick did not have a strong preference for more. Mayor Anduri asked that the word “consider” be added, to state, “Consider whether….” City Council Minutes Page 28 of 36 January 12, 2026
Non-Residential Ground Floor Design: Councilmember Cervantes said he likes the idea of no blank walls.
He raised the question earlier about landscaping and Zone Zero. Councilmember McCormick said landscaping around large buildings is critical and the thought of having none due to Zone Zero is terrifying to him visually. He would rather have the Zone Zero requirements drive it than this drive it.
Mayor Anduri said he agrees, takes Commissioner Cass’s point, and agrees this should be a living document that should be modified whenever they learn a lesson. Councilmember McCormick noted these are different kinds of buildings than single-family residential homes, so he was not sure if they have the same risk factors.
Ms. Cassidy added that the Zone Zero discussions with Cal Fire are centered on homes or buildings in the very high fire hazard severity zone. The zone that is mutually exclusive with their downtown but not the sites where multi-family might be built so there is a potential to very objectively define sites where fire hazard is higher where landscaping could be accepted and removed versus everywhere else in the downtown where there is a lower fire hazard and landscaping would be more appreciated.
Vice Mayor McCormick said there should be an overlay of Con Fire requirements superseding these which might be the right way to do it. In other words, the City puts in what they want and the fire requirements get layered on top.
39-11; Building Materials and Color: Vice Mayor McCormick referred to no more than 70% of stucco and concrete. He would at least want to say, “Stucco or concrete combined cannot be more than 60% or 70%” as opposed to letting either of them be that much. Councilmember Candell noted they must add “concrete block, stucco, and concrete.”
Mayor Anduri noted the Mercantile building is 100% stucco. Councilmember Wotherspoon asked if it was 70/30 or window to surface percentages, and Councilmember Candell said that is what the key is and is why it works. Mayor Anduri said it has the great arch, windows, etc. Vice Mayor McCormick took back his earlier statement.
Mayor Anduri questioned if there were different types of stucco because the Mercantile seems to be high end stucco and other buildings look like it is spray on ceiling material. Ms. Cassidy said these might be different finishes to the stucco, and Mayor Anduri asked if there is a way to call out what they did on the Mercantile as what they are looking for.
Councilmember Candell noted the way they are doing this here is safer to just mandate different materials. This is so much more objective. They cannot mandate the Mercantile, and Mayor Anduri said no, but if there is a style of stucco that can be referred to such as use of double coated and smooth. Mr.
Wolff clarified it is a smooth trowel finish rather than a bubble finish. Orange peel is an example of drywall treatment inside and it hides imperfections well. It can be even more dramatic than orange peel, so there are different finishes for both interior and exterior stucco and staff can find the specification which is essentially smooth trowel finish. Councilmember Candell said she would also state, “The combination of concrete, stucco and concrete block must not exceed 70% of the total primary plus secondary finishes.” So, there would be 30% of other things that are very different. What the total percentage is can be discussed further by the Council, but she thinks it must be a combination of those three things (and not individually).
City Council Minutes Page 29 of 36 January 12, 2026
Councilmember Wotherspoon said for secondary materials, one thing she was hesitant about was enabling too much polychromatic appearance or even in the material texture. She is thinking of the Mill building where they have 3 or 4 materials in the façade, the cladding, and maybe 3 or 4 colors. She would want less colors and in the middle upper there is black, dark brown, medium brown, lighter brown. She was not sure how to do that. Ms. Cassidy said this would be to limit the number of secondary materials and color.
Mayor Anduri said on materials, the way this is written, developers have to incorporate a primary and a secondary, and there could be a minimum of whatever percentage. He said Town Center III has stone and shingles, and Councilmember Candell said if stone on the bottom was a grayish color rather than just gray, they could tolerate that.
Mayor Anduri said then the question is, is it useful to provide a minimum percentage for the secondary material or should staff come back with a suggestion on the percentage. Ms. Cassidy confirmed staff could return with a specified minimum percentage for secondary materials.
Councilmember Candell referred to 2.C and they were going to remove the items in the parenthesis and remove 2.H. She then referred to 2.I. If it is kept like this, they should have “Concrete block cannot use secondary when the primary material is stucco or concrete.” Colors: Mayor Anduri referred to the saturation level and brightness, but this does not talk about the number of colors. He asked if the Council wants to limit the number of colors. Councilmember Candell said if there are 3 or more colors, they could state that they must be complementary or close in shade so there are not 3 or 4 contrasting colors. It must be in the same class of colors.
Vice Mayor McCormick asked if there were best practices about limiting the number of colors or is this being too prescriptive or worth the effort. Ms. Szydlik said she would say this is an example where there is no right answer. They can limit the number of colors. They understand there is sometimes an objection to panels of bright colors so in order to avoid that, they just disallow bright colors. That said, they understand they are inviting large structures and there may be a desire for the design to look like smaller buildings.
Mayor Anduri said he thinks what has been done is good here and asked a person in the audience about his opinion. Councilmember Cervantes said given how much they are struggling with this one, this might be left alone, and Councilmembers agreed.
On-Site Connectivity and Open Space: Mayor Anduri asked how does this inter-relate with street trees and asked if they deal with street trees separately. Ms. Szydlik said these standards apply to everything that is private property. They are not looking at the public right-of-way. So, they could and do in ODS address landscaping in the front setback or front yard, but when looking at entry well along the sidewalk, that is out of the scope of this document.
3912; Publicly Accessible Open Space: Councilmember Wotherspoon said for the publicly accessible open space which is D.2, she asked about trees or a tree per square footage. Vice Mayor McCormick noted this is within “a minimum of one of the following” so he was not sure how this would go into “one of the following.”
City Council Minutes Page 30 of 36 January 12, 2026
Councilmember Wotherspoon said initially she was thinking of mandate a tree per some square footage, but Vice Mayor McCormick said it does not flow. A water feature or fountain is great, but he was not sure what they would put in there.
Mayor Anduri clarified this is publicly accessible open space not in the front yard up in number 2 because there they have one tree. Councilmember Candell said this is different; like the big open space between the 100-foot building. If it is a big space, you might want a bunch of these things. Vice Mayor McCormick said then they say raised planters. Councilmember Candell said “a minimum of the following per 200 square feet.”
Councilmember Cervantes said his concern is being overly prescriptive here and maybe they add a tree as an option and let the architect and design team sort that. Mayor Anduri said up above, they have covered mixed use residential projects. If it is a mixed-use residential project, then you have to put “a minimum of one tree for each 400 square feet or fraction thereof of all landscaping” whether it is a front yard or anywhere else. He did not think they are going to come up with something, but Vice Mayor McCormick said he thinks trees are a great option and recommended adding it as another option. Councilmembers agreed.
City Clerk Robbins interjected and reminded the Council it cannot open any new items after 11:00 p.m. If the Council has items it would like to take action on this evening still on the agenda, they could be done now and then return to this item. Councilmembers agreed.
Mayor Anduri paused this item and turned to the remaining items.
B. Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager and Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director
1. Review of City Council Adopted Priorities for FY2025/26 Recommendation: Continue to January 26th City Council meeting.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/McCormick) to continue to the January 26, 2026 City Council meeting. Vote:
5-0 (Ayes: Candell, Cervantes, McCormick, Wotherspoon, and Anduri; Noes: None).
3. Facilities Assessment Report
Recommendation: 1) Contribute recommended amounts to sinking funds for Library, Police Offices, Corporation Yard, Parks and Trails each year, increasing by 3.5% annually for inflations. 2) Begin Discussions on options for potential replacement or reconstruction of the Community Center. 3) Continue to contribute $125,000 per year to the Community Center to address current health and safety needs as well as provide funds for capital maintenance required for the JBR. 4) Inventory roadway- and pathway-related infrastructure to determine appropriate annual sinking fund contributions. 5) Update the facilities assessment study every 5-7 years to ensure that sufficient funding is being applied for capital maintenance expenses.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/McCormick) to continue to the January 26, 2026 City Council meeting. Vote:
5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
2. FY2025-2026 Final Municipal Budget
City Council Minutes Page 31 of 36 January 12, 2026
Recommendation: 1) Based on the assessment analysis and as recommended by the Finance Subcommittee:
a. seed the parks capital maintenance sinking fund with $2.25M of reserves b. increase the annual contributed to capital facility sinking funds by $415K c. index contributions by 3.5% per year to account for inflation 2) Begin to consider options for replacing or reconstructing a new Community Center. 3) Reconsider establishing an economic stabilization fund to retain a portion of excess serves to smooth the impact of service cuts that will be necessary in the event that the sales tax is not renewed. 4) Adopt Resolution 2026-06 Adopting the Final Budget and Workplan for FY25-26.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Wotherspoon) to continue to the January 26, 2026 City Council meeting. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.
16. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
G. Resolution 2026-05 Adopting the Proclamation Calendar for 2026 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-05.
Mayor Anduri stated it was requested that the Mayor and Vice Mayor develop the suggested list of proclamations. The original intent was that they be for two years so people could plan ahead as to programming, but this did not happen and the Council decided to make it for one year to be more flexible.
It is also intended to cover recognitions of ethnicity, nationality, and identity. They deferred on Be Kind 21 in Lafayette, and they will bring this back on a separate resolution if the school district is doing that.
They also approve a Red Cross resolution annually, but that is not part of this.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period.
ROB LAVOIE said he sent a letter before noon regarding the proclamations. They borderline on political issues, and it is concerning that the Council is not supposed to be a partisan group and taking sides on these issues. He questioned how to pick groups to support and ones to exclude. He asked if it is divisive to have the same groups on there each year, but excluding other groups. In this historic year, 250 years ago in the founding of our country he suggested making an emphasis on that and how it has impacted the freedom they have to express views, have a vibrant debate, and they did a lot for the 75th anniversary of the City of Lafayette, and he thinks they could do something along the lines of that where each month they have a highlight of 250 years ago.
Things like the Transgender Day Visibility is extremely controversial and protests were held at the school.
On the medical front, the HHS report said that most kids are going to outgrow this phase and that a lot of the medical and drug treatments are causing irreversible damage to children and HHS recommends psychological help rather than irreversible things that are part of the gender affirming care solution.
City Council Minutes Page 32 of 36 January 12, 2026
He thinks having the City Council weigh in on things like this seems completely inappropriate. And, if they are trying to deepen their knowledge and understanding of the varied backgrounds and life experiences of the community, he suggested presented the De-Transition Day of Visibility, as well for people who come out of that gender affirming care model. There is a group called Gays Against Grooming (GAG) that are against this sexualization of children and it is not just right-wing conservatives or religious people concerned about this.
Councilmember Wotherspoon said the Council received some public comment with a request to amend Muslim-American Heritage Month to Arab and Muslim-American Heritage Month. She felt arguments were very compelling.
Mayor Anduri said they have tried to keep the categories as broad as possible, so the original category was North Africa and Middle Eastern Heritage Month which is even broader than Arabic, but this year they decided to go with Muslim-American Heritage Month. If they were to put in Arabic, there is IranianAmerican Heritage Month, Egyptian-American Heritage Month, etc. With Asian-American Heritage Month, they cover the broader area. He proposed going with Muslim-American Heritage Month this year and if they want to make a change for next year, they can make the change.
Councilmember Wotherspoon noted there are some things that are ethnicities and some that are religions and some are identities, and they are challenging. There are many world religions not here and wondered if there might be a World-Religions Month. Mayor Anduri said they try to go with the ones most representative in the community that they would want to make sure felt welcome and that they belong.
Councilmember Cervantes voiced support of the resolution and said he is fine with having a Transgender Day of Visibility. The last transgender individual he worked with transitioned in her 40’s, so it is a broad population and a very vulnerable one. He feels they should recognize individuals as part of this community like others. Secondly, with respect to the 250th anniversary, he brought up Bunker Hill earlier because of where he comes from, but the Mayor talked about doing something with Lafayette that speaks to the French connection; their namesake and the role France played in the Revolutionary War which is huge.
So, he thinks that is one way to manage that which is unique to Lafayette, and it is not in here specifically but he thinks the Mayor has some thoughts on that.
Mayor Anduri said there are many proclamations that are not included in this, and that is not the intent of it. Vice Mayor McCormick agreed and said it is not an exclusive list and to Mr. Lavoie’s point, this is not weighing in either way on children or not, and he supports the list.
EXTEND MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to extend the meeting time until 12 midnight. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes:
Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Cervantes/Candell) adopt Resolution 2026-05. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
17. COUNCIL / COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
City Council Minutes Page 33 of 36 January 12, 2026
Mayor Anduri noted that on January 26th, everyone is invited to the unveiling of the mural at 5:00 p.m.
Everyone is also invited to participate in the first “Hello Lafayette Welcome” event in the Don Tatzin Community Hall on February 3rd from 6 – 8 p.m. Vice Mayor McCormick said postcards are being sent out to every household that has moved here in the last year, estimated to be around 775 households which is much more than one would think so it will be a great event.
Vice Mayor McCormick reported at the Mayors’ Conference Sue Novak gave an update from MTC saying that the OBAG funding should be released January and the updated TOC policy in February.
B. Councilmember Wotherspoon and Vice Mayor McCormick
Solid Waste Rates for Rate Year 12 (March 1, 2026 – February 28, 2027) Recommendation: Discuss and provide direction to Vice Mayor McCormick and Councilmember Wotherspoon.
City Manager Srivatsa gave a brief staff report regarding the solid waste rates for Rate Year 12.
Councilmembers Wotherspoon and Vice Mayor McCormick met with RecycleSmart staff and are recommending a 10% rate increase for Rate Year 12. The rate increase is driven by CPI adjustments, contractually required increases in disposal and processing costs, and labor and fuel escalation. She pointed out that the 10% reflects a discussion that liaisons had on rate smoothing, which she described, stating the new contract will result in significant increases in rates. Applying the 10% for Rate Year 12 mitigates that significant increase they might expect in the following year, and liaisons can answer any questions.
Vice Mayor McCormick spoke about rate smoothing, noting that next year’s increase will be about 40% and they are trying to mitigate that to stage 10% increases over the next 3 or 4 years to ease into it.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Cervantes/Candell) to approve the recommendation of the rate increase for Rate Year 12. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
C. Councilmembers Wotherspoon and Cervantes
Resolution 2026-07 Appointing members to the Capital Projects Assessment Committee Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-07 Appointing members to the Capital Projects Assessment Committee.
Councilmember Cervantes reported holding interviews on December 2nd, with four great candidates and interesting discussions. They have one open position and one expired term, and the Committee’s recommendation was to re-appoint Mike Lohman and Karly Fauconnier-Bank for the two positions.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Cervantes/Wotherspoon) to adopt Resolution 2026-07 appointing Mike Lohman and Karly Fauconnier-Bank to the Capital Projects Assessment Committee. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
18. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
City Council Minutes Page 34 of 36 January 12, 2026
A. Request from Larrolyn Paterson Parms-Ford for a proclamation recognizing the Peter Pan Foundation’s 20th annual performance of “Wish Upon a Star,” benefitting Children’s Hospital Oakland.
Recommendation: Approve the proclamation.
Mayor Anduri opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Candell/McCormick) to approve proclamation recognizing the Peter Pan Foundation’s 20th annual performance of “Wish Upon a Star,” benefitting Children’s Hospital Oakland.
Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes: None).
A. Greg Wolff, Planning and Building Director and Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner Objective Design Standards (Phase 2) – Housing Element Implementation Recommendation: Provide feedback on the draft ODS document. (Continued from earlier in the meeting)….
3912 - B; On Site Connectivity: Councilmember Candell referred to Item B. The last comma should be removed because it breaks up the intent of the standard. Mayor Anduri noted one small typographical error, as well.
3913; Landscaping: Mayor Anduri said under D, it states, “Street trees shall be planted at 40-foot intervals, minimally. All street trees shall be installed at a minimum of 24-inch box size.” Ms. Szydlik said when looking at the existing ODSs and the 2- or 3-page checklist, they wanted to carry forward as much of that which made sense.
Mayor Anduri asked if D could state, “Street trees shall be planted at not more than 40-foot intervals” because the intent is that they be planted 40 feet or less. Councilmembers agreed. 3914: Councilmember Candell referred to C.3 in the fencing and screening, for the refuse areas, these are options. “They can be screened with a minimum of 3-foot-wide planting area containing evergreen vegetation.” It seems like they are saying it must be that or that the area must always be screened with plantings, but fencing should be okay.
Mayor Anduri said it states, “within a building or within an attached enclosure” and then there are three things it has to do and the first one is, “located to the rear of the side and not visible from the public street or public right-of-way.” So, already it is hidden from the street, but not only “hidden but the enclosure design with the same materials and colors of the primary building,” Then not only “a fence with the same color but it must have a 3-foot-wide planting area.” This seems like overkill. He suggested saying, “reconsider adding the planting.” Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Candell referred to refuse areas, and said then the public art person showed the picture of the one at Brown that had the fun-colored birds, and there is a grading thing with all of the utilities visible from the street right underneath that piece of art. She thinks all utilities should be covered or should not be visible from the street.
City Council Minutes Page 35 of 36 January 12, 2026
Vice Mayor McCormick said he worries sometimes there is the PG&E infrastructure, but he agrees, their aspiration is you cannot see the garbage or utility boxes. Ms. Kurtz echoed comments, and they will need to be very careful about PG&E’s requirements and other utility requirements.
Ms. Szydlik asked to correct a statement earlier, referring to 639-13.D; Street Trees. She will find out when that made it into the draft and the history of that. It is not in the 3-page ODS checklist; however, the other standards that address trees in the front yard which is 6-3912; Street Facing Yard, those standards regarding trees do come directly from the 3-page checklist. Given that and the question posed earlier and concern about this document addressing design in the right-of-way, they may consider removing that.
Mayor Anduri said his position is that if it could be kept in, he thinks it will be more and more important to have trees along the roadway. Ms. Szydlik said she would want to square that away with the City standards for street design.
3915: Councilmember Candell thinks this is too vague. They do not want industrial flood lights that are painted black. She questioned how many the City has. On the checklist they have one light fixture on the entire 100-foot side of a building, and that is not okay. She thinks this is under-specified, and she suggested it state, “Provide lighting” because they can be objective. Mayor Anduri said from an aesthetic standpoint, he suggested leaving it to staff because it states, “Shall utilize colors and finishes that are consistent with those of the primary building. He thinks “consistent” is subjective.
Vice Mayor McCormick said a lighting fixture can be black, but not an industrial flood light. So, this language is under-specified and the Council agreed to leave the wording to staff and consultants. Ms.
Kurtz pointed out that most typically, that does not live within ODS. It is usually a City code that has standards for exterior lighting and they are just verifying that. But, they will consider that because there are objective ways to regulate lighting but probably not in the way that you mean. It is usually called BUG; Backlight Uplight Glare, and probably not what the Council is intending. They can prevent reflective materials on a building and perhaps that does not make as much sense for lighting, but they will look into it.
Ms. Cassidy requested clarification on two items:
1. She referred to the roofs and asked if the City is requiring only pitched or also allowing mansard.
The Council verified both will be allowed, and the mansard must be above two stories with the intent to mimic a pitched roof in façade.
Mr. Wolff further clarified that a mansard roof is classically Parisian where you have a very steep outer pitch and an inner pitch which allowed for an additional floor of living space. So, that is not the intention.
The intention here is from the eave line an upward pitch and then after some given distance, it can drop down like a parapet and be flat to house equipment, and staff will clarify the terminology around that.
Ms. Szydlik added that it is about the visibility of the flat portion of a roof. They understand that for buildings of a certain depth, there is sort of an implied pitched roof form and it is done in such a way where that is all you see from the right-of-way. Then, there is the mechanical well area in the center that is not visible. Now, this applied roof form in terms of how it is part of the building is sort of up to the designer, but thinking of multi-family buildings, there are any number of roof forms. You could have shed, towers, dormers, and simple gables that would be allowed.
City Council Minutes Page 36 of 36 January 12, 2026
2. Ms. Cassidy said at one point there was a mention of the ODS document going back to the working group and another body. There was some discussion of the DRC working group and maybe some other additional staff/consultant body. Mayor Anduri clarified that if the DRC working group is willing, the Council would love for it to come back to them together with the Council liaisons to the DRC.
Mayor Anduri thanked the team, stating a lot of work has gone into this, and this is a huge step forward.
Councilmembers concurred and thanked the consultants, staff, the DRC and PC.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (McCormick/Wotherspoon) to direct staff to schedule a meeting with the City Council liaisons to the Design Review Commission and ODS Working Group to further refine the Draft Objective Design Standards. Vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Anduri, McCormick, Candell, Cervantes, Wotherspoon; Noes:
None).
19. ADJOURNMENT – 11:23 p.m.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Carl Anduri, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk